No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Which Nature? Whose Justice? Shifting Meanings of Nature in Recent Ecotheology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2016
Extract
Reviewing the diversity of responses in English-language ecotheology over the last forty years or so, what impresses the reader is the vigour of the response of theology to ecological concerns. Of course, every undergraduate who has studied in this area can quote Lynn White’s 1967 judgement that ‘Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen’. Yet, as you review the material, that is hardly the only impression the reader is left with. Mostly, what strikes home is the range and energy of the theological responses. Of course, some adherents of theology proper might regard ecotheology as without standing. Is not environmental concern after all properly a matter for Christian social ethics? However, for those who consider that environmental concern presents the need for the construction or reconstruction of Christian commitments, ecotheology names that theological effort. In what follows, three ways are identified in which nature enters into theology as a way of presenting how ecotheology proceeds. Moreover, a narrative of development is offered in the sense that ecotheology has unfolded by drawing on immanentist themes in theology that stress the presence of God. As difficulties have emerged with this procedure, ecotheology has sought to attend to emerging issues and problems. Finally, this essay concludes by bringing the story of ecotheology up to date: the final topic of consideration is the ecotheology of climate change.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Studies in Church History , Volume 46: God’s Bounty? The Churches and the Natural World , 2010 , pp. 431 - 457
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 2010
References
1 White, Lynn, ‘The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis’, Science 155 (1967), 1203–07, at 1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Sittler, Joseph, Evocations of Grace: Writings on Ecology, Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI, 2000), 38–50.Google Scholar
3 Meadows, D. H. et al., The Limits to Growth (London, 1972).Google Scholar
4 The phrase is H. Paul Santmire’s; cf. his The Travail of Nature: The Ambiguous Ecological Promise of Christian Theology (Philadelphia, PA, 1985).Google Scholar
5 Conradie, Ernst, Christianity and Ecological Theology: Resources for Further Research (Stellenbosch, 2006), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Ibid.
7 In other words, ‘contextual’ serves as a rebuke to styles of theology that appear to pay little attention to issues emerging out of a particular context or setting, or that fail to consider how context or location impinge upon theology. Conradie does not use it in this pejorative sense.
8 Deane-Drummond, Celia, Eco-Theology (London, 2008).Google Scholar
9 e.g. Moltmann, Jürgen, God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation (London, 1985)Google Scholar; Hendry, George S., Theology of Nature (Philadelphia, PA, 1989)Google Scholar; Bergmann, Sigurd, Creation Set Free:The Spirit as Liberator of Nature (Grand Rapids, MI, 2005).Google Scholar
10 Latour, Bruno, ‘Is there a Cosmopolitically Correct Design?’Google Scholar, Fifth Manchester Lecture on Environment and Development, delivered at the University of Manchester, 5 October 2007.
11 Ruether, Rosemary Radford, ‘Feminist Interpretation: A Method of Correlation’, in Russell, Letty M., ed., The Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (Oxford, 1985), 111–24, at 115.Google Scholar
12 See my article,’Types of Ecotheology’, Ecotheology 4 (1998), 8–19.Google Scholar
13 Conradie, , Christianity and Ecological Theology, 123–33.Google Scholar
14 Lewis, C. S., Studies in Words, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1967), 69.Google ScholarPubMed
15 Lindsay, A. D., Karl Marx’s Capital (London, 1925), 17–26.Google Scholar
16 For a helpful discussion, see Rumscheidt, Martin, ‘The Formation of Bonhoeffer’s Theology’, in Gruchy, J. de, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Cambridge, 1999), 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Fudge, Erica, ‘A Left-Handed Blow: Writing a History of Animals’, in Rothfels, Nigel, ed., Representing Animals (Bloomington, IN, and Indianapolis, IN, 2002), 3–18, at 9.Google Scholar
18 Ibid. 11.
19 Conradie, , Christianity and Ecological Theology, 107—08.Google Scholar
20 Southgate, Christopher, ‘Stewardship and its Competitors: A Spectrum of Relationships between Humans and the Non-Human Creation’, in Berry, R.J., ed., Environmental Stewardship: Critical Perspectives Past and Present (London, 2006), 185—95, at 185.Google Scholar
21 Palmer, Clare, ‘Stewardship: A Case Study in Environmental Ethics’, in Ball, Ian et al., eds, The Earth Beneath:A Critical Guide to Green Theology (London, 1992), 67–86, at 68 Google Scholar; repr. in Berry, , ed., Environmental Stewardship, 63—75, at 64.Google Scholar
22 Council of Mission and Public Affairs, Sharing God’s Creation (London, 2005), esp. 16–28.Google Scholar
23 Bauckham, Richard, ‘Modern Domination of Nature’, in Berry, , ed., Environmental Stewardship, 32–50, at 42.Google Scholar
24 Derr, Thomas Sieger, Ecology and Human Need (Philadelphia, PA, 1975), 68–70.Google Scholar
25 Hall, Douglas John, Imaging God: Dominion as Stewardship (Grand Rapids, MI, 1986).Google Scholar
26 Kaufman, Gordon D., ‘A Problem for Theology : The Concept of Nature’, HThR 65 (1972), 337–66, at 353.Google Scholar
27 Bauckham, , ‘Modern Domination of Nature’, 43.Google Scholar
28 Attfield, Robin, ‘Environmental Sensitivity and Critiques of Stewardship’, in Berry, , ed., Environmental Stewardship, 76–91, at 78–79 Google Scholar, citing Christians and the Environment: A Report by the Board of Social Responsibility, General Synod Miscellaneous Paper 367 (London, 1991).Google Scholar
29 Hall, , Imaging God, 186.Google Scholar
30 Attfield, , ‘Environmental Sensitivity’, 78–79.Google Scholar
31 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Christology (London, 1978), 64.Google Scholar
32 See Santmire, H. Paul, ‘Healing the Protestant Mind: Beyond the Theology of Human Dominion’, in Hessel, D. T., ed., After Nature’s Revolt: Eco-Justice and Theology (Minneapolis, MN, 1992), 57–78, at 75.Google Scholar
33 Scott, Peter, A Political Theology of Nature (Cambridge, 2003), 213–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34 I owe this phrase to Daniel W. Hardy, in conversation.
35 McFague, Sallie, The Body of God (London, 1994), 162.Google Scholar
36 Scott, Peter, ‘Nature in a “World Come of Age”’, New Blackfriars 78 (1997), 356–58, at 362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 Tanner, Kathryn, ‘Creation, Environmental Justice, and Ecological Justice’, in Chopp, Rebecca and Taylor, Mark Lewis, eds, Reconstructing Christian Theology (Minneapolis, MN, 1994), 99–123, at 118.Google Scholar
38 For an extended treatment of this point, see Santmire, Travail of Nature.
39 Moltmann, Jürgen, The Coming of God (London, 1994).Google Scholar
40 Ruether, Rosemary Radford, To Change the World: Christology and Cultural Criticism (London, 1981), 67–70.Google Scholar
41 See Scott, Peter, ‘The Future of Creation’, in Fergusson, David and Sarot, Marcel, eds. The Future as God’s Gift: Explorations in a Christian Eschatology (Edinburgh, 2000), 89–114.Google Scholar
42 Conradie, , Christianity and Ecological Theology, 103.Google Scholar
43 See Deane-Drummond’s fascinating discussion in her Eco-Theology, 169–77.
44 Ibid.
45 These reflections are my own, yet are prompted by responses given by Terry Eagleton at the conclusion of his Wickham Lecture, ‘Was Jesus a Revolutionary?’, delivered at Manchester Cathedral, 15 May 2008.
46 For further discussion, see Scott, Peter, ‘Blessing and Curse: “The Natural” as a Theological Concept’, Modern Believing 28 (1997), 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47 Hendry, , Theology of Nature, 14.Google Scholar
48 Berry, R.J., God’s Book of Works:The Nature and Theology of Nature (London, 2003).Google Scholar
49 Scott, , ‘Blessing and Curse’, 19.Google Scholar
50 Moltmann, , God in Creation, 58.Google Scholar
51 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Systematic Theology, 3 vols (Edinburgh, 1991–98), 1: 73.Google Scholar
52 Northcott, Michael S., A Moral Climate: The Ethics of Global Warming (London, 2007), 7.Google Scholar
53 For a fuller response to Northcott, see my review of his book in Theology 112 (2009), 68–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54 This hypothesis has a range of interpretations but at its boldest proposes the earth as a sort of self-regulating organism in which earth’s biota — its living beings — function to maintain the conditions for life: Lovelock, James, Gaia (Oxford, 1987).Google ScholarPubMed
55 Primavesi, Anne, Gaia and Climate Change: A Theology of Gift Events (London, 2009), 25.Google Scholar
56 Ibid. 17.