The Nature, Mission, Governance and Ministry of the Church

Transcription

1 CHRISTIAN FAITH AND THE EARTH Working Group 5: Where on Earth is the Church? The Nature, Mission, Governance and Ministry of the Church Moderator: Tim Cadman PhD Editor: Clive W Ayre PhD Revised February

2 CONTENTS 1 Introduction 5 Aim and Focus 5 The Nature of the Discourse 6 A Practical Theology Methodology 7 The Environmental Context 8 Conclusion 10 2 The Nature of the Church 11 Historical Perspectives 11 Images and metaphors 13 Eschatological Kingdom 13 Body of Christ 14 People of God 16 Household of God 16 Community 18 Conclusion 19 3 Theological Issues 20 Essential themes of eco-theology 20 Anthropocentrism 20 Biocentrism 21 Indigenous Spirituality 21 Process Philosophy 22 Eco-feminism 22 Deep Ecology 23 Theocentrism 24 Diversity in Theistic Biocentric Approach 25 Some Theological Considerations 26 4 The Mission of the Church 30 Defining Mission 30 The 1 st Mission Saving Souls 30 The 2 nd Mission the Whole Human Being 31 The 3 rd Mission the Whole Earth 33 Applied Eco-Mission 37 Conclusion 40 2

3 5 Some Contemporary and Environmental Implications 42 Contemporary Implications 42 The Church and the Environment 47 6 The Governance of the Church 53 Assumptions 53 Global Environmental Governance 53 Traditions 58 Clergy and Ministry 60 Dominating Motif 61 Conclusion 61 7 Where on Earth is the Church? 62 International and Ecumenical Perspectives 62 Denominational Responses 65 Practical Eco-Mission 66 Broader Possibilities 69 Conclusion 71 8 Summary of Findings 72 Context 72 The Nature of the Church 72 The Mission of the Church 73 Governance Issues 73 Theological Implications 74 Implications for Theory and Ecclesial Practice 75 In Conclusion 77 3

4 FOREWORD The first draft of this document on the theme of Working Group 5 for the Christian Faith and the Earth conference of August 2012 appeared in September 2009, some months after I assumed the Editor s role. That draft was revised slightly in January 2010; and while the basic shape of the document remains essentially the same, this third revision has been more significant. Some sections have been shortened, and new chapters have been added. As I wrote in the initial Foreword, I have been working in collaboration with Moderator Tim to get my head around the task of producing a paper that reflects the current state of the debate on The Nature, Mission, Governance and Ministry of the Church. It was always going to be somewhat daunting, and I am not sure how any one or two individuals could feel adequate for that task. However, at least a start has been made and we have done our best. Certainly the paper is quite long, but the theme includes many dimensions. This raises a dilemma the need to try to say something significant, but yet in a reasonably concise manner. Thus, there is always the risk of distortion or irrelevance resulting from the need to cover a large area. We have tried to reflect a world view, but the almost inevitable Australian flavour will even now hopefully be balanced by other perspectives as the discussion continues. We are aware that a paper of this size is quite large in terms of usability for the purpose of generating discussion, but the concluding chapters may serve as a type of Executive Summary to aid in that process. As always, Tim and I look forward to your feedback, comments or further contribution as you see fit. But time is running short! Clive W Ayre PhD Editor February

5 One Introduction The Aim and Focus of the Paper As part of the broader discussion on Christian Faith and the earth, the simple yet complex question facing Working Group 5 is Where on Earth is the Church? Within that broader framework, our particular task is to reflect on Christian discourse relating to the nature, mission, governance and ministry of the Church. In attempting a response that is in any sense adequate, it must be said that the Working Group has limited material and resources; nevertheless it is hoped that a comprehensive response will be possible. There is of course a large volume of literature now, especially on eco-theology, and to a lesser extent on eco-mission. Consequently it would be neither possible nor necessary to try to cover the entire field, but rather to attempt to draw out some dominant themes. Moreover, there are some complex issues hidden within a seemingly straight-forward question, so that at the outset is essential to define the parameters of this discussion, to outline an approach and try to define the key words. The primary question for WG 5 may be framed in a number of ways. For example, is the role of the Church determined by its response to a particular crisis, or does it rise out of its theology? Or is it perhaps both? How do the issues of the nature, governance and mission of the Church inter-act in relation to the Earth? At the outset, however, it is important to be clear about the main focus of this exercise, within the overall framework of the exercise. In January 2007 Conradie indicated clearly that the core of the project will be to gather a fairly comprehensive set of scholarly documents on the state of debate in ecotheology on the content and ecological significance of the Christian faith. He further stated: Although it is impossible to separate the content of the Christian faith from its significance for Christian life and a Christian ethos, the focus of this project will not be environmental ethics or on Earthkeeping practices, but on the content of the Christian faith. Nevertheless, for each of the themes to be investigated it will be necessary to 5

6 reflect also on the significance of the discussion for Christian witness in church and society. As we will suggest shortly, theory and praxis are ultimately inseparable. At the same time, the emphasis of this paper will be to explore the theological implications of the nature, mission, and governance of the Church in terms of the environmental situation, and not to attempt an analysis of the Church s failure to exercise effective eco-mission. The Nature of the Discourse However, it is rather easier to state the goal of this exercise than it is to fulfil it. The group addressed the question as to whether there is a single Christian discourse on the contemporary environmental situation, or whether there are multiple discourses; quite clearly, it is the latter. As Douglas points out, for example, there remains the overtly anti-ecological view, the covertly anti-ecological or pseudo-apolitical view, then variously pro-ecological views ranging from anthropocentric stewardship through ecojustice to theocentric custodian-ship. The eco-feminist voice is also very significant. More than that, there are multiple perspectives emanating from Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant faith communities, in addition to the contributions of ecumenical, evangelical, and reformed faith bodies. All of this represents a significant range of material, and it will clearly be impossible to do justice to it in a relatively short paper. However, hopefully we can tease out some of the key points and directions of the debate. But the discourse becomes even more complicated when one asks a question such as, How does the church understand the current global environmental crisis? The church as a whole does not have a single coherent understanding, but is a reflection of the range of understandings within the community at large and across the various confessional bodies. Many factors are involved, and there is often a difference between national or regional church bodies and local congregations. One additional question relates to the similarity to or difference between Christian (or other world faith perspectives for that matter) and secular discourses on the environmental situation. As Douglas suggests, in some cases the supposed differences are little more than semantic. However, as we will 6

7 propose, a crucial element of the equation is the nature of the church, and the related question of how the church s response might differ from that of other non-government bodies. A Practical Theology Model It is clear that questions and issues such as those indicated above will require an appropriate methodology if we are to have any chance of dealing with them adequately. We are therefore proposing that the paradigm of practical theology is best able to provide that appropriate methodology. A common belief is that the relationship between theory and praxis is essentially linear in character. Traditionally this began with theory, which was always primary and determined any subsequent action. At the other end of the spectrum there are those in a liberationist mould who would propose a linear approach that begins with praxis. But whether one starts at one pole or the other, practical theologians almost universally reject a simple linear approach. As Heitink 1 and others have shown, the real situation is not simple, and indeed any theological exercise becomes a complex interaction between theory and praxis. In diagrammatic terms, it becomes an interactive loop, in which theory and praxis inform and influence each other 2. Each new situation forces the individual to interpret the Scripture in a fresh way, to make any necessary personal changes, and in the light of that to interpret the Scripture again as part of an on-going process. It therefore has a forward-moving circular motion, or what Forrester 3 refers to as the hermeneutic spiral, in which the theologian is constantly moving between the two poles. There can be no doubt that in ecological or environmental terms such a two-way process will be an important part of a practical theology methodology. In the particular case of the environmental crisis, therefore, it follows that the response of the Church is not defined 1 Heitink Gerben Practical Theology: History, Theory, Action Domains. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing, 1999). 2 Anderson Ray S. The Shape of Practical Theology: Empowering Ministry with Theological Praxis. (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p21. 3 Forrester Duncan B. Truthful Action: Explorations in Practical Theology. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), p28. 7

8 merely by the crisis, but rather theology and praxis are the two essential poles between which we move. Forrester s observation is also compelling; while emphasising that practical theology is theology, he asserts that we cannot talk about God or talk to God while setting aside, even temporarily, the ethical or normative question: What is God calling us to do? In that context he recalls a familiar saying that he attributes to Bonhoeffer: You may not chant the psalms unless you stand up for the Jews 4. More than that, Bosch points out that most of the New Testament was written within a missionary context ; in other words, mission became the mother of theology. 5 ; and that missionary context, Bosch argues, involves a series of action words serving, healing, and reconciling a divided, wounded humanity 6. Perhaps we are only now re-discovering that point. Thus, context and locus emerge as two related and foundational components of a practical theology methodology. The rationale behind this is essentially a twofold conviction. First, it seems increasingly evident that planet Earth is in trouble, with climate change, extreme weather, global warming, species loss, and much more. Our survival demands that something be done. Second, the biblical and theological underpinning of our life in the world, in God s world, demands that members of the Christian Church have a responsibility to act. In the case of many churches, however, that is just not happening. The Environmental Context Within the framework of the fundamental question, where on earth is the Church? there is another question: how does the Church understand the current global environmental crisis? The immediate context is represented by what is known as the global environmental crisis. However, it will be obvious that this paper is not a scientific study and there is a sense in which the clear scientific evidence has little bearing on the central argument, which is grounded theologically. Nevertheless it is essential for ecotheology to be aware of an emerging consensus among climate scientists in a number of crucial environmental areas. The subject is of course large and complex, and it is not necessary 4 Ibid p53 5 Bosch David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), p Ibid p494. 8

9 to rehearse the details here. It certainly adds a sense of urgency to the moral, ethical, and theological challenge facing not only the Church, but also indeed all humankind in these days. An essential factor is that the crisis is global in nature, and while individual nation states may cling to their right to govern their own affairs, and so make their own environmental decisions, it is increasingly clear that environmental impacts do not recognise national or even continental boundaries. In the end, the focus has to be on planet Earth, and international relationships ultimately have no choice but to operate on that basis. Catherine Harmer makes the point that the term Earth encompasses so many different concepts and ideas, including astronomical and geographical perspectives. However, she asserts, the part that is important in the eco-theological debate is the thin biosphere of life on the planet s surface, this layer is what enables human beings to survive and it is this that should be understood as being referred to as the Earth. Harmer concludes that When we talk of the planet as being in danger, we are referring to the life sustaining part, the part that allows us to exist and to live out our human lives. If our human actions destroy the biosphere to the point that we become extinct, the Earth itself will not cease to exist, humans will. With this in mind we must also understand that we see the Earth through an anthropocentric lens and that we cannot help but see the Earth as something that is there to help sustain us, whether or not we believe that we need to help sustain it. But do we know what we mean by the term environmental or eco- crisis? It will not be the purpose of this paper to attempt a detailed elaboration of the crisis, but the main parameters at least need to be in place. At the outset it may appear that eco-crisis is an accurate enough description of an increasingly obvious global reality. On closer examination, however, it will appear to be a term that is seriously limiting in its grasp. As James Nash asserts, it is not a single, discrete problem, but rather a massive mosaic of intertwined problems adversely affecting all life 7. That assessment is demonstrably 7 Nash James. Loving Nature: Ecological Integrity and Christian Responsibility. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1991), p23. 9

10 correct, as also is his perception that the issues involved are primarily of a moral nature. It could thus be argued that the Church s past failure to act contains elements of a theological and ecclesiological crisis. In other words, and contrary to what some people may think, the eco-crisis is far more than global warming or climate change. Such phenomena may be fundamental, but the implications are far reaching, and involve loss of biodiversity, significant water problems in many parts of the world, problems with food production, the extension of tropical diseases into previously unaffected areas, the creation of massive numbers of environmental refugees, security problems, and much more. In a similar vein, Moltmann argues that the natural environment of human beings cannot be understood apart from the social environment, and asserts that the phrase ecological crisis is a feeble and inaccurate description of the real facts. This is really a crisis of the whole life system of the modern industrial world 8. The point not only for Moltmann but also for Nash and others is that humans have created the crisis we are now experiencing, and we are going in more deeply. Since powerful forces are at work in this process, the economic and social conditions of human life must be changed for the sake of our ecological future. We contend that this wider perspective of the crisis is helpful in understanding the current situation and how to respond to it. There can be no doubt at all that the situation is very serious. Indeed there are some scientists who are saying that it is already too late, and irreversible damage has been done. However, as Peter Ellyard has noted, there are two Chinese characters for the word crisis ; one means danger, and the other means opportunity. Such an observation may prompt Christians to action with a degree of urgency and yet not of despair. Conclusion Against such a background therefore, the purpose of this paper is to attempt an exploration of the current state of the debate on the nature, mission, governance and ministry of the Church as it pertains to the global environmental crisis. 8 Moltmann J God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation. (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1985), p23. 10

11 Two The Nature of the Church It is clear that a question such as where on earth is the Church? is not a simple one; the term Church has a multitude of meanings and must be defined in some way. There is a whole range of different confessional positions, quite apart from national, regional, and congregational levels even within the same confessional stream or denomination. South African reformed theologian Dirkie Smit, for example, proposes six manifestations of the Church, namely the worshipping community, the local congregation, denominations, ecumenical structures, Christian organisations, and Christian families and individuals. It is also clear that there can be widely differing positions regarding the care of creation. At the same time, over and above such differences it is possible to identify theologically what the Church is in itself, and what it is called to be. In spite of human sinfulness, division, and the disobedience of the Church to her divine Master, there is a sense in which the Church is united by a common identity in Christ. Historical Perspectives The origins of the church can be traced to Christ s original preaching of the kingdom of God, later developing into an organised religion sanctioned by the Roman Empire. The growth of the so-called marks of the Church (unity, holiness, catholicity, apostolicity) was a gradual process, with inherent tensions. 9 However, the idea that followers of Jesus were part of a community ekklesia, a term used in the Greek Septuagint to express the Hebrew concept of qahal, or gathering developed early. This notion was gradually expanded to refer to both local and regional groups of followers, and also encompassed the idea of a universal (i.e. catholic) church dispersed even further afield. 10 In the writings of Paul the universal nature of the church is expressed in metaphorical terms as a body, a unity of being, but with different attributes in short a form of plurality in unity. 9 Sanks, T. Salt, Leaven and Light: The Community called Church. (Crossroad: New York, 1992), pp Ibid. pp

12 Towards the end of his ministry Paul s letters (or those attributed to him) place greater emphasis on the organised nature of the church as a household of God (oikos 1 Tim. 3:15), partly in response, it is argued, to the threat posed on by Gnosticism, leading to the growth of a more formal, institutionalised church. 11 The Gospel writers each take a different approach. Luke stresses the presence of the Spirit in the followers of the Way a term used on several occasions to describe believers in Jesus. For Luke, the events at Pentecost mark the true birth of this community. John also identifies strongly with the Spirit, but more at the level of the individual rather than the community. Matthew on the other hand is the only gospel writer to use ekklesia as a term of self-identification for the church, in both universal (16:18) and local (18:17) contexts. Here, Matthew s desire to accord some form of authority and status to Peter, recognising the importance of the apostolic traditions of the church. 12 By the end of the first century church leaders such as Clement of Rome argued that the apostles appointed presybyteroi and episkopoi (what might be understood today as priests and bishops ), a claim later used to support the idea of apostolic succession. 13 Early in the second century Ignatius of Antioch refers to bishops, priests and deacons, within a hierarchy of church organisation. This was expanded upon by Irenaeus, bishop of Gaul, who stressed the teaching role of bishops, presiding on matters of doctrine from their chair (kathedra), guided by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. By the time of Cyprian of Carthage in the last decades of the third century, bishops or the episcopate had become the centre of unity within the church, and the church as a physical entity was the basis of salvation ( outside the church there is no salvation ). However, this was still essentially a collegial vision of the church. With the recognition of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire this was to give way to a more administrative understanding of the church, most clearly expounded by Augustine of Hippo in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. Augustine was also much concerned with the nature of the relations between church and state, and in the City of God he was to see the role of the church as being twofold, i.e. both spiritual, or essential and temporal or empirical. These views, perhaps necessary in a 11 Ibid. pp Ibid. pp Ibid. pp

13 time of decline and fall, would nevertheless contribute greatly to the repression and persecution of the ensuing ten centuries of church history. 14 Images and Metaphors There are of course quite a number of inter-related images and metaphors of the Church, ranging from the People of God or the Body of Christ, to an expression of the reign of God or an eschatological community. It will be neither possible nor necessary to identify them all here, yet at the same time, in spite of their obvious limitations, it is essential that we explore some of those images in terms of what they are saying to us in the current situation. It will be obvious that any theology of the Church must be grounded in the acts of God as expressed in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Yet it may be argued that the beginning point for the story of the Church lies much earlier than that. Just as Bühlmann 15 referred to what he called a covenant of creation, so Macquarrie (1977) held that the church was inherent in the act of creation itself. As an extension of the incarnation, the church may therefore be viewed in terms of the biblical perception of a new creation in Christ; this is expressed in various ways in Scripture, but certainly the newness refers to a qualitative rather than a mere time difference. It is here that we are able to see the foundational elements of the resurrection of Christ and an understanding of the triune nature of God. It obviously involves people in a major way; but it is wider than that. The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 8, the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God (v.19), in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay (v.21); or as Richardson once put it, The NT presents God s purpose as that of gathering up all things in Christ (1958:242). Eschatological Kingdom According to the gospels, the beginning of the ministry of both John the Baptist and Jesus was Repent! For the kingdom of God has drawn near, and that theme has a certain relevance in the current climate! In Käsemann s words, their basic task is to 14 Ibid. pp Bühlmann, Walbert. The Chosen Peoples. (Middlegreen, Slough, UK: St Paul Publications),

14 announce that final era in which God steps forth from his hiddenness and here on earth announces his kingdom to all (1980:61). His phrase is therefore the eschatological royal reign of God. There is a sense therefore in which the Church may be described as an expression of the reign of God. However, the precise meaning of such a declaration has been the subject of considerable debate over the decades, and as Conradie has noted, it begs many questions. Bosch is not saying anything startlingly new when he declares that the reign of God is undoubtedly central to Jesus entire ministry 16. But it is also true, as he goes on to indicate, that a closer definition is far less clear, and as theologians have long noted, there is a tension between the present and not yet dimensions of God s reign. It is not necessary to explore this in detail here, but one further comment from Bosch is worth recording: In Jesus ministry God s reign is interpreted as the expression of God s caring authority over the whole of life 17. The Body of Christ The image of the Church as the Body of Christ starts to become apparent against the background of the idea of being gathered together in Christ ; as Richardson stated, Christ is a one who includes within his resurrection-body the many, i.e. a corporate personality, if that term is understood theologically rather than psychologically 18. Theologians within different faith communities share a number of similar perspectives on ecclesiology. Roman Catholic theologian Hans Küng explores what it means for the church to be the Body of Christ. He stresses the identification of the Christian community through baptism as a central aspect of membership, since a man [sic] does not baptize himself, he is baptised in the presence of the community and for the community. 19 To this is added participation in the Lord s Supper, since this is also to be understood in terms of fellowship (Greek koinonia Latin communio) in Christ, and in 16 Bosch. Transforming Mission, p Ibid p Richardson Alan, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament. (London: SCM Press, 1958), p Küng, H. The Church as the Body of Christ, in The Church. Search Press: Tunbridge Wells, Kent, 1986, pp , at p

15 fellowship with other Christians. With regard to the Church as the body of Christ, this is demonstrated in both local and universal terms. 20 John Zizioulas, an Orthodox theologian, discusses the nature of the relationship between Christ and Spirit in the Church, arguing that: Christology and pneumatology belong together and cannot be separated. 21 He is of the view that since Paul, the Spirit has been closely associated with koinonia, and it is at the very ontological centre of the Church. The role of the Spirit is to bring about sanctification through the Eucharistic fellowship, which further implies that there is also simultaneity between the local and universal church. The nature of this one church is effectively a communion of many churches. 22 In the same way on an institutional level, the bishop cannot exist without the many and the many cannot exist without the one. 23 This does away with all pyramidal notions in ecclesiology. 24 These observations lead to the important conclusion that Christ in-stitutes and the Spirit con-stitutes. 25 These views are also reflected in Lutheran studies. Anders Nygren sees no basis for identifying the Body of Christ solely with the universal Church anymore than at the local congregational level. Both are essential. Unity is therefore to be understood in institutional terms as a community of faith, but also through unity in Christ, particularly when examining Paul s writings, which identify the importance of baptism in bringing unity with Christ (Rom. 6:5), and through this act of fellowship the many become one through Christ (Rom. 12:5). 26 As an ecumenist, Michael Kinnamon uses the statement of Paul in 1 Corinthians that Christ made us his own and Christ is not divided to argue that unity transcends denominations. 27 In the context of the World Council of Churches, formed in the wake of the horrors of the Second World War to promote Christian unity, the meaning relates 20 Ibid. pp J. D. Zizioulas, Christ, the Spirit and the Church, in Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. (Darton, Longman and Todd: London, 1985), pp , at p Ibid. pp Ibid. p Ibid. p Ibid. p. 140: emphasis in original. 26 A. Nygren, The Unity of Christ and His Church, in Christ and His Church. (SPCK: London, 1957), pp , at pp M. Kinnamon, Concepts of Christian Unity, in Living Ecumenism: Christian Unity of a New Millennium, ed. D.C. Sullivan. (JCBE: Melbourne, 1995), pp at p

16 less to specific doctrines and more to identifying the basis of what is common to, rather than different from, all denominations. He identifies three types of unity: organic, referring to the tangible aspects of faith, such as the breaking of bread, or common prayer; unity in diversity, recognising that differences are to be understood as valid expressions of a diverse heritage (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and so forth); and unity in solidarity with the poor and the oppressed. Beyond this, he identifies a number of elements of unity, relating to faith in Jesus, His message in the Gospel, and the coming reign of God, as well as the values of inclusiveness, repentance and justice. 28 People of God A closely related image is that of the Church as a people or household (oikos) of God. As a people of God the Church is understood to be made up of human beings who exist within a complex network of relationships that extend in all directions; it is a gossamer web of communication between humans and other humans, humans and God and humans and nature. Understood in this way the Church is seen as dynamic and alive, filled with God s Spirit and able to have a powerful influence over all areas of creation. Understood in this way there is an emphasis on the church as part of the whole human family, binding all peoples together. It has the capability to transcend denominational, doctrinal, racial and social boundaries and has a tremendous potential to be a force of change in the world. However, we must be aware that this model of church is currently limited by the artificial boundaries that are put in place by human beings, boundaries such as differing attitudes towards doctrine and understandings of the Christian faith. The Household of God The notion of divine care extending to the whole of life raises a much wider identity issue, and this is reflected in the oikos image of the Church as the whole household of God, which as Conradie (2002) notes, has emerged as a new theological root metaphor in ecumenical discussion. At this point the hermeneutical assumptions we make come into play. We can assume that the household of God refers to a unique people called out from the wider community a position not without biblical support, 28 Ibid. pp

17 but which is subject to possible distortion. But when we acknowledge that the whole of creation and all life belongs to God, a different understanding is suggested. This of course raises a number of questions, including one of boundaries, as suggested for example in the debate surrounding what is known as deep ecology; or as Conradie notes, while on one hand there is the risk of unwarranted exclusions, on the other hand the inclusiveness of the notion of a household may be expanded to such an extent that it has no boundaries (2002:3). There is a tension here, and almost inevitably it is one that we need to live with. A point that emerges strongly in ecotheology is that an anthropocentric approach is too limited, and other life in the biosphere must be included; or in other words, humans are part of the web of creation. But Conradie s question is valid: if the church is not itself the household of God, what is its place and mission within this household? Perhaps part of the answer to that question may be in the development of Meeks point that The Holy Spirit seeks to transform a portion of the world into the church so that, as transformed world, the church may live for the future of the world (1989:23, cited in Conradie). Such an approach is suggested when the various metaphors are taken together as various facets of a diamond. Or again, while it is clear that both theologically and sociologically the church is a discreet entity, its life is lived within the wider environs of the earth itself. In the conclusion of his significant paper on this theme, Conradie reflects helpfully on the church as part of the wider household of God, and suggests, after Bonhoeffer, that the church may be viewed as one room within the house. Within this (upper) room the church community may celebrate is adoption as children (not merely as resident aliens) within the household. It acknowledges that Jesus is the door through which one may enter this room and through whom the homeless may experience both a refuge and abundant life (John 10:9). But more than that, Conradie continues, the church offers a particular vision of the very architecture, building and ownership of the house, and is that place within the 17

18 house where one can find traces of that bear witness to the presence of the owner and keeper of the house 29. Community However else it is described, the Church is unquestionably a community, and as such there is inevitably an area of overlap with the general human community. As Bosch has argued, The church exists only as an organic and integral part of the human community 30 ; on that basis one would be justified in asking if there is any real difference between the church and any other NGO. Again, there are clearly areas of overlap; yet that is not the whole story, as Bosch goes on to argue. While the church is part of the human community, it nevertheless has to remain identifiably different from the world, else it will cease to be able to minister to it 31. The various images and metaphors of the Church point towards that distinctive identity. In a somewhat similar way, Macquarrie considers the phenomenon of the church as an association, and suggests that while at one level it is a social entity, there are several ways in which it breaks the mould. First, the church has an all-inclusive purpose, with the aim not only of taking all people into itself, but also of comprehending the whole of life, in all aspects, or in short, of finally losing itself in the kingdom 32. Second, there is a sense in which the Church shares the ambiguity of other social and religious activity. At one level the Church may be viewed as any other social entity. But, as Macquarrie suggests, to those who belong to the Church this social phenomenon is seen in depth as the extension of the incarnation, the anticipation of the kingdom, the spearhead of God s presence and acting in the world 33. It is clear from this discourse that there is a possible tension between ecclesiology and ethics, and as we have noted, in some respects an environmentally-aware church will act in very similar ways to almost any similar secular group. The difference between the Church and a secular organisation is therefore less in what it actually does, and more in the area of its own self-perception and motivation. What is unique about the nature of 29 Conradie, Ernst M Christianity and Earthkeeping: in search of an inspiring vision. (Stellenbosch: SUN PReSS 2011), p Bosch, Transforming Mission p Ibid p Macquarrie John, Principles of Christian Theology, op cit p Ibid p

19 the church is its awareness of a divine calling and identity in the spirit of the servant Christ and the incarnation. Conclusion One thing at least is clear; no one image or metaphor of the church will be adequate on its own to express the nature of the church. Rather it is when the various images are set down side by side that a picture begins to emerge of a body that is more than a ghetto; and far from being insular and exclusive, the church is situated within that larger whole for the sake of the whole. Against such an understanding, and the recognition that The earth is the Lord s, and all that is in it (Ps 24:1), the ecological mission of the church takes on greater significance. 19

20 Three Theological Issues The mission of the Church clearly flows out of the nature of the Church as a direct expression of what it is, and is embedded in its theology. This section will explore the theme of mission in the context of the environmental crisis and the need to care for creation, and in the light of the biblical witness and theological insights. However, while it must be for other Working Groups to explore specific theological issues, it is nevertheless essential to begin with ecotheology as the inevitable foundation for any approach to the theology and praxis of eco-mission. Langmead expressed the link quite succinctly, Ecotheology implicitly contains an ecomissiology, just as all theologies give direction for understandings of mission that flow from them 34. What is critical in this section is to see that ecology is inevitably a part of both theology and mission, and to see the absolute link between ecotheology, eco-mission, and eco-praxis. Essential Themes of Eco-Theology Ecotheology is expressed in a number of different themes and emphases, and it is important to assert that a valid eco-mission may emerge from almost any one of those different emphases. The following very brief summary is illustrative rather than comprehensive. Anthropocentrism Anthropocentrism comes in several forms, some of which are antithetical to creation care, or at best neutral, believing that Christian theology should focus exclusively on human salvation. A third approach recognises a significant ecological agenda, but from an anthropocentric point of view. A prime example of this school of thought is Thomas Derr, who has long argued for a human focus, but one that is devoid of human mastery. In his 1996 work in company with Nash and Neuhaus, Derr reiterates a view that he first propounded 25 years earlier; he states, Actually I do not mind being called an anthropocentrist, though I would rather say simply (Christian) humanist, meaning that 34 Langmead, Ross Ecomissiology. In Missiology: An International Review : Vol XXX No. 4 October 2002, p

21 my priority in matters ecological is humankind 35. Derr s argument is that this should lead to a theology of responsible stewardship of the earth. In this view, nature is seen as a complement to the primary drama of redemption that takes place in history. Such an approach is a step in the right direction, but one may well wonder if an ecologicallyaware anthropocentrism is not close to a contradiction in terms. Biocentrism In general terms, biocentrism is at the opposite extreme from anthropocentrism, and holds that all life has inherent value and is indissolubly connected. However, proponents of this view approach it with some differing perspectives and emphases, which makes the task of definition somewhat difficult. As a starting point, however, Birch s attempt may be considered adequate for our present purposes. He proposes a Christian biocentric ethic as one that encompasses the whole of life, that the recognition of intrinsic value in creatures besides ourselves makes an ethical claim upon us to recognise our obligation toward them 36. In an earlier work Birch extended the definition of neighbour to include all participants in life. For him, the central principle of a biocentric ethic is that we deal with living organisms appropriately when we rightly balance their intrinsic value with their instrumental value 37. It should be noted, however, that many non-christian proponents of biocentrism would share a similar ethic. Indigenous Spirituality Indigenous peoples often have a worldview and spirituality that is highly relevant in terms of the modern environmental crisis. The Aborigines of Australia are a case in point, and it is therefore helpful to begin to understand their perspective. The whole of traditional Aboriginal life is spiritual in orientation; the dichotomy of sacred and secular finds no meaning for them, since all life is sacred. The implications of such a belief system are clear. The Dreaming and all that it represents becomes the basis for an approach to the land as sacred; it provides a sense of 35 Derr Thomas S, with Nash James A and Neuhaus Richard J. Environmental Ethics and Christian Humanism. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), p Birch, Charles Regaining Compassion for Humanity and Nature. (Kensington NSW: New South Wales University Press, 1993), Ibid p90. 21

22 connection between people and the land which means that land must be cared for. Hume states, "Aborigines speak of taking care of country; there is a notion of guardianship rather than ownership" 38. Or as George Rosendale suggests, "When we talk about land, we say, this is our land. Actually it is not our land, we are caretakers of this land. Each family within that tribe has certain responsibilities in caring for the land" 39. He goes on to associate that principle with Genesis 2:15, the divine call to tend the Earth and keep it. Process Philosophy Process Philosophy began with Alfred North Whitehead, who was an avowed non- Christian, but who is significant in this context for the manner in which he influenced Christian theologians such as Hartshorne and Cobb. It would be beyond the scope of this paper to attempt to describe it in any depth, but some basic points may be noted. Whitehead saw everything that comprised the stuff of reality as interactive and social; he stated that each task of creation is a social effort, employing the whole universe 40. For him, everything in the universe is in a process of change, each moving towards its own goal; as he states, self-realization is the ultimate fact of facts 41. He pictures the world as an incredible multiplicity of entities in a fluid state, creating and recreating. God is the ultimate point of that process, but God s prime function for Whitehead is in being the element in everything that preserves its uniqueness and speeds it towards its combination and unity. It follows that in a social universe where nothing exists in isolation, notions such as anthropocentrism and dualism could have little meaning. Eco-feminism In a similar way, ecofeminist philosophy may be regarded as biocentric through and through, and in general terms most ecofeminists would agree with the assertion that a hierarchical view of the world, with its assumed superiority and inferiority, is the main cause of the oppression of both women and nature. Ruether s Christian eco-feminism, for example, brings together elements of ecology and feminism in their full, or deep 38 Hume Lynne, The Rainbow Serpent, The Cross, and the Fax Machine: Australian Aboriginal Responses to the Bible. In Brett, Mark G. ed Ethnicity and the Bible. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), p Ibid p Whitehead Alfred North. Process and Reality: an Essay in Cosmology. Corrected edition, Griffin, David R and Sherburne, Donald W, eds. (New York and London: The Free Press, 1978), p Ibid p

23 forms, and explores how male domination of women and domination of nature are interconnected, both in cultural ideology and in social structures 42. Elements of ecojustice are also involved. The term eco-feminism, however, embraces a range of views, not all of which are Christian or even necessarily compatible with each other. However, ecofeminists would be united in the twin goals of the liberation of women and of nature; even more, as Fowler states, Ecofeminist literature is suffused with the exaltation of community as a goal 43 (1995:127). Thus, eco-feminists generally seek an end of dualisms and hierarchical structures, which can sometimes mean that for them the boundaries between people and nature begin to disappear. Deep Ecology In his famous 1973 essay Arne Naess sought to develop what he regarded as a deeper, more spiritual approach to Nature 44. Clearly, for Naess it represents a substantial reorientation of our whole approach to life and its values. In the context of what is described as self-realization, which goes beyond the traditional Western sense of individualism to a much broader context, the claim is that deep ecology is emerging as a way of developing a new balance and harmony between individuals, communities, and all of Nature 45. Thus, our full maturing as persons takes place in the context of organic wholeness, in which we see ourselves alongside whales, grizzly bears, whole rain forest ecosystems, mountains and rivers, the tiniest microbes in the soil, and so on 46. If deep ecology stopped at that point, the situation would change completely; after all, such a position would be shared by Process Philosophy, Eco-feminism, and arguably with a biblical Christian position as well. But deep ecology moves on to what might be regarded as the most definitive feature of this philosophy, namely its belief in the notion of bioequality. This is clearly a problematic position, and it comes as no great surprise to find what many would consider to be extraordinary claims at the extreme end of the biotic equality spectrum. Deep ecology as such would appear to have little to contribute 42 Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Gaia and God: an ecofeminist theology of earth healing. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), Fowler, Robert B. The Greening of Protestant Thought. (Chapel Hill & London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1995), p Devall Bill and Sessions George. Deep Ecology. (Salt Lake City, Utah: Gibbs Smith, 1985), p Ibid p7 46 Ibid p7 23

24 to Christian ecotheology, and as McFague 47 argues, provides a weak basis for an environmental ethic. Theocentrism As in the case of the biocentric philosophies, theocentric views may also vary in their understanding. Nevertheless, there is a strong biblical tradition that holds the essential unity of all life, with humans recognised as part of creation. In writing of the creation event, Westermann states, The Bible is speaking of a definitive event which concerns not only humankind but the whole of creation 48 (1984:177). Humans, however, need both humility in their creaturehood, and also an acceptance of the responsibility of stewardship 49 We will suggest, however, that biocentrism alone is inadequate, especially in the context of trying to encourage ecological mission in and through the Christian community, and that a theocentric approach built on a biocentric base offers the best hope of a balanced understanding of a global ecosystem and our place in it. But it should be noted that a theocentric approach in and of itself is not enough. Probably most of those who focus the Christian message solely on the human condition would also believe that they are theocentric. What is required, in Bouma-Prediger s phrase 50, is a creation-encompassing theocentrism ; the distinction is very important. Gnanakan 51 also explicitly advocates this approach. At the risk of introducing a somewhat clumsy term, theistic biocentrism may be more precise than theocentrism to portray God s and our relationship with the creation. This, however, raises the issue of equality and difference. Sallie McFague is one who draws attention to both similarity and difference among living things, and in doing so she differs markedly from deep ecologists and some other eco-feminists. If we go back 47 McFague, Sallie. The Body of God: an Ecological Theology. (Minneapolis; London: Fortress; SCM, 1993). 48 Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11: a Commentary. (London; Minneapolis: SPCK.; Augsburg, 1984). 49 McDonagh, Sean. To Care for the Earth: A Call to a New Theological Passion for the Earth. (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1986). 50 Bouma-Prediger, Steven. For the Beauty of the Earth: a Christian Vision for Creation Care. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), p Gnanakan, Ken. God s World: Biblical Insights for a Theology of the Environment. (London: SPCK, 1999). 24

25 far enough, she says, we inevitably come to a common ancestry, whether we are an oak tree or a human being. We are inexorably bound together with all other life in intricate and complex relationships. It should also be noted that God s covenant with Noah specifically included all life, and not just humankind (Gen 9:12). However, she says, there is one crucial difference that separates human beings from all other life forms, and it may be the difference that makes all the difference: we are, to our knowledge, the only creatures on the planet who know the common creation story, the only creatures who not only participate in it but know that they do 52. For McFague, it is the common creation story that provides the paradigm for responding to other life, and indeed for understanding their difference from us. We conclude that it is valid to argue for a profound unity or web of life, and to discern an enormous amount of inter-relationship among living things or beings, but also that it is important to sufficiently acknowledge the importance of difference between human and other life. Without moving to an anthropocentric position, it must be said that from a biblical and theological point of view, God s concern for all life must be balanced by an understanding of the unique human place in the divine economy. Diversity in the Theistic Biocentric Approach Paul Santmire 53 has helpfully argued that a theocentric position involves three major schools of thought, although it must be noted that there can be considerable variation even within those three schools. Reconstructionists, he says, begin with the assumption that the Christian faith offers few resources for dealing with the eco-crisis, and therefore believe that a complete overhaul of the classic kerygmatic tradition is necessary. Their radical approach to Christianity is capable of ample illustration, and while there can be no doubt that they are eco-friendly, it is doubtful if their approach would have more than a marginal impact upon the church at large, especially in areas where a conservative approach is dominant. 52 McFague Sallie. Body of God p Santmire, H Paul. In God s Ecology: a revisionist theology of nature. In Christian Century Dec 13, 2000, pp