Recently, a series of earthquakes that had struck Turkey and Syria had shaken the global population with the massive destruction they have caused. While human injustices, wars, economic depressions and socio-political unrests are raising rapidly on the one hand, the climatic changes, global warming, natural calamities and many other ecological challenges are reported frequently at an alarming rate. In such a situation, the praxis of Christian mission should not only be concerned about individual salvation and human well-being but also about the well-being of the creation. In fact, the humanity and nature are not two distinctive spheres of mission rather both belong to God’s creation. Thus, the Christian mission has to address the ecological crises and engage in creation keeping.
Until the emergence of the modern period, the Christian worldview was theocentric rather than anthropocentric. The premodern worldview did not separate humanity from the context of the entire creation. Although the humans were always at the centre, God’s concern for humans is not seen outside of God’s concern for the creation. The priority of human history did not replace the space that the nature had in theological reflections.[1]
However, with the beginning of the European Renaissance, the development of the Industrial Revolution in 16th and 17th centuries, and the modern worldview of human evolution have strongly promoted supremacy of human beings and prioritized the technological development. In such a context, the theological worldview of Christianity also dichotomized between human beings and the creation. The salvation of human beings is seen in isolation from the redemption of the whole creation.[2] Both in the scientific as well as in modern theological worldviews, the creation and redemption are seen as two different narratives.[3]
The missiological emphasis over the last two centuries was stressed on individual salvation at the expense of wider picture of God’s creation.[4] In other words, Christian mission was largely limited to witnessing/evangelism. The early Pentecostal movements also considered the Spirit-baptism is primarily ‘the empowerment to witness into the world.’[5] Most of the missionary movements were based on this perspective and the mission was primarily concerned about the individual salvation. Preaching the gospel to the non-Christian world was considered as the only aim of the Christian mission. It was stressed so much during 19th century that even medical missions were considered as diversion from the true missionary objective i.e., to convert people to Christ.[6]
However, there has been a methodological shift in understanding of Christian mission. Christian missionary activity began to integrate the care for creation. Although the ecological dimension of Christian mission is not a new phenomenon, it gained much attention in the recent decades. Since 1970s, the World Council of Churches began to integrate the concern for creation in its series of discussions entitled as ‘Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation’. Although evangelicals have been unfriendly towards the emerging ecological-missiological perspectives, they also began to develop missionary praxis for creation keeping in the later years. The praxis of missionary concern for the creation included education, conservation, field work, advocacy and community development.[7] The Conference on World Mission and Evangelism of WCC in 1989 discussed that stewardship of and responsibility towards God’s creation as the important part of mission of the church. The World Convention at Seoul in 1990 drew much missional attention towards the ecological issues.[8] The Pentecostals, at least from 1970s, began to reflect on ecological dimension of their mission. The Spirit-baptism is not only considered as the empowerment for witnessing but also as the empowerment for the care for creation. The ecojustice movements are seen as God’s work of restoring the earth through the believers and non-believers alike.[9]
The environmental crisis is too serious to be overlooked. Ghillean Prance, a tropical-rainforest specialist, states that around 1% of the remaining forest on the planet is vanishing each year. Although tropical rainforests are home for nearly 60% of the species, they cover hardly 7% of the land surface.[10] According to WWF (World Wildlife Fund) Living Plant Report 2022, there has been a great biodiversity loss, degradation of ecological systems and their services over the past 50 years. The overexploitation of plants and animals, climate change and pollution, increasing demand for food, energy and other materials are the key factors contributing threat to the biodiversity and ecological systems.[11]
According to ‘The Global Risks Report 2023’, published by World Economic Forum (WEF), “Today, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have all reached record highs. Emission trajectories make it very unlikely that global ambitions to limit warming to 1.5°C will be achieved.”[12] The WEF is of opinion that despite the actions taken by national governments around the world, the consequences of climatic disturbance on human health and society are too hard to control. Furthermore, “Climate change will also increasingly become a key migration driver and there are indications that it has already contributed to the emergence of terrorist groups and conflicts in Asia, the Middle East and Africa.”[13] This is because climate change has become a serious security concern for many states and its intensity is growing rapidly which is potentially a trigger for terrorism.[14] For instance, the frequency of terrorism has increased significantly in Nigeria and Pakistan against the backdrop of frequent natural disasters which created “a vicious cycle of natural resource depletion, forced migration, and unemployment, which is exacerbated by their agriculture-reliant economies… famine and sickness.”[15]
The environmental crisis is a major problem in India as well. It is majorly caused by urbanization, deforestation, industrialization, over-population, etc. Some of the major ecological problems faced in India are:
Air pollution caused by the toxic gaseous emissions of industries and vehicles.
Chemical and oil pollution and emission of Greenhouse Gas.
Water pollution caused by raw sewage, improper sanitation, unhygienic/untreated water.
Inadequacy of solid waste management with the rising population growth.
Scarcity of natural resources.
Deforestation.
Agricultural challenges such as shortage/excessive use of pesticides, overgrazing, short cultivation cycles, and others related to it.[16]
Increased frequency of natural calamities.
Christian mission in such a setting has to rethink of its task in relation to ecology. Basically, all the environmental crisis is caused by disharmony between humans and nature. Dualistic nature of Christian theology, considering the spiritual as higher than the material world, is one of the major stumbling blocks to the mission in relation to the creation. God’s command to humans to have dominion and subdue the land and sea has been understood to mean that the nature is inferior to humanity and something to be ruled over.[17] Such anthropocentric and dualistic theological worldview of Christian theology has deprived the Christian mission from being concerned about the ecological crises. The missionaries understood the respect for nature in the local religious traditions as paganism and thus rejected it. Therefore, Christian mission should pay special attention to the ‘exploited planet’ as much as it pays attention to the downtrodden ones.[18]
The Bible constantly affirms that the world is God’s Creation. God as the Creator not only created the world but also owns the world. All earth belongs to God is one of the foundational themes of the Bible to understand God’s relation to the world. Biblical narrative is rich with different themes that serve as foundations for creation keeping.
All things in the creation are created by God and thus, nothing in the world is divine. In contrast to the ancient worldviews, the biblical worldview is that the natural world is neither God nor is it full of deities, but it is sacred and it remains as a sacrament of God. Despite being incomplete revelation of God, the creation is still a mysterious sign of God’s creative power.[19] The sacredness of creation refers to ‘its essential relatedness to God.’[20] It is not only the human creation that is related to God, but the nonhuman created order also “obeys God, submits to God’s commands, reveals God’s glory, benefits from God’s sustaining and providing, and serves God’s purposes.”[21] Just as the human life is sacred and created for God’s glory, the entire nonhuman creation is also created for God’s glory. Therefore, all the creation is valued as it is related to God and created for God’s glory. Psalm 148 is a paramount example of this. It is not something to be abused by commodifying and commercializing it and forcing it to produce maximum utility for human use. Thus, humans are responsible to keep the creation and maintain its sanctity. In Christopher Wright’s words, “And if the greatest commandment is that we should love God, that surely implies that we should treat what belongs to God with honour, care and respect.”[22]
God as the Creator owns what He has created and also cares for His creation. God’s caring concern for His creation can be seen throughout the Scripture, not in a subtle way but in a very evident way. God not only brought the world into existence but also actively present in creating and sustaining it. God cares for every creature in the ecosystem. Nothing in the creation stands alone for which God does not care or provide. God sustains all creation despite most of its unrelatedness to humanity. All creation is part of God’s world and therefore, humans have no reason to claim that God’s care, concern, protection and providence encompasses only them. Psalm 104 is one of the profoundest and clearest portrayals of God’s activity in His creation.[23] It does not require for creation to be part of human culture for God to care: “The nonhuman creation is wild, outside human ordering, outside culture. But it is not outside both divine and biological order…. Wild animals and wildflowers are loved by God for their own sake…. They are to be treated with appropriate respect for their wildness.”[24] Thus, God’s care for creation is a model for humans to practice creation care.
The creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2 evidently show that human beings, created in the Image of God, are both part of and distinct from the entire creation. God formed human beings (adam) out of the earth (adamah). This shows that humans are continuous with nature, i.e., humans cannot be seen outside of the creation. However, humans are also created in God’s image and likeness which makes them distinct from other creatures.[25] After God creating humans in His image, He entrusted them to rule and have dominion (rada) on the earth and to subdue (kabas) it. Although these terms have connotations of exercising force and violence,[26] it has to be understood that God delegates His own ruling authority to human beings. In the ancient world, the kings and emperors set up their images in different parts of their territory in order to represent their dominion. In this sense, humans, bearing the Image of God, represent the authority of true king over the creation. However, this delegated authority has to reflect God’s own kingship. It should be a humble reflection of God’s character.[27]
Thus, human vocation as the Image of God carries the missiological emphasis on caring and keeping the creation by representing God’s authority. Nevertheless, the blessing in Genesis 1:28 to exercise dominion and subdue the earth should be understood in the light of God’s purpose for humans to till the earth and keep it (Gen. 2:15). The Hebrew verbs used here are abad and shamar. The verb abad can be translated as ‘to work,’ ‘to cultivate,’ or ‘to serve.’ If the whole earth, as God’s creation, is the temple of God, then the service of the earth is to serve God. The verb shamar refers to an act of guarding, preserving, watching over, and protecting. Hence, the human vocation as the Image of God is an authority with the responsibility, a model of servant-rule. It is to exercise the dominion of God by serving and keeping God’s creation.[28]
The Spirit of God brings life to the creation. God’s Spirit hovers over the chaos and brings the order (Gen. 1:2). God breathes His life to all creatures including humans (Gen 2:7; Ps. 104:27-30). The Spirit of God also embodies in the creation. That is to say, the Spirit manifests through different natural elements and also dwells in the creation (including humans) in dynamic ways.[29] The Spirit of God is not only present in the creation but also joins in the groaning of the creation for its redemption (Rom. 8:26-27).[30] Therefore the Christian mission has to be dynamically empowered by the Spirit to engage in a holistic creation care which is also tuned to the groaning of the Spirit over the creation’s subjection to futility.
The biblical narrative does not begin and end with sin and redemption but with the story of creation and the vision of new creation. The ultimate eschatological hope is not only the redemption of God’s people but also the redemption of all the creation. In Revelation’s pictorial language, the Garden City of New Jerusalem descends into the new cosmos. In Romans 8, Paul speaks of creation groaning in hope for its redemption from all forms of futility. The creation hopes for its transformation which something only God can do. Although it is something humans have to anticipate in hope, it does not mean that humans have nothing to do but watch rather it calls God’s people to participate in God’s purposes in reaching towards the goal.[31]
Mission cannot be seen apart from creation. God is the Creator of the world and he remains so to the eternity. Thus, the world is identified as the divine creation. From the beginning of creation, God is continually present in the world. Every saving act of God in the world is in relation to the creation. Thus, the human dignity and redemption are also firmly rooted in God’s saving activity of His creation.[32]
Christopher Wright, in his book The Mission of God, gives some of the theological reasons for Christian mission of creation keeping, which can be outlined as below:
Christian mission of creation keeping is a response to an urgent global issue.
Creation care flows from love and obedience to God.
Creation care exercises our priestly and kingly role in relation to the earth.
Creation keeping exposes and expands our motivation for the holistic mission.
Creation keeping is a prophetic opportunity for the church.
Creation care embodies a biblical balance of compassion and justice.[33]
Creation keeping as a part of Christian mission can be seen as liberation from domination.[34] Christian mission of creation keeping is an exercise of kenotic lordship. That is to say, it is an exercise of dominion in humility and service rather than in exercising mastery. Christian mission should be servant-minded in caring and keeping the creation.[35]
Another way of understanding Christian mission in relation to creation keeping as an exercise of stewardship of creation. Humans, having been created in the image of God and possessing the authority to rule over the creation, are not the ultimate owners of the creation. The whole creation belongs to God the Creator. Therefore, humans are stewards of creation. They are chosen by the Master. Hence, humans have special responsibility in the world in order to ensure the well-being of the whole creation just as the master would, and as stewards, humans are accountable to God for all their exercise of authority. This theology of stewardship of creation is the basis for Christian mission to engage in caring and keeping the creation.[36]
Christian mission should encompass the whole created order by partaking in God’s mission of redeeming the creation. Church should acknowledge that “God’s purpose in Christ is to heal and bring to wholeness all persons and all creation (Col. 1:19-20). We are agents of this healing.” Nevertheless, it is the eschatological vision of God’s transformation of all creation shapes Christian mission of creation keeping. That is to say, Christian mission of creation keeping is not rooted in ‘green utopianism’ imagining that an environmental restoration can be fully achieved by human efforts. But the vision of the eschatological new cosmos creates possibilities in the present to joyfully and hopefully participate in caring the creation. Thus, the biblical eschatology motivates, shapes and drives the Christian mission to exercise service to the creation in humility and hope.
The church has to undertake the ecological responsibility as a ministry of universal love. Ecological responsibility of the church is not something optional or inferior to Christian mission rather it has to be permanent and prominent part of it.[37] The church has to participate in Jesus’ proclamation of Jubilee Year (Luke 4:18-19) amidst the prevailing ecological crises today. One of the concrete ways to participate in this mission is by paying attention to and joining the struggles of the indigenous communities for their homeland which is nothing but the nature.[38]
The churches can produce centres and organizations that would create awareness of human responsibility towards God’s creation. While the secular world has scientific reasons for creating awareness about ecological issues, the church must propagate theological basis which is grounded in creation theology and Christian mission of reconciliation and restoration.[39] Bringing ecological awareness must begin both in churches as well as in seminaries. The Christian message of reconciliation and restoration should not only be proclaimed among human relations but also to be acted out in our relationship with the creation. Salvation is not merely restoring the relationship between God and humans but also relationship between Creator and the creatures. The mission should be an active prophetic voice against eco-injustices.[40]
Christian mission should not only be concerned about the impact of environmental crisis on the human wellbeing but also critically look into the impact of human activity on the nature. Missionary projects that are aimed at human wellbeing at the expense of long-term environmental damage must be critically considered. Mission movements must detach themselves from the economic models that are highly destructive on the nature such as consumerism, industrialism and growth-oriented models.[41] Potentially devastating projects like construction of heavy dams and excessive oil extractions must be questioned.
Finally, the church must formulate ecological ethics,[42] both in public and private lives, for a better engagement with the creation. Ecological ethics begins with small scale precautions and measures taken in the households such as reducing, reusing, recycling the goods and services, avoiding wastage of electricity and drinking water, maintaining proper sewage system, avoiding dumping the waste in public places, etc. Every ecological program must reflect image of God’s wise steward in the creation.[43] The task of Christian mission is not only to create awareness but also act to check ecological injustices such as pollution. The church has to participate in the environmental movements, not in competition but in collaboration. The church can collaborate with the environmental organizations in healing the creation and promoting eco-friendly lifestyle.
Human sin has affected all three spheres of life: spiritual, social and ecological. It has brought distortion and disturbance in human responsibility towards God, towards fellow humans and towards the nature. The redemptive work of Christ affects all these spheres of disharmony and brings reconciliation and restoration. However, most of the mission movements are primarily concerned about the spiritual effect on sin and focused on evangelization as the ultimate goal of mission. Some other mission movements extended towards the liberation and restoration of the social relations while others are focused on creation keeping and restoration. In the missionary circle, all three are seen as different from one another. But the biblical theology shows that all three are integral to God’s mission and nothing has to be seen in isolation from the other.
However, there are some of the theological issues that are hindering Christian mission unconcerned of creation keeping:
The ultimate goal of mission is salvation of individuals.
Humans are superior to creation.
Environmental quietism: we cannot control anything; it is not our responsibility to address ecological problems.
The world will be annihilated at the end.
Emphasizing creation care is departing from the real mission.
Creation care is idolatrous: respecting the sacredness of nature is misunderstood as the worship of nature.
Such theological misunderstandings must be sorted out in the light of God’s mission as described in the biblical narrative. The Christian mission has to concern about the ecological crises and exercise God’s mission of creation keeping. However, this has to be done soberly and diligently so that it would not mistakenly align itself towards the ideology of ecological utopianism rather act in hope that God would ultimately make all things new.
Creation keeping is an integral part of Christian mission. It is basically part of God’s concern towards His creation. Christian mission is empowered by the Spirit of God not only for witnessing but also for acting the liberating power of the Spirit in keeping the creation amidst the rising ecological crises. Christian mission of creation keeping must be shaped by sound creation theology and the eschatological vision of the new creation so that it will be firmly rooted in God’s activity in the world. Christian mission must engage in creation keeping by exercising the vocation of bearing God’s image in the creation.
[1] John B Cobb, “Postmodern Christianity in Quest of Eco-Justice,” in After Nature’s Revolt: Eco-Justice and Theology, ed. Dieter T. Hessel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 22. [2] Pradip Das, “The Historical Development of Ecological Thinking,” in Ecological Challenge and Christian Mission, ed. Krickwin C. Marak and Atul Y. Aghamkar (Delhi: ISPCK, 1998), 85-86. [3] Jurgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1996), 259-60. [4] N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (London: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd., 2008), 80. [5] A. J. Swoboda, Tongues and Trees: Toward a Pentecostal Ecological Theology, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 40 (Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2013), 224-25. [6] Das, “The Historical Development of Ecological Thinking,” 86. [7] S. Steer, “Ecology/Environment,” in Dictionary of Mission Theology: Evangelical Foundations, ed. John Corrie (Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 2007), 105-6. [8] Das, “The Historical Development of Ecological Thinking,” 90. [9] Swoboda, Tongues and Trees, 231. [10] Ghillean T. Prance, “The Earth under Threat,” in The Care of Creation: Focusing Concern and Action, ed. R. J. Berry (Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000), 115. [11] “Living Planet Report 2022: Building a Nature-Positive Society” (Switzerland: WWF and ZSL, October 13, 2022), 16. [12] “The Global Risks Report 2023,” Insight Report (Switzerland: World Economic Forum, January 2023), 21. [13] “The Global Risks Report 2023,” 22. [14] Andrew Silke and John Morrison, “Gathering Storm: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Climate Change and Terrorism,” Terrorism and Political Violence 34, no. 5 (2022): 884, https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2022.2069444. [15] Natalie Lytle, “Climate Change as a Contributor to Terrorism: A Case Study in Nigeria and Pakistan” (Thesis, University of South Carolina, 2017), 44. [16] Mahesh Chandra, “Environmental Concerns in India: Problems and Solutions,” Journal of International Business and Law 15, no. 1 (January 2015): 2-3. [17] Christina Manohar, “Towards a Theology of Environment,” in Ecological Challenge and Christian Mission, 185–87. [18] Joseph Patmury, “Mission in Relation to Mother Earth,” in Building Solidarity: Challenge to Christian Mission, ed. Joseph Mattam and Joseph Valiamangalam (Delhi: ISPCK, 2008), 88-89. [19] Holmes Rolston III, “Wildlife and Wildlands: A Christian Perspective,” in After Nature’s Revolt: Eco-Justice and Theology, ed. Dieter T. Hessel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 124. [20] Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Illinois: IVP Academic, 2006), 402. [21] Wright, The Mission of God, 402. [22] Wright, The Mission of God, 403. [23] Douglas J. Moo and Jonathan A. Moo, Creation Care: A Biblical Theology of the Natural World, Biblical Theology for Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018), 54-57. [24] Rolston III, “Wildlife and Wildlands: A Christian Perspective,” 135. [25] Manohar, “Towards a Theology of Environment,” 198. [26] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 139. [27] Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Illinois: IVP Academic, 2004), 118-121. [28] Moo and Moo, Creation Care, 86. [29] Swoboda, Tongues and Trees, 217-219. [30] Moo and Moo, Creation Care, 133. [31] Moo and Moo, Creation Care, 197-98. [32] Horst Rzepkowski, “Creation Theology and Missiology,” in Dictionary of Mission: Theology, History, Perspectives, ed. Karl Muller et al., American Society of Missiology Series 24 (New York: Orbis Books, 1997), 92. [33] Wright, The Mission of God, 413-19. [34] George Mathew Nalunnakkal, “Mission: An Ecological Perspective,” in Mission Paradigm in the New Millennium, ed. W. S. Milton Jeganathan (Delhi: ISPCK, 2000), 321. [35] Nalunnakkal, “Mission: An Ecological Perspective,” 322. [36] J. Patmury, “Ecological Crises and Challenges to Christian Mission,” in Mission Paradigm in the New Millennium, 337. [37] Patmury, “Ecological Crises and Challenges to Christian Mission,” 339. [38] Nalunnakkal, “Mission: An Ecological Perspective,” 325. [39] Patmury, “Mission in Relation to Mother Earth,” 95. [40] Manohar, “Towards a Theology of Environment,” 206-7. [41] Heidi Hadsell, “Ecology and Mission,” in Dictionary of Mission, 115. [42] Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, 144. [43] Wright, Surprised by Hope, 210.
Comments