ECO THEOLOGY IS AN URGENT MATTER. IT DEMANDS OUR ATTENTION. SOME THOUGHT SHOULD BE ON THE MIND OF EVERY CITIZEN OF THE WORLD COMMUNITY.
This blog draws no distinction between the terms ‘eco-theology’ and ‘environmental-theology.’ We’d rather get to the point, which is the beauty of a blog. Environmental Theology enquires about the relationship between the existence of God, and the sustainability of our environment.
Theology means ‘how do we understand God?’ Theology is faith that seeks understanding, not blind belief (which is more like compliance). The environment refers to the natural world in which we exist. So we are seeking to understand God, and seeking to understand the relationship between God and the environment.
There are two streams of thought underpinning the discussion. There is the belief system (theology), and there is the behaviour system (the ethics of how we decide to live).
Environmental Theology emerges from one of three broad possibilities. We list each, and in so doing we highlight that the one we chose carries significant implications;
1. God is external to the environment. This would mean that the environment is God’s creation, and that God is somehow an entity that is seperate to creation. In this case the natural world is a bit like God’s woodworking project; “look what I made” kinda thing. This is perhaps the most widely held view.
2. God is internal to the environment. This would lead us to understand that God is within all things and there is no separation between God and the environment. If we harm one, then we harm the other. This is perhaps the emerging view and more popular amongst younger persons.
3. There is no God, and the environment emerged from physical conditions. This is consistent with a number of evolutionary views. This is also a widely held view and is the only option for some people. We’re not saying it is right or wrong - it is one view of the the natuaral world.
First Nation Australians have a view of the land which says it is not about territory. Rather the land (environment) is what sustains life, and we need to care for the environment in such a way, that it will continue to meet our needs. Otherwise it will not , in turn, provide for us. This is a straightforward, but profound point. It is a very good reason to be a sensible environmentalist.
Which of these three views (above) call us to responsibility to care for the environment? You could argue “all of them.” Perhaps the view least likely, from an eco theology perspective, to increase our awareness of caring for the environment is number one, which sees God as an entity seperate from the environment. Although this is perhaps the most popular view, it seems to give license to man to destroy, as though he is master of the environment. It is probably true that “the inflated ego is a bulldozer that ploughs through tree and habitat without care or conscience.” This is a view that has dominated recent history and has been self serving, and a view that has allowed environmental destruction because man is master and God is not part of the environment. There seems to be little accountability.
We hear men of faith cry, probably holler actually; “but God gave these things to us and it says so in the bible.” Well we say; “you don't know that, you just believe it." The bible also says you can’t wear polyester socks - are you knitting your own socks if you read it that literally? Hmm, cheeky but true. If we reap and destroy, we are living on environmental credit by taking too much from the present, at the expense of future generations. We think a key idea in the Old Testament Scriptures was to create a sustainable future for our children and our children’s children. Sustainability of the cult is the reason behind the law, justice, ethics of ancient Israel. If the Bible is to be a guide, perhaps we all ought consider that as well.
The second proposal is best, we think. That God is internal to the environment. That we cannot harm our environment without also harming ourselves, and the creative intelligent force that gives us life. That does not mean we can’t collect wood for a fire to keep warm. It does mean we cant knock over an entire forest for profit and not replace it, at least not without consequence. God won’t punish us - we are doing that ourselves, if we live on environmental credit. In this hypothesis, the energy or spirit within me is the same as that within you, the same as that in all of life.
The compelling thing (and exciting thing) about point two is that people of faith are invited to expand (or even reinvent) their understanding of God. We need to lose our juvenile understanding that God is an entity over and above us, and separate to the environment) and come to acknowledge God as a presence, an energy, a life force in and through all things. The beauty of this is that God is a mystery - something we do not and can not understand or know. Such a notion is not new, but very old. It is grounded in the fourth century creeds, the theology of the desert fathers, in the wonderful analogies of Origen, monastics, artists, musicians and all who have the ability to wonder. It is parallel to today’s quantum mechanics, the koan, to inter-dependability, the entanglement theories of Carl Jung and the exploration of Einstein. “We ain’t sayin nothin new here.” Care for that which cares for us.
#climatechange #ecotheology . #environmentaltheology . #environmentandGod #environment #progressivetheology #comprehensiveAnglicans .
But for the fixed mindedness and delicate ego of man, there go the future for our children and the innocents.
Comments