No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
How is the coming generation to go on living? Bonhoeffer's preservation orders for the ‘sixth extinction’
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 July 2023
Abstract
This essay adapts Dietrich Bonhoeffer's ‘orders of preservation’ to address the sharp rise in species extinctions due to human causes. I argue that Bonhoeffer's creative use of preservation orders to build an international alliance provides the scope required to meet the present biodiversity crisis while pre-empting Karl Barth's criticism of static regionalism and avoiding problematic elements in Carl Schmitt's concept of the ‘restraining force’. Drawing on Bonhoeffer's 1932 address, ‘On the Theological Foundation of the Work of the World Alliance’, I present three convictions to guide the task of preservation today, which include the formation of alliances between ecclesial and scientific communities in order to properly specify God's commandment.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
1 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Letters and Papers from Prison, vol. 8 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works [hereafter DBWE], ed. de Gruchy, John W., trans. Best, Isabel et al. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2010), p. 42Google Scholar. The original German reads: ‘Die letzte verantwortliche Frage ist nicht, wie ich mich heroisch aus der Affäre ziehe, sondern [wie] eine kommende Generation weiterleben soll.’ Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Widerstand und Ergebung, vol. 8 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werke [hereafter DBW], ed. Bethge, Eberhard et al. (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2015), p. 25Google Scholar.
2 The contemporary discourse on sustainability received its impetus from the Brundtland Commission's claim that ‘the time has come to take the decisions needed to secure the resources to sustain this and coming generations’. See World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford: OUP, 1987), Introduction §4.
3 See Gerardo Ceballos et al., ‘Accelerated Modern Human–Induced Species Losses: Entering the Sixth Mass Extinction’, Science Advances 1/5 (5 June 2015), p. e1400253.
4 He defines species as ‘a living historical form (Latin species), propagated in individual organisms, that flows dynamically over generations’. Rolston, Holmes, A New Environmental Ethics: The Next Millennium for Life on Earth, 2nd edn (New York: Routledge, 2020), pp. 142–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 152.
5 Relatedly, Edward O. Wilson refers to human ‘exemptionalism’, which is the view that human interests can be considered in isolation from the forces that sustain, or cut short, the lives of other species. Wilson, E. O., The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth (New York: Norton, 2006), pp. 10, 83Google Scholar.
6 Deane-Drummond, Celia, The Wisdom of the Liminal: Evolution and Other Animals in Human Becoming (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2014)Google Scholar; Deane-Drummond, Celia, Theological Ethics through a Multispecies Lens: The Evolution of Wisdom, vol. I (Oxford: OUP, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Significant discussions in evolutionary science have drawn on the landmark volume Odling-Smee, F. John, Laland, Kevin N. and Feldman, Marcus W., Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003)Google Scholar.
8 In spite of modern presumptions, humans may never have succeeded in separating culture from nature. See Latour, Bruno, We Have Never Been Modern (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.
9 Bonhoeffer is adapting Martin Luther's account of the three ‘estates’ [Stände] – oeconomia, politia, and ecclesia (household, government and church) – which Luther also refers to as ‘orders’ or ‘institutions’. For a defense of Luther's treatment against Karl Barth's criticism, see Laffin, Michael Richard, The Promise of Martin Luther's Political Theology: Freeing Luther from the Modern Political Narrative (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), pp. 153–94Google Scholar.
10 See Tietz, Christiane, Theologian of Resistance: The Life and Thought of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, trans. Barnett, Victoria (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hale, Lori Brandt, Hall, W. David and Barnett, Victoria (eds), Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Theology, and Political Resistance (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2020)Google Scholar. For an appraisal of ‘Bonhoeffer moment’ rhetoric, see Mauldin, Joshua T., ‘Interpreting the Divine Mandates in a Bonhoeffer Moment’, Political Theology 20/7 (October 2019), pp. 574–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Mauldin, Joshua, Barth, Bonhoeffer, and Modern Politics (Oxford: OUP, 2021)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Such coordination is already well underway, most significantly in the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which in December 2022 hosted COP15 in Montréal, Canada.
13 Rayson, Dianne, Bonhoeffer and Climate Change: Theology and Ethics for the Anthropocene (Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2021)Google Scholar.
14 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Ethics, DBWE 6, ed. Green, Clifford, trans. Krauss, Reinhard, West, Charles C. and Stott, Douglas W. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2009), p. 389Google Scholar. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethik, DBW 6, ed. Ilse Tödt et al. (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2015), p. 393. He does allow, on the same page, that ‘order’ could be used so long as it avoids misinterpretations such as a ‘romantic conservatism’.
15 To position Schmitt's earlier work vis-à-vis Bonhoeffer's, his Politische Theologie was first published in 1922, with a second printing in 1934. See Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985). For Schmitt's treatment of the katechōn with a view to the United States in the postwar period, see Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum, trans. G. L. Ulmen (New York: Telos Press, 2006).
16 Michael Northcott provides a nuanced engagement with Schmitt's concept of the katechōn in the context of his criticism of liberal politics. Northcott, Michael, A Political Theology of Climate Change (London: SPCK, 2014), pp. 201–67Google Scholar.
17 For a recent criticism of Althaus’ völkisch theology, see Tafilowski, Ryan, ‘A Reappraisal of the Orders of Creation’, Lutheran Quarterly 31/3 (Fall 2017), pp. 288–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ecumenical, Academic, and Pastoral Work: 1931–1932, DBWE 11, ed. Victoria J. Barnett et al., trans. Anne Schmidt-Lange (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2012), pp. 267–8. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ökumene, Universität, Pfarramt 1931–32, DBW 11, ed. Eberhard Amelung and Christoph Strohm (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2015), p. 237.
19 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.268; DBW 11.237–8.
20 For the context of the theses, see Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.267, n. [1].
21 For the context and reactions to Bonhoeffer's address, see Bethge, Eberhard, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography, ed. Barnett, Victoria, rev. edn (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), pp. 246–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.363; DBW 11.336.
23 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.363; DBW 11.336–7.
24 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.363; DBW 11.337.
25 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.364; DBW 11.337.
26 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.364; DBW 11.338.
27 For a treatment of the divergences between Bonhoeffer and Paul Althaus on the topics of nationalism and international conflict, see Robinson, David and Tafilowski, Ryan, ‘Conflict and Concession: Nationality in the Pastorate for Althaus and Bonhoeffer’, Scottish Journal of Theology 70/2 (May 2017), pp. 127–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.364; DBW 11.338.
29 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.366; DBW 11.340.
30 Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics, III/4, ed. Bromiley, Geoffrey W. and Torrance, Thomas F. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958), p. 22Google Scholar.
31 Ibid.
32 Steffen, Will et al., ‘The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration’, The Anthropocene Review 2/1 (2015), pp. 81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33 As the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concludes: ‘Over the past few hundred years, humans have increased species extinction rates by as much as 1,000 times background rates that were typical over Earth's history.’ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2005), p. 3.
34 Kolbert, Elizabeth, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History (New York, NY: Picador, 2015)Google Scholar.
35 Reasons for this include, inter alia, changes to land and sea use, for more than one-third of world land surface is now devoted to crop and livestock production, and human activity has resulted in more than 400 ocean ‘dead zones’ covering an area greater than 245,000 km. Overproduction is another driver: plastic found in the oceans and other bodies of water has increased tenfold since 1980. See Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service, ‘Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’, ed. S. Díaz et al. (Bonn: IPBES secretariat, 2019).
36 Sepkoski, David, Catastrophic Thinking: Extinction and the Value of Diversity (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37 Ibid., p. 235.
38 Ibid.
39 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, ed. Carroll, Joseph (Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2003)Google Scholar.
40 See an incisive criticism of this tendency in Sideris, Lisa H., Environmental Ethics, Ecological Theology, and Natural Selection (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
41 Ibid., p. 103.
42 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 6.184–5; DBW 6.178. He says that this issue requires the work of theodicy, a project now being attempted with regards to earth's deep history. See e.g. Sollereder, Bethany N., God, Evolution, and Animal Suffering: Theodicy without a Fall (New York: Routledge, 2019)Google Scholar.
43 A point argued in Sideris, Environmental Ethics.
44 This commitment is held alongside the attempt to reduce anthropogenic extinctions. Southgate, Christopher, The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), pp. 124–6Google Scholar.
45 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.364; DBW 11.337.
46 The term ‘uphold’ conveys the word play with respect to the human fall. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1–3, DBWE 3, ed. Martin Rüter, Ilse Tödt, and John W. De Gruchy, trans. Douglas S. Bax (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004), p. 45; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Schöpfung und Fall, DBW 3, ed. Martin Rüter and Ilse Tödt (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2015), p. 42.
47 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 3.46–7; DBW 3.43–4. For a recent treatment of preservation that raises similar concerns about creatio continua, see McFarland, Ian A., From Nothing: A Theology of Creation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2014), pp. 137–42Google Scholar.
48 Commenting on Genesis 3, Bonhoeffer remarks, ‘[y]et just because it is God's curse that oppresses it, the world is not wholly God-forsaken; instead it is a world that even under God's curse is blessed and in its enmity, pain, and work is pacified, a world where life is upheld and preserved’. Bonhoeffer, DBWE 3.135; DBW 3.126.
49 Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics, III/3, ed. Bromily, G.W. and Torrance, T.F. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960), pp. 61–79Google Scholar.
50 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 6.184–5; DBW 6.178.
51 Peter Harrison states that in the nineteenth century there was a shift in which ‘the wonders of nature became the wonders of science’. Harrison, Peter, The Territories of Science and Religion (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2015), p. 169CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Sideris, Lisa H., Consecrating Science: Wonder, Knowledge, and the Natural World (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.367; DBW 11.341–2.
53 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.367; DBW 11.342.
54 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.356, 368; DBW 11.328, 342.
55 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.369; DBW 11.343.
56 Roberts, J. Timmons and Parks, Bradley C., A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007), p. 229Google Scholar.
57 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.361; DBW 11.333.
58 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.361; DBW 11.333–4.
59 A point made in Jenkins, Willis, The Future of Ethics: Sustainability, Social Justice, and Religious Creativity (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
60 Laura J. Kehoe et al., ‘Conservation in Heavily Urbanized Biodiverse Regions Requires Urgent Management Action and Attention to Governance’, Conservation Science and Practice 3/2 (February 2021), pp. 1–15.
61 Ibid., pp. 7–11.
62 For a preparatory document, see Andrea Perino et al., ‘Biodiversity Post-2020: Closing the Gap between Global Targets and National-level Implementation’, Conservation Letters (21 November 2021), pp. 1–16.
63 Sumaila, Ussif Rashid, Infinity Fish: Economics and the Future of Fish and Fisheries (London: Academic Press, 2022)Google Scholar.
64 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.365; DBW 11.338–9.
65 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 11.366; DBW 11.340.
66 For a careful reading of Bonhoeffer's position with respect to current discussion about the normativity of nature, see Michael Mawson, ‘Encountering Grace after the Fall: The Normativity of Nature for Protestant Ethics’, in Paul Henry Martens and Michael Mawson (eds), The Ethics of Grace: Engaging Gerald McKenny (London: T&T Clark, 2022). Contextually, Bonhoeffer was arguing for the value of human life, even the alleged ‘life unworthy of life’ targeted by the Nazi euthanasia programme.
67 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 6.174; DBW 6.166.
68 See Clough, David, On Animals, vol. 1 of Systematic Theology (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013)Google Scholar.
69 Bonhoeffer, DBWE 6.184; DBW 6.178.
70 ‘Immer wird er jedenfalls zu bedenken haben, daß sein stärkster Bundesgenosse das Leben selbst ist.’ DBWE 6.185; DBW 6.178.
71 This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation. It was first presented at the 2022 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion, which had the theme ‘Religion and Catastrophe’. The author would like to thank Niels Henrik Gregersen for his helpful feedback during the revision process.