Wright on Christians and Creation
As a follow up to my post about some of Francis Schaeffer’s takes on the relationship of Christians to the creation, here’s an excerpt from N. T. Wright’s book Bringing the Church to the World (pp. 165-7):
After three well-known pagan deities [Mars - war, Mammon - money, and Aphrodite - sexuality], we now come to one who has been more or less unknown until recently, but who has suddenly come into prominence. This is Gaia, the earth goddess. We looked at her briefly in chapter 5, and must now consider the proper Christian response to her rapidly increasing cult.
Nature-religions have always had their devotees. The rhythm of the seasons, the life of the earth, have always exercised a strong pull over human beings. Rightly so: we were made to live on this earth, to fit in with its cycles and basic order. But some are now urging us to recognize the earth itself as a goddess. They are going way beyond the instinct that makes May morning, and harvest festival, natural times of celebration.
Such apologists suggest that the earth is divine, and that this goddess has been suffering as a result of human mismanagement. The ecological crisis, of which most of us have become aware in recent years, is due, we are told, to human exploitation and overpopulation. We must therefore back off, allow Gaia to have her way, and find alternative ways of life that will give her her due. This explicit pantheism, which comes in many varieties, has gained ground with astonishing rapidity recently. Right across the Western world, exploitative dualism is being regarded as the most heinous of sins, and conservation the most necessary of contemporary virtues. We are all bending over backward to be responsible, to atone for our past, to put the record and the world straight again.
And of course there is a good deal of wisdom in all this. The dualism of the Enlightenment did indeed encourage millions throughout the Western world to regard the natural order as something to exploit. The destruction of rain forests and the production of massive clouds of acid rain is the most contemporary result of a centuries’ old ideology. Even among some Christians I have heard it argued, in the name of a “supernatural” Christianity, that we have the right to do what we like with the earth, and that the world doesn’t matter since it is all soon to be destroyed when Jesus returns. It is vital that we do not lapse back into new forms of dualism that regards all moves to clean up the environment as dangerous New Age plots.
What then is the proper Christian response to the Gaia? The first time I ran into serious Gaia theology - in the form of a well-written paperback at a friend’s house - I was left with a strange and unpleasant feeling, almost like a bad taste in the mouth. Heavy-duty pantheism has a cloying, musty sense to it, as though one were abandoning the clarity of full human awareness and letting oneself slide into a world of mystery and incantation, of dark forces and feelings. The next morning, on my way to work, the feeling was still there. I stopped in for a short weekday service at my local parish church. I was slightly late, and Psalm 97 was being read as I came in. The response, which was being said at the end of every couple of verses, blew away the musty smell of pantheism with the fresh air of Biblical truth: “The Lord is King; the earth shall be glad thereof.” That, I realized then, is the truth of which Gaia-worship is the dark parody. There is one God, the Creator; he loves his world and is active within it, but God and the world are emphatically not the same thing. The earth is glad when the Lord is King, not when Gaia exalts herself as Queen.
Ecological responsibility is a basic part of the major biblical and Christian tradition. What we find there is the call for humans to responsible stewards of the world. Some have objected to the idea of “stewardship,” because it makes it sound as though humans are in some way exalted over the world. Some have gone further, and have objected to the very words “King” and “Kingdom,” despite their biblical resonances; they have (it is claimed) encouraged exploitation and domination for so long that they are now too misleading to use. I respect those positions, but do not share them. It seems to me a necessary part of the human vocation, from a Christian point of view, that we are called to wise, humble, and responsible caretaking, looking after the good and beautiful world in which we live. We dare not downgrade humanness, as the pantheist does, in order to upgrade Gaia. We are not simply animals or plants. They need us to be *humans*, not to go on all fours (or grow roots) with them. The fact that the central biblical notion of kingdom has been abused by domineering humans is not in itself a reason to abandon the idea of the wise, loving, healing, and judging sovereignty of the Creator God.
Granted this, it is vital that the church puts as much energy as possible into articulation and implementing a fully biblical “green” theology. We must indeed repent of former carelessness and exploitative pseudo-stewardship, and determine to change our ways. The churches should be in the forefront of the drive to change habits of life so as to reflect a proper concern for the environment. But we will only do this if we take seriously the biblical perspective. We must begin, as it were, from both ends. We must grasp firmly the biblical view of creation, and of the role of humans as responsible agents, placed within creation to reflect the image of the Creator in love and care, upon it. And we must grasp the vision of the future held out in passages like Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 15, and Revelation 21-22. The earth will not be thrown away, jettisoned from the divine plan like so much trash. It will be filled with the glory of God, as the waters cover the sea. The fields will rejoice, and the trees will clap their hands. Our task in the meantime is to live in the light of that belief and that hope, and so to work out ways of glorifying the Creator by bringing his healing love to the creation.
This means that Christian must engage in, and encourage many of the actions and habits of life that are currently being advocated by other “green” groups; but they will do so with a different motive and on a different basis. Our actions in preserving our environment from wanton destruction will stem from our love for its Creator, and from our consequent respect, not worship, for creation in itself. We will act in the certain knowledge that the Creator will use our work to look after his creation, and that he will one day renew it with his own indwelling presence. This will give depth to the often shallow “green” philosophies and agendas. The church should be giving a lead and setting an example in all of these areas.
****************
Also recommended: Audio of a presentation by Marva Dawn at the “Following Christ” conference sponsored by InterVarsity in 2002: Creation and Culture
Click "Digg It" to let Digg.com users know they should read this post!
September 27th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
That was a great reading, Mark. Cayce and I went to the C’ville Vegetarian festival last weekend. I always have mixed feelings when traveling in those circles - I applaud the actions and efforts, but feel almost queasy from the gratuitous infusion of New Age, etc. Reading this also gives me a renewed vision for my vocation.
Thinking about all of the ‘eastern spirituality’ booths at veg fest reminds me of my senior year in college. It doesn’t really have anything to do with N.T. Wright or stewardship, but reminiscing will give me a break from staring at my research all night. After waiting until the last minute to procure housing, my friend and I landed a room in a house rented by several - we’ll say - ‘earth mother enthusiasts.’ For weeks, the house was empty except for the two of us every Monday around dinnertime. It was late fall when we finally got around to asking them where they went every Monday evening. It turns out that the Chapel Hill ‘chapter’ (?) of the Hare Krishna served dinner to the public in the commons room of one of the freshman dorms every week.
The following Monday, all seven of us housemates struck out into the cold November air with bowls and spoons in hand, heading for free dinner. This would be my first personal encounter with the Hare Krishnas, and I was trying to keep stereotype of incessant chanters out of my mind - you know, to give them a fair shake as regular folks. We must have missed the blessing, because people were already being served when we arrived. We joined the queue and I gathered all of my courage in preparation to simultaneously give ear to anything the shaven food-servers might have to say to me and respond with the appropriate ‘Christian’ perspective. Needless to say I was a nervous wreck by the time I stepped up to be served (the whole robe thing juxtaposed against the dorm’s holiday decorations put me on considerable edge).
Silently I held out my bowl, and silently I was ladled some sort of steaming broth. The second guy likewise silent dropped some sort of cabbage into my bowl. The tension was unbearable; were they under a vow of silence? I moved to the end of the table and the third devotee held out a piece of bread. I was probably sweating from anxiety as I looked around at the holly wreaths on the walls and wondered whether the soup contained mind-altering agents. As I reached out and took hold of the bread, the fellow muttered a nearly indiscernable four-syllable phrase. Trying to remember what I was doing there, I blurted out, to the chagrin of my housemates, the single reply my mind could rationalize: “Merry Christmas.”
I didn’t eat with the Hare Krishnas again, but I think about that meal for different reasons from time to time. I don’t think they put anything ‘funny’ in the soup.
September 27th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
Sometimes “Merry Christmas” is the only appropriate response to “Hare Krishna Rama Bama Ding Dong.”
Was that the house where you played basketball in the attic? I still laugh when I remember you telling that story.
September 28th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
One and the same! By the way, we talked about your excerpt from Francis Schaeffer at FG tonight - in the context of Prince Caspian and Genesis 2. I’m off to Montana for work for another week on Friday - Hopefully I can post to my blog if we eat at JB’s (western version of Shoneys, featuring free WIFI - “Ya just log on to JBs-great-falls-at-dot-com honey,” the waitress says).
September 28th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
I sure do miss Family Group with you guys..how I wish I could be in on those discussions! Glad the post was of help.
And I do hope you remember to include “honey” in the URL when you log in!
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:27 am
[...] from the perspective of N.T. Wright [...]