Search

Editor’s Note: The Regent College community grieves the recent death of Rev. Dr. Jonathan R. Wilson. (Read our tribute.) Jonathan served for many years as Teaching Fellow at Regent College, and made countless contributions to our academic and community life. One of his passions was cultivating patterns of thought and practice that embrace Christians' call to serve as stewards of creation.

This article was originally published in the September 2004 issue of CRUX (Vol. 40, No. 3). 

An earlier version of this paper was presented at a Conference for Environmental Professionals, hosted by Trinity Western University, Langley, BC.¹

In the midst of rising concern about care for creation, conservative Christians present various responses.² Some are deeply involved in the environmental movement; others are profoundly opposed to policies that protect and preserve the environment.³ My own view is that Christian doctrine, properly understood, commits Christians to care for the environment. In this article I will identify the (mistaken) theological basis for conservative Christian opposition to the environment and propose some theological correctives that would lead to support for environmental concern. Of course, political, sociological, and economic interests are interwoven with theology in this opposition. But theological analysis is important, because conservative Christianity is most deeply formed by a commitment to biblical faithfulness. If we are able to identify a more faithful theology, then we may be able to find ways of forging a theological consensus on care for creation that crosses other boundaries.

As should be clear from what follows, my own motives are first theological. That is, my concern for the environment has not determined my theology; rather, my concern for the environment follows from my theology. Thus, my concern for the peace of creation is also a concern for the wholeness of Christian doctrine—its "shalom." So as I make a case for the theological roots of environmental responsibility, I will also make a case for the recovery of the doctrine of creation in the midst of other doctrines.

Conservative Christians are guided by theological concerns, even when those concerns are implicit. Indeed, I argue that the theological convictions that shape environmental opposition are largely submerged in other doctrines that stand at the heart of conservative Christianity. Moreover, even those conservative Christians who support environmental care often do so without clear and mature doctrinal foundations.⁴ Although I argue that there are profound (and mistaken) theological reasons for environmental opposition, my concern is primarily with conservative Christianity at the popular level, not with well-formulated theological opposition. There are three reasons for this approach: first, there is very little well-formulated theological opposition to environmental concerns; second, the theological opposition that exists presupposes the submerged issues that I will draw out; third, conservative Christianity is largely a populist movement, not an intellectual movement. Since my concern will be with popular conservative Christianity, my evidence will be largely anecdotal and my argument impressionistic.

In making my case I will focus on three doctrines: the incarnation (Jesus Christ as fully human, fully divine), the atonement (the work of Christ on the cross), and eschatology (the return of Christ to complete his work). Other doctrines are important to conservative Christianity, but in my judgment, these three carry the bulk of the presuppositions that implicitly guide opposition to environmental concerns. Of course, the neglect of the doctrine of creation also influences the doctrine of humankind, sin, and others, but these are secondary effects of the neglect of creation in the primary doctrines identified above.

The Impact of Polemical History

To understand the impact of these doctrines on conservative Christianity, one must understand something of the history of conservative Christianity in relation to these doctrines. The formulation of these doctrines among conservative Christians was significantly shaped by opposition to the rise of liberal theology. In each case, conservative Christians have sought to defend and preserve a doctrine that was denied by liberal Christianity. When the divinity of Jesus Christ was challenged by modernity, conservative Christians rallied to the defence of Christ's divinity. When liberalism turned away from Christ as the one who died in our place so that God's wrath could be satisfied, conservative Christians emphasized the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. When liberal theology rejected belief in a literal physical return of Christ, conservative Christians turned to a particular form of premillennial eschatology. In each case, I will argue that conservative Christians were right in what they affirmed, but wrong in what they neglected. In other words, conservative Christianity has been largely formed by a one-sided polemical theology. We need to turn from oppositional theology to a constructive theology that recovers the fullness of biblical teaching, which will guide our proper care for creation.

Specifically, I will argue that the way conservative Christianity formulated these doctrines in opposition to liberal Christianity led to a neglect of the classical doctrine of creation. As a consequence, conservative Christianity has no firm theological basis for considering issues that impinge on the doctrine of creation. Thus, in a subtle and deeply hidden way, the identity of conservative Christianity is threatened by attention to creation. That is why many conservative Christians see an issue like environmental concern as a conflict between true and false religion.

As I build my case, I will argue that a more fully orthodox Christianity teaches "the peace of creation." Christians are called to witness to this work of God, living in faith, hope, and love. Recently, John Milbank, a theologian now at the University of Virginia, has provided a powerful and complex argument for the "ontological priority of peace."⁵ Milbank grounds his argument in creation; in this essay I indirectly supplement his argument by providing a much briefer account of the ontological priority of peace grounded in the redemption of creation. By so doing, I hope to contribute to the recovery of a theological balance in Christian doctrine.

Incarnation

The doctrine of the incarnation was developed by the early church in reflection on the biblical account of Jesus Christ. The church concluded that Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine, two natures in one person. Many complex issues arise here, but for my purposes this simple formulation is sufficient.

When, under the impact of modernity, some theology began to conclude that Jesus was merely human, conservative Christians reasserted and defended the divinity of Jesus Christ. In the process of defending this claim, conservative Christians began to focus almost entirely on divinity. Since the humanity of Jesus was not under attack, it was simply assumed. Unfortunately, this assumption led over the years to a diminished theological understanding of Jesus' humanity. Even today, when some conservative Christians are rediscovering the human Jesus, they do so apart from any mature theological reflection that locates the human Jesus within a framework larger than "He's my friend, my buddy," or, as in southern California, "He's my bud."

This theological diminishing of the full humanity of Jesus is evident in much conservative theology. For example, in Understanding Jesus, Alister McGrath, a leading evangelical theologian, writes twelve chapters on Jesus without any sustained attention to the course of his life and with no reflection on creation.⁶ When evangelicals and other conservative Christians do attend to Jesus' humanity, they often do so merely to establish his identification with us. They give little if any attention to the profound theological implications of God becoming human in Jesus Christ and participating in creation.

In popular conservative Christianity, the emphasis on Jesus' divinity and the neglect of his humanity produces a view of a God who is distant from creation rather than a God who participated in creation. As a result we have a God who rescues us from creation rather than a God who is at work in creation to redeem it. Thus, the redemptive intention of the incarnation is removed from creation rather than integral to it. And any concern for creation seems to be an affront to this emaciated and dichotomized doctrine of incarnation.

If conservative Christians turn from mere oppositional theology to constructive theology, then we would have to attend to some profound theological reflection on the incarnation.⁷ By becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ, God crossed the boundary between Creator and creation. In the conservative reduction of Christology, God becomes human to rescue us from creation. In a fully orthodox understanding, the full humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ expresses the profound love of God for creation. We move from an anthropocentric purpose to a cosmocentric purpose.

We can see this concern for creation in John 1, where the framework of the incarnation is creation: the Creator-Word becomes flesh. And John's use of "flesh" here, I would argue, emphasizes not merely that God became human, but that the Creator became creation. Likewise, the cosmic Christology of Ephesians and Colossians emphasizes the whole cosmos as the object of God's act in Jesus Christ. This same emphasis has been recovered in Robert Webber's recent work charting a path for future evangelical theology. Rooting his Christology in a recovery of ancient orthodoxy, Webber argues that "Christ is the cosmic redeemer" who enables the church to speak "directly to the desire for a unified center to the world and to the search for an 'original blessing' that will bring an end to all evil and establish the Shalom of God over the entire creation."⁸

The impulse of conservative Christianity is toward biblical faithfulness. If we can begin to expose the neglect of creation in the conservative Christian doctrine of the incarnation and show the creational framework of biblical Christology, then perhaps we can begin to rebuild a doctrine of creation that will lead us to a celebration of the peace of creation expressed in caring for the cosmos that God loves in Jesus Christ.

Atonement

No doctrine represents conservative Christianity more fully than belief in the penal substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. This doctrine has been formulated in different ways by Anselm of Canterbury (c.1033-1109) and John Calvin (1509-1564). In this century, J.I. Packer has provided a classic formulation and defence.⁹ In opposition to liberal, optimistic views of human nature that de-emphasized our rebellion against God, conservative Christians have rightly defended the biblical teaching of God's wrath against sin and the cross of Christ as the propitiation of that wrath.

This defence is right in what it affirms but wrong in what it neglects. It is right in its affirmation of Christ's death as the salvation of believers but wrong in its neglect of the cosmic significance of Christ's death. By focusing almost exclusively on one aspect of atonement—penal substitution—conservative Christianity perpetuates an anthropocentric view of redemption in its concern for human guilt and God's wrath toward sin. This doctrine of atonement is missing the cosmic dimension supplied by a doctrine of the atonement that views Christ's death as a victory.

The belief that Christ's death on the cross is a victory is often called Christus Victor or "the classical view." It is found in Scripture and was the dominant view among the early Christians. In the context of a cosmic Christology (Col. 1:15-20), Paul's letter to the Colossians asserts that in the cross of Christ God was reconciling to himself "all things whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross" (Col. 1:20). In the book of Revelation, the cosmos is ruled by Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega, the Lamb who was slain. In the early church, this belief found expression in Irenaeus, who "showed how the work of Christ was understood in terms of the salvation of the entire creation."¹⁰

If conservative Christians added this Christus Victor view to the penal substitution view of the atonement, then we would realize that Christ's crucifixion redeemed humankind along with the rest of God's good creation. In Jesus Christ, God conquered the anti-creation forces in the universe and established peace. We Christians witness to this peace by living now in that reality by faith, hope, and love. We live by faith in what is not yet revealed; we live in hope grounded in God not the course of history; and we live in love, sacrificing our lives because we know that victory has been won and peace guaranteed by Christ's sacrifice of love.¹¹ Those who live in faith, hope, and love participate even now in that victory and peace.

Eschatology

Traditionally, eschatology refers to the "four last things": the return of Christ, the resurrection of humankind, the last judgment, and the final state.¹² In connection with the return of Christ, questions arise about the millennium, the "thousand years" referred to in Revelation 20:1-3. Against liberal Christianity, which de-emphasized and even denied the literal, visible, physical return of Christ, conservative Christians have asserted and defended Christ's return in glory to complete his work.

Over the years, this belief has been attached to three different views of the relationship between Christ's return and the millennium. Premillennialists argue that Christ will return, then set up a literal, earthly kingdom prior to the last judgment and the final state. Amillennialists argue that the kingdom is present now, in some sense. Christ's return presages the last judgment and the final state, but no earthly kingdom prior to those acts. Postmillennialists argue that Christ will return after the spread of Christian influence establishes a thousand years of peace and prosperity.¹³

Historically, premillennialism has been by far the dominant view among conservative Christians in North America in this century.¹⁴ This is significant for our theme for two reasons. First, premillennialism, especially dispensational premillennialism, has tended to lead to withdrawal from social responsibility.¹⁵ The dominance of dispensationalism has reinforced the tendency to social withdrawal among conservative Christians, except in the arena of "personal morality," specifically abortion and homosexuality.¹⁶ On this understanding, any involvement of the church on "social" issues is a betrayal of its mission—to save as many as possible from the coming wrath.

This conviction is tied closely to the other characteristic of dispensationalism that opposes care for creation. Dispensationalism emphasizes the discontinuity between this creation and the new creation. As one advocate said to me, "I've quit littering because it's socially unacceptable, but I don't really understand the problem. In the end, it's all going to burn anyway." This view draws on Peter's statement that "the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless" (2 Pet. 3:7).¹⁷

This view is more difficult to correct than conservative views of the incarnation and atonement because we cannot simply supplement it with other millennial views, which are in fundamental conflict with dispensationalism. Instead we must adopt two strategies. First, we must recover a biblically holistic view of the church's mission by creating openness to the church's mission to witness to the whole work of God—not just the salvation of "souls" or individuals, but also the redemption of the cosmos. If we do our work well on the doctrines of incarnation and atonement, that will provide a basis for further discussion of the church's mission to witness to the good news for all creation. Second, we must address the discontinuity between this world and the next in two ways. One way is by leaving in place the belief in discontinuity but calling the church to witness to the integrity and peace of the new creation by our care for this creation. We must love this creation if we are to show the love of the Creator-Word who gave his life for it, so that it can be made new. Here we must carefully distinguish the alien rule of creation—this present age of darkness—from the rightful rule of the good Creator even over the fallen cosmos.

Another way to address belief in discontinuity is to recover the biblical passages that emphasize continuity between the present creation and the new creation. My students are often amazed by the passage in Revelation that proclaims "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev. 21:1). In the popular imagination of conservative Christians, life after death is typically a disembodied state lived in an ethereal heaven. This results from many Christians confusing the intermediate state between death and resurrection with the final state. But it also often results from an attenuation of biblical teaching on eschatology and a narrowly apologetic focus on the resurrection of Christ. In conservative Christianity we spend a lot of theological energy providing evidence for the resurrection but fail to explore significantly the theological implications of the physical resurrection of Christ as a precursor of our own resurrection.

Conservative Christians believe in the physical resurrection, but we have not thought out the implications for our life in the final state. If God is going to give us resurrected bodies, partly continuous and partly discontinuous with our present bodies, will God not do the same for all creation? And if we are to care for our present bodies, though they will be changed, should we not care for all creation, though it too will be changed? Should we not even now witness to the redemption of all creation through the work of Christ? If we witness now only to the redemption of humankind, have we not attenuated the biblical gospel?

Conclusion

If my argument is correct, then conservative Christians have deep but largely unrecognized theological reasons for opposing environmental concerns. The call to care for creation challenges the very way that we have come to understand the doctrines that shape our identity. Recognizing this challenge may enable us to recover some neglected and distorted aspects of the gospel.¹⁸

Running through my argument has been the implicit judgment that conservative Christianity, in its proper defence of Christ's divinity, has drifted into a Christology that is functionally Gnostic—we have no articulated account of Jesus as fully human, the incarnate Son who is both Creator and a participant in creation. In our defence of penal substitution, we have a God who rescues humankind from creation rather than a God who redeems the good creation. In our eschatology, we have an irredeemably bad creation; the only option is for God to start over, de novo. Implicit in all of this is a Gnostic view of humankind, which participates in creation only because we are fallen. Once we are saved, we enter a kind of bubble, a lifeboat that preserves us for salvation while the rest of creation goes to hell.

Over against this, biblical Christians are called to recover the full gospel, which celebrates and witnesses to a good Creator-Redeemer, who created all things good and who comes in love to that creation in order to fulfill the intention with which that God, the God proclaimed by Jesus Christ, originally created. In Christ, the Triune God has defeated the anti-creation forces of the universe, established the peace of creation and declared it once again "very good." May God grant us the grace to live as witnesses to that good news and to call others to greater biblical faithfulness.