Pentecostals and Ecology Part 2

by Shane Clifton

Eschatology is only one aspect of Pentecostalism’s theology of creation, which is often framed at the other end of history with six day, young earth creationism. This understanding of creation finds its theological impetus in literalistic readings of the Scripture, but it finds its emotional support in the affirmation of the uniqueness of humankind; the complete distinction between intelligent humanity and the “dumb” ape.  Without wishing to enter into the hermeneutical and scientific debates surrounding this fundamentalist understanding of the beginnings of the universe, the ecological problem relates to the explicit setting of humanking above nature.

Douglas Hall, in critiquing the Western church’s conception and application of the doctrine of the imago dei, argues that Christian theology has too readily created a hierarchic evaluation of creation which “bequeaths to all subsequent Christian anthropology a view of the human as being incapable of solidarity with other creatures and, in fact, hardly a creature at all.”[i] He goes on to note that, while the fact of human creaturehood cannot be denied, the distinction between body and soul (or spirit) assigns that creatureliness to the realm of the body, with the essential aspect of the imago dei being the rational and volitional soul. This distinction enables Christian (and post Christian society) to deny, for all intents and purposes, its inter-connection with “critters” and the creation as a whole. While Hall’s critique is of the entire Western Christian tradition, his analysis is particularly relevant to movements which hold to six day creationism, which entrenches humanities separation from creation by refusing any association between humankind and other species (specifically apes).

 

It should be noted that neither young earth creationism, nor the effective separation of humanity from the creation, are essential to Pentecostalism.[ii] Yet it cannot be denied that the tendency toward a truncated view of creation (i.e. as only six thousand years old, and at the rapture to be rendered obsolete), and the consequent anthropological focus, has coloured the movement’s proclamation of the gospel as a whole. Having said this, the development of a Pentecostal theology of creation does not necessarily entail the rejection of conservative six day creationism. Since an anti-evolutionary stance is so entrenched in the psyche of many Pentecostals, the linking of ecotheology to an evolutionary position may actually entrench the bias against an ecological priority, reinforcing the view that environmental Christians are “liberal.” It is also no solution to simply equate humanity with creation, as though homo-sapien is merely another animal. Instead, it will be necessary to revision the Pentecostal understanding of creation such that our anthropology continues to affirm humanity’s unique status and role, while at the same time recognising its creatureliness.

 

For Pentecostals, the revisioning of a theology of creation starts with the Spirit, leading to the development of a “pneumatological theology of creation.”[iii] Central to Pentecostal self-understanding is the priority afforded to the experience of the Spirit (or, rather, the experience of the triune God through the power of the Spirit[iv]). At a minimum, Pentecostals describe their experience of the Spirit in terms of the empowering of the flesh (e.g. tongues as the “initial physical evidence”), and understand the power of the Spirit of the incarnate Jesus in healing the physical body. This orientation provides an experiential basis for Pentecostals to challenge their appropriation of traditional (gnostic) oppositions between the Spirit and the flesh (or matter). It also provides a point of agreement that will enable Pentecostals to engage with the ecumenical discussions surrounding ecological pneumatology, which have generally included a critique of the Spirit / flesh antithesis.[v] In contrast to the Greek definition of Spirit, as the opposite of matter, the biblical portrayal of rûach and pneuma as the giver of life specifically rejects such antithesis, since the Spirit itself is discovered as the life force empowering, and working within the material universe. This insight has led to wide-ranging ecumenical developments which frame the Spirit’s role in creation.

 

A pneumatological theology of creation recognises the Spirit’s work from “the perspective of the beginning of time.”[vi] Lyle Dabney, for example, notes that while an understanding of God as creator reveals the autonomy and distinction of the creature from the creator, the affirmation of the presence of the Spirit, hovering even in the darkness of the pre-populated world (Gen 1:2), helps us to affirm that the transcendent God is, in fact, never absent from creation. Even in the most remote location and desolate situation, the Spirit’s creative presence pervades the world as the certain reality that the wholly Other God is nonetheless completely present, serving as “the premonition of God’s creative possibility.”[vii] The creation that is infused with the Spirit is also declared to be inherently valuable (i.e. “good”), and intimately connected to the purposes of giving glory to God. In this light the unique function of the human creature made in God’s image is to exercise “dominion,” not in terms of domination, but in terms of participation with the Spirit in God’s stewardship of the world.

 

From the perspective of historical and future time, the Spirit that in the beginning breathed life “to the void” continues, in the face of the myriad “voids” generated by human sin (which have created devastation not only for humankind, but in the whole earth), to infuse creation with the premonition of God’s possibility,[viii] an idea which challenges both passivity and pessimism when it comes to social and environmental problems. This understanding of the Spirit gives rise to the affirmation, often neglected in fundamentalist theologies, that creation continues.[ix] As Clark Pinnock observes, “A power of creativity is a work in the universe, which can be viewed as a creaturely perichoresis of dynamic systems echoing the Trinitarian mystery.”[x]  It thereby reinforces the unity of Christian conceptions of creation and redemption. The Spirit of life is the messianic Spirit of creation and new creation, overcoming corruption and transforming the world into its consummate status as “the Kingdom of God". This has substantial implications for the way in which the gospel is understood. It is to this matter we shall turn our attention next.

 

---

[i] Douglas John Hall, Professing the Faith: Christian Theology in a North American Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 267.

[ii] As argued by Yong, The Spirit Poured Out, 269-271.

[iii] Yong, The Spirit Poured Out, 267.

[iv] In speaking of the Spirit, it is important to recognise the fact that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (and the son), so that when we speak of the Spirit’s role in creation – as the source and sustainer of life – we recognize that we are actually speaking of the work of triune God in creation (following Augustine’s doctrine of appropriations).

[v] See, for example, Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 160-161; Jürgen Moltmann, The Source of Life: The Holy Spirit and the Theology of Life, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM, 1997), 40.

[vi] See Moltmann’s description of the three perspectives of the time of creation; the perspective the perspective of the beginning of time (God’s having created); the perspective of historical time (God’s continuing creative activity) and; the perspective of eschatological time (the new heaven and new earth). Moltmann, God in Creation, 55.

[vii] Lyle Dabney, “The Nature of the Spirit: Creation as a Premonition of God,” Australian Theological Forum conference (2000): .

[viii] To borrow the language of Dabney.

[ix] Moltmann, God in Creation, 55.

[x] Clark Pinnock, The Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1996), 67.

Comments

[Deborah Taggart]

good stuff again :)

Would it be pushing things too far to focus on the idea that God gives us gifts/power for a purpose?

Then we can maybe link traditional Pentecostal hallmarks with a gift of stewardship/authority over creation....

eg. Spirit baptism/tongues/power -> boldness in witness
Spiritual gifts -> building the body into oneness
imago dei/'dominion' -> co-carers (with God) for creation

...but the caring in practice was somewhat stifled with humanity's sin and consequent exile from Eden, but stirred up again with the outpouring of the Spirit, with and in whom we once again are able to empathise and identify with all creation's groaning for restoration (Ro 8:22-23).

[Chris Petersen]

Very well said. I definitely look forward to future posts from you guys. Keep up the great blogging.

[bclark]

Interesting paper Shaneo,

From a historical perspective I would always debate the necessity to equate fundamentalism with theologically illiterate and narrow Scriptural literalists.

I have a family connection to a farmer with post graduate qualifications in science who would probably define himself as a fundamentalist and a creationist. Does that me he does not care about the environment? Most definitely not. In fact it is this surprising linkage of science and Scriptural hermeneutic that has led to some remarkable breakthroughs in farm management. Why? Because he cares about not only his livelihood but also the earth God has entrusted him with.

I'll forward this blog onto him and I'll get him to circulate it amongst his friends. As Pentecostalism is not primarily a written tradition but an oral one it is best to get comments of this nature from the horse's mouths.

Enjoy Hansei and Korea.

Ben

[B Stevens]

Dear Shane,
Great stuff. I will look forward to hearing the full paper in Korea. I think that a proper ecological theology needs to take seriously the resurrection of Jesus as first fruits of the new creation. The resurrection body, is more than an indicator the freedom to come but is the 'very stuff' of a new creation in which every believer is destined to partake. Is the present simply destined to be burnt up and replaced by the new, or is there theologically a meeting of new and old in transformed humanity and by implication a renewal of creation, leaving behind the deteriorating effects of sin.
Rough thoughts but I will continue to think about it because it has implications for pastoral counselling as well as nearly everything else.
Bruce

[jdowton]

Pentecostals talking Ecotheology...this is exiting!

Shane, I am really enjoying reading what you have posted thus far of your paper, and in particular your redirection of focus from the Creation/Evolution debate and onto this pneumataological theology of creation.

This redirection of focus highlights the Spirit's active role in creation, and points forward to the hope of new creation as transformation and liberation of the old. Therefore we groan together with the rest of creation in anticipation of this hope, and the Spirit (the in-breaking of this future reality) works within us now to work towards such a goal.

The implications for our concept of dominion are incredible, not to mention the whole range of social issues.

I do look forward to the continued discussion of these matters.

[Chris Baker]

Yay, finally, a grown up version of "myspace"! Now all we have to do is add pictures....

Shane I like your work and you've brought up many positive and constructive reflections. I particularly liked your balancing of humanity between the extremes of being just creature and being above nature. This I think is the point of the account in Gen1. Is it possible to say that our being made in the 'image' or 'likeness' of God is indicative of our separate status, while our 'dominion' or 'stewardship' is reflective of our identification as creatures? Further, could we say that our likeness with the triune God must be reflected in our stewardship over creation (I have in mind here a social trinitarian perspective), so therefore there exists an interdependency between these two themes which further emphasises the need for balance?

Rock on.

(I think we're going to be confused with the number of 'Chris's' on this blog!)

[Joshua Ballard]

Well, I am glad to see that this Blog is finally up and running, and with a great topic to start off conversation. I think my blogging topics will start to be shaped by this blog and the concepts that are stimulated by it.

Integrating trinitarian concepts into ecological concerns is a sure fire way to fry the old noodle, so the only question that will remain is "soft noodle or extra crispy"

Have fun over at Hansei...

[David Porter]

Cool Shane,

Great reading so far, but I am wondering how far you are going to push the redemptive aspect of the Gospel into the restoration of the environment. The reason that I ask this is becaue as Pentecostals we hold a belief in healing, and other miracles etc. This to some extent comes about as we view the Gospel as being a total redeption of the human being. Of course the Gospel is more than a total redemption of the human being it is also a redeption of all sin's effects including the fall of creation. Hence there are now some (mainly post-millennial Charasmatics from my experience) who would hold that if we are saved and restored physically then a fortiori the environment will be restored too. They point to the deserts of Iraq, which they blame on Islam to the perpetual paradise of America (which means meiguo or beautiful country in Chinese) beautiful because it is Christian. Does Christianity causally lead to a good enviroment and to what extent if it indeed does?

I am sure you have considered this already though.

[Joshua Ballard]

In my typical fashion of picking on points that probably have NOTHING to do with the direction of the discussion...I have posted my meager reflection on the draft paper at my blogspot...

http://joshballard.blogspot.com/2006/05/pentecostal-discussions-ecology.html

Please forgive the ignorance, but I hope that it is a START for my engagement with this topic. God knows Todd did compiled a HEAP of information on the subject, none of which I actually looked at.

I am eagerly awaiting the third installment.

[David Parker]

Fascinating paper! How does the apparent shift in eschatology, particularly in the mega churces of Pentecostalism, impinge on your juxtaposition of dispensationalism's otherworld focus and a growing concern for social action? Have you read Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Wild Animals (Mark 1:13): A Christological Image for an Ecological Age in J.B. Green and M. Turner Jesus of Nazareth Lord and Christ Eerdmans 1994, 3-21?

dave

[Chris Tilling]

Just got round to reading this. Really enjoyed it - I found it very thought provoking.

I wonder, do you think there is any positive point in discussing evolution when, as you say, it is so entrenched as an anti-Christian view? Should it just be avoided? Can it be done constructively?

[Shane Clifton]

Wow - there is so many brilliant comments here, not sure how to reply. Let me make a few brief responses in reverse order:

Chris - insightful question - challenging since, as you suggest, i have tried to avoid that debate. Let me say that the matter should definately be discussed, especially if we want our theology to be relevent to the contemporary context. We just need to choose the appropriate time and place. In this case, i did not want a discussion of the environment to be bogged down in a debate of evolutionism

Dave - havent read that book, but will do so

Josh - read your post and commented. Hope my response was useful

David - see my next post on redemption (and in the full paper i also discuss healing). Not sure i fully understand your comment on Islam

Chris - excellent commments. I think stewardship actually shows both our difference and our connection (only we have this function). I could definately do more with the trinitarianism and our relationship with God's creation

Josh - thanks

Bruce - wow, brilliant thoughts. In fact, i have now added this idea to my hansei paper (and referenced you of course!)

Ben - i actually think that my attempt to avoid the evolution debate proves your point that you can be a 6 day creationist and environmentally aware. I would say, however, that not many pentecostal christians actually are!

Chris - thanks for your encouragement

Deb - great insight. Follwing your logic, i reckon that Spirit baptism can definately be linked with our purose - if the spirit is the spirit of life, then surely our baptism extends to participation with the Spirit in his work throughout the creation!

Again - thanks for all your responses. keep em coming.