40 COLLOQUIUM 27/1 (1995)

Christology and Ecology: A New Perspective

John Davis
Lincoln College
45 Brougham Place, Adelaide. SA 5006

John Davis is Vice-Principal of Lincoln

College.

Introduction

The following paper will seek to address Lynn White's assertion that the
religious roots of the ecological crisis requires a religious solution.1 The
following paper will seek to reinterpret the incarnation of Christ in ecological
terms. The figure of Christ is central to the Christian faith, and the redemptive
work of Christ, both in his death and in the first century perception of his
resurrection, remains central to the Christian perception of the nature of
reality.
The following argument will begin by outlining the scope and the
limitations of the paper, and proceed to examine the biblical basis for an
ecological Christology, and, by dialoguing with Teilhard's theology, seek a
new post-modern ecological perception of the Christ event.

1. The Argument's Scope and Limitations

To attempt a holistic ecological philosophy or theology is beyond the

scope of the following paper. Therefore it is necessary to examine the
parameters within which the following argument will be working.
The focus of the essay will be upon ways in which the Christ event can be
redefined to encompass the entire earth community and beyond. It will be an
attempt to change 'the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land
community to plain member and citizen of it',2 and to recognise, through the
'love, respect, and admiration' which will be evoked by this fresh realisation,
that the earth community, of which we are merely one part, is intrinsically
valuable/
 DAVIS: CHRISTOLOGY & ECOLOGY 41

Although the paper's aim is for a more holistic understanding of the world
from a Christian perspective, it does not pretend to be comprehensive. At
least two important aspects of ecological philosophy will be missing:
Attempting to overcome 'naturism' is merely one part of a deeper problem
in a society which is still basically patriarchal. Overcoming the oppression of
the environment cannot be addressed in isolation from other forms of
oppression such as sexism, racism and classism. Environmental philosophers
can only effectively address the ecological problem by listening to all voices
of oppression. To neglect this task is to forfeit the title of 'holistic', and to
risk being blind to the biases through which their philosophies may have been
formed/
The following argument also runs the risk of being accused of
'environmental fascism' since its focus is not upon individuals but upon the
earth community as a whole. One of the major tasks of environmental
philosophers and theologians is to overcome the dualisms which have led to
the ecological crisis. It seems inconceivable that they would seek to replace
one set of dualisms for another which downplays the importance of the
individual.5
That these issues will not be addressed should in no way imply that they
are unimportant. The following argument will be merely one facet of a
Christology which can embrace all oppression, both individual and collective.
This holistic Christology, in turn, serves as just one facet of a larger dialogue
which embraces a diverse range of holistic theologies and philosophies which
extend beyond the boundaries of Christianity.

2. The New Testament Evidence For an Inclusive Christology

Many Christians see Scripture as God's final word on the nature of reality.
For this reason it is necessary to show that the biblical record presents Christ
as universally significant. The image of the Christ event which embraces the
cosmos is captured in a number of New Testament passages,6 a picture which
can be shown by a brief discussion of Colossians 1:15-20.
The first aspect of this passage which deserves note is the linkage of Jesus
with the Wisdom tradition.7 One of the poignant aspects of this tradition is the
feminine nature of Wisdom. The dynamic which this gives Christology is
striking:

In Jesus Christ we encounter the mystery of God who is neither male nor
female, but who as the source of both and Creator of both in the divine image
can in turn be imaged as either. Through wisdom christology we see that Her
saving power and love are poured forth in the world through this crucified
human being — a coincidence of opposites in every dimension.
42 COLLOQUIUM 27/1 (1995)

It is generally accepted9 that this hymn, in its current form, is a redaction

of an earlier hymn. The original hymn probably did not contain 'the church'
after 'he is the head of the body' (v. 18). The general populace of the day
would, in the original version of the hymn, have linked Christ's body with the
cosmos.10 The new version can be seen as even more radical. Inserting 'the
church' is a means of establishing a link between the two strophes (15-18a and
18b-20). The writer wants to avoid separating cosmology and soteriology.
Thus, the body of the cosmos is defined as the church, and the creative and
redemptive power of God in Christ is universal.11
The New Testament church links Christ with the cosmos and with
Wisdom, making the significance of the event at once universal and non-
hierarchical. This passage has prompted non-biblical scholars to conclude that
'what is instructive about this early Wisdom Christology of the New
Testament is the insistent reference to creation as the primary context for
understanding the universal significance of the Christ event'.12 Since 'the
same spirit which was in Jesus animated the whole universe', and God is
shown to be the God of 'all things' (vv. 16,17,20), then it logically follows
that: 'Nature as well as human history is the theatre of grace'.13

3. Creation and Incarnation: Theological Issues

Central to the Christian understanding of reality is the doctrine of the

incarnation. The way in which incarnation is perceived will determine the
nature of a Christian's understanding of, and relationship with the world.

a) Early Christologies

From the time of Chalcedon, the divine and human natures of Christ have
been stressed. However, the modern focus upon the historical nature of Jesus
was almost completely overlooked.14 The imbalance of this perception of
Christ has a number of problems in a post-modern world:
The image of God breaking into this world obscures the perception of
the continuing presence of God in creation.
The basically docetic picture of Christ undermines the importance of
the human person.
The understanding of Christ's vocation being fixed from birth projects
a static understanding of the nature of his reality.
Each of these perceptions serves to objectify humanity.15 It has the
dehumanising effect of undermining the importance of historical reality by
emphasising the divine nature of Christ. This has led mainstream Christianity
 DAVIS: CHRISTOLOGY & ECOLOGY 43

to perceive the plight of the physical world as unimportant since 'ultimate

reality' is non-material.
Recapturing the biblical understanding of the cosmic Christ opens the door
for a new dialogue; one which places the Christ event within cosmic history.
However, it is not possible to merely take the cosmic picture of Christ out of
the first century and display it on a 1990's screen. The barriers of a different
worldview will destroy the essential significance of this event. The first
century universe was fixed and closed whereas 'the basic qualities of this
emerging post-modern cosmology are organic, processive, inclusive, non-
patriarchal, holistic and radically relational'.16

b) Searching for a Science/Theology Dialogue: Teilhard

This issue is addressed by P. Teilhard de Chardin, one of the forerunners

in the science/theology dialogue. Teilhard's theology is based upon an
evolutionary understanding of the world. He is attempting to liberate theology
from a static cosmology, and did so by utilising Darwinian evolution.17
Teilhard perceives an evolving world pressing ever forward towards what
he terms the Omega Point', which 'finds its shape and its natural consistency
in gravitating against the tide of probability towards a divine focus of mind
which draws it onward'.18 The Omega Point is 'the gathering up and
fulfilment of all things in a spiritual culmination'.ly
The heart of Teilhard's theology is 'Christie': 'Doubtless I should never
have ventured to envisage the [conception of the Omega Point] or formulate
the hypothesis rationally if, in my consciousness as a believer, I had not found
not only its speculative model but also its living reality'.20 Teilhard captures
this understanding in his discussion of the incarnation:

The Incarnation means the renewal, the restoration, of all the energies and
powers of the universe; Christ is the instrument, the Centre and the End of all
creation, animate and material; through him everything is created, hallowed,
quickened."

Jesus is the pinnacle of human consciousness, the example of living in the

image of God.22 However, this does not mean that the Christ is a static figure.
Christ, too, will only be fully evolved at the Omega Point, for the following
reason:

Christ is not yet fully formed: he has not yet gathered about him the last
folds of his robe of flesh and of love which is made up of his faithful
followers. The mystical Christ has not yet attained to his full growth; and
therefore the same is true of the cosmic Christ/'
44 COLLOQUIUM 27/1 (1995)

Thus the cosmic Christ is fulfilled by providing 'the energy that can bond
people together and bring evolution to its intended completion'.24

c) Post-Modern Problems with Teilhard

There are considerable problems with Teilhard's theology which need to

be addressed. Using these criticisms, this paper will search for the basis of a
new model of the cosmic Christ which addresses the current ecological crisis.

i) Victims of Evolution

Teilhard's radically positivistic view of the nature of world evolution fails

to consider the plight of the victims of 'progress'.25 The positive appreciation
of the evolution of life does not figure prominently in the experience of post-
modern existence.26 Any Christology which fails to create a picture of God
participating in human and non-human suffering, is a Christology which fails
to consider the humanity of Jesus, an image which cannot be overlooked if
Christ is to be relevant to our world. An explicitly Christian theology can
only be attempted by keeping the incarnational tensions balanced.
Traditionally the humanity of Jesus has been downgraded in favour of a male
divinity, which is the basis of human salvation. The androcentricity of the
'gospel' message is contradicted by Jesus of Nazareth who 'manifests in his
own life and death that the heart of the universe is unqualified and inclusive
love'.27 The love of Jesus centres around the plight of the victims of a world
which venerates the 'winners'.

ii) Pinnacles of Evolution

Teilhard perceives humanity as the pinnacle of evolution; as the goal to

which evolution has been progressing, and the means by which the Omega
Point will be reached. That the incarnation of God was human is no accident,
since it is human history which will ultimately lead the cosmos to its destiny.
In order to critique these claims it is necessary to set the scene by examining
the doctrine of redemption and the death and resurrection of Christ.

Redemption

Most Christians, when asked why God became human, would reply that
the human creature is fallen and it 'is therefore appropriate that the first fruits
of redemption should be the free, obedient and loving self-offering of this true
human life to God the Father'.28 This is the answer of people who see the
main dimensions of the gospel as anthropological.29 Writers, such as Gunton,
 DAVIS: CHRISTOLOGY & ECOLOGY 45

are rightly suspicious of 'a deification of the evolutionary process'.30

However, in dismissing its significance, and fighting against any doctrine
which may in some way be considered pantheistic, they need to keep the
transcendent nature of God distinct from the human nature of Jesus, such that
'to see the suffering of Jesus in terms of the suffering of God, is to lose the
strong and important biblical teaching that God does not suffer history'.31
Thus the otherness of God is important because it highlights the
'independence and freedom' of creation.32
This understanding of redemption reflects the incarnational image of a God
breaking into history from outside. In the context of a suffering world it needs
to be recognised that the incarnation 'is not some isolated divine intrusion that
took place at one moment two thousand years ago but is rather the culmination
and crystallisation of a process initiated at the dawn of time'.33 A new and
meaningful understanding of redemption can be captured by a picture where
Jesus:

... carries within himself the signature of the supernovas and the geology
and life history of the Earth...If, for example, flowering trees and shrubs had
not appeared 300 million years ago, then mammalian life would not have
followed. Without that concentration of nutrients no human being, including
Christ, would ever have walked on Earth. So that particular memory and every
other memory of the emergent process is carried within the Christ reality."

A perception of the meaning of redemption can also be affected by the

Scotist question: Would God have revealed God's self in cosmic history if
there was no humanity to redeem? Many scholars believe that the incarnation
was purely a gracious act on God's part, and not dependent upon external
factors.3' This image dispels the anthropocentricity of the incarnation.
Therefore, it can be concluded that apart from the evolution of the cosmos,
the Christ figure would not have been human. Furthermore, humanity need
not have existed for the event to take place, and redemption need not be a
necessary factor in God's self-revelation to nature.

Death/Resurrection

The previous discussion outlines an impression of God's attitude towards

creation as a whole. The reality of history is that sin,36 in its various forms, is
a part of world history. God's gracious self-giving, although not determined
by the world's need for redemption, nevertheless includes redemption.
Therefore, the incarnation can not be construed as anthropocentric or
androcentric. God gave God's self to creation. The Christ event has cosmic
46 COLLOQUIUM 27/1 (1995)

significance. This understanding, in turn, transforms the way in which the

death and resurrection of Jesus is interpreted.
When Jesus died, God showed that 'God is present in the processes of life
and death we share with the rest of the planet'.37 However, the resurrection
speaks of a hope which transcends death. In the resurrection God is saying
that the 'God who raised the dead is the same God who as creator calls into
being the things that are not'.38 The openness of the resurrection contradicts
the finality of death. It opens nature up to the possibilities of new creation; of
creating new life out of that which was alive but has died; of renewing and
transforming that which was transient into that which transcends transience.
The resurrection, therefore, 'is not simply a new relationship between Jesus
and the belie ver... but a transformation of all visible reality into a cosmic
unity'.39 The divine power of God which has been imminent in creation since
the beginning of time has been explicitly demonstrated in the risen Christ and
mediated 'through the humanity of Jesus, the first fruits of the new creation'.40
The cosmic dimensions of the resurrection highlights the universal
significance of the death of Jesus.11

Teilhard Critiqued

Teilhard endorses the cosmic dimensions of redemption. However, his

theology posits humanity as the necessary medium of incarnation since it is
the pinnacle of evolution. This anthropocentric Christology is rightly
condemned by Moltmann.42 There is a need for a different understanding of
the processes of life which dethrones man from his privileged position.
One way of changing how creation is perceived is to examine life from the
perspective of deep ecology. Evolution is not seen as a linear process which
finds its pinnacle in a particular life form:

The fact that all life forms are the products of distinct evolutionary
pathways and ecological relationships means that, at any given point in time,
they should be thought of as more or less perfect (complete) examples of their
own kind.

Another path which could be taken towards placing humanity within its
proper perspective has been examined by James Lovelock in his Gaia
hypothesis. He states that concepts such as pollution are anthropological by
nature. He asserts that people have invented the term, and assigned universal
tragic consequences to its spread. According to Lovelock, it is not life which
is ultimately threatened by pollution, but human life. He perceives the
regenerative powers of Gaia as greater than the human threat to its existence.*1
 DAVIS: CHRISTOLOGY & ECOLOGY 47

d) Towards a New Incarnational Model

Drawing the above thoughts and criticisms together creates the possibility
of building a new model of God's gracious incarnation.
The early Christian model of the incarnation can be superseded by the
image of the cosmic Christ for the following reasons:

• The cosmic understanding of the incarnation is supported by scriptural

evidence.
• The incarnation can only be relevant if it is placed within the context of
a post-modern understanding of a dynamic universe.
• The incarnation needs to be viewed as the gracious self-revelation of
God in cosmic history, and not dependent upon human action.
• The incarnation is inclusive, embracing all of the ambiguities of
evolution and history, as evidenced in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
It is non-hierarchical, non-anthropocentric and non-androcentric.

The reality of the situation is that the Christ event took place in a world in
need of redemption:

• In the suffering and death of Jesus, God identified with the suffering
and transience of nature.
• In the resurrection of Jesus, God revealed that nature could hope in the
new life which transcends the present suffering and transience.
• In the life of Jesus, God revealed that the correct attitude towards life is
one of servanthood.

This understanding of incarnation overcomes the problems of Teilhard's

positivism:

• That Christ was God in human form reflects, not humanity as the
pinnacle of creation, but humanity as an ongoing and interdependent
part of the history of the cosmos.
• That humanity is merely incidental to the incarnation highlights the
relative contingency of humanity.
• That the grace of God was imminent in creation before human
existence, and will continue beyond human existence, necessitates an
attitude towards the cosmos which can not be anthropocentric.
48 COLLOQUIUM 27/1 (1995)

Conclusion

The current ecological crisis testifies to the human destruction of God's

creation. Life forms which have been lovingly formed over billions of years
are being extinguished by a life form which has lost contact with its cosmic
history. By exploring the depths of the incarnation humanity can begin to
restore its perception of its own cosmic reality and history, and see destruction
of nature as the destruction of its own nature.
This paper has attempted to broaden the significance of the Christ event to
the extent that the humanity of Christ was incidental rather than central to
God's self-revelation to creation. It opens up the possibility of history
extending beyond human existence, and serves to highlight the magnitude of
the grace of God, which envelops a vast history of which humanity is but a
brief chapter.
The image of the crucified Christ reveals a God who embraces the reality
of suffering within God's own being. It opens God up to the possibility of
vulnerability to human action. If Christ embodies what it means to be truly
human, and his message and significance was non-anthropocentric, non-
androcentric and non-hierarchical, then to embrace any other philosophy
means that not only can people not call themselves Christian, they cannot call
themselves human. To be human is to accept one's integral relationship with
the rest of creation, and to fight all forms of oppression, whether against the
human or the non-human environment.

NOTES

1 L. White Jr., 'The Historical Roots of Our Ecologie Crisis', Science, vol.155,
no.3767, 1967, pp. 1203-1207.
2 A. Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (Oxford University Press, 1949, 1987) p.
204.
3 See, Leopold, p. 223.
4 For a discussion of a feminist approach to ecological holism see, for example,
K. J. Warren, * Feminism and Ecology: Making Connections', Environmental
Ethics, 9:1, 1987, pp. 3-20.
5 This problem is addressed by M. E. Zimmerman, 'Feminism, Deep Ecology,
and Environmental Ethics', Environmental Ethics, 9:1, 1987, pp. 21-44 (esp.
pp. 35,36). This problem is addressed in more detail by L. E. Johnson, A
Morally Deep World (Cambridge University Press, 1991), where he calls for
'an environmental philosophy which is both deep and shallow' (p. 242), and
his overall argument perceives holism as involving both individual and
collective interests by defining the individual in deontological rather than
utilitarian terms.
 DAVIS: CHRISTOLOGY & ECOLOGY 49

6 The most frequently cited examples from the Pauline corpus being Philippians
2:6-11; Romans 8:19-23; Ephesians 1:3-14; Colossians 1:15-20. In addition to
these examples is the John 1 passage which clearly links Christ with the
Genesis account of creation.
7 In Judaism Wisdom is often personified, and is equated with the creative force
of the universe. See for example the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.
The identification of Christ with the Wisdom tradition in this passage is
described in detail by James Dunn, Christology in the Making (SCM, 1980,
1989) pp. 187-194.
8 Elizabeth Johnson, 'Jesus the Wisdom of God', Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses, vol.61, 1985, p. 280. Johnson affirms Dunn's treatment of
Wisdom but is rightly critical of the androcentric nature of his discussion.
9 For examples: E. Schweizer, Jesus Christ (SCM, 1987), p. 24; E.
Schillebeeckx, Christ: The Christian Experience in the Modern World (SCM,
1980), p. 186; M. P. Horgan,'The Letter to the Colossians', in R. E. Brown,
et. al., The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Geoffrey Chapman, 1990), p.
879.
10 Schillebeeckx, p. 186. This understanding is generally agreed upon by
scholars.
11 See Dunn, p. 191. This interpretation is not universally accepted. For
example Schillebeeckx, p. 187, states that the insertion of 'the church' is
reason enough to conclude that 'Colossians does not have a cosmic theology'.
See also Horgan, p. 879.
12 D. Lane, Christ at the Centre (Paulist Press, 1991), p. 152.
13 C. Birch, On Purpose (NSW University Press, 1990), p. 97.
14 Lane, p. 131
15 See Lane, pp. 133-136.
16 ibid., p. 148. Lane presents an excellent brief picture of the natures of pre-
modern, modern and post-modern cosmologies on pp. 146-148.
17 See B. Hill, Jesus the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives (Twenty-Third
Publications, 1991), p. 129
18 P. Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (Collins, 1959), p. 298.
19 J. Macquarrie, Jesus Christ in Modern Thought (SCM, 1990), p. 314. The
theory of the Omega Point is discussed in detail in The Phenomenon of Man,
pp. 283-299.
20 P. Teilhard de Chardin, cited in C. F. Mooney, Teilhard de Chardin and the
Mystery of Christ (Collins, 1966), p. 24. For a discussion of Teilhard's
Christology see especially Mooney, pp. 22-33.
21 P. Teilhard de Chardin, Hymn of the Universe (Collins, 1965), p. 131. This
cosmic picture of Christ is also caught in his discussion of the sacraments on
p. 13.
22 Hill, p. 130.
23 Hymn of the Universe, p. 121. Although it may seem that there is a logical
problem with this argument, such that, the 'robe' determines the final form of
Christ, this is not the case. Teilhard reads history from the end, and is not an
advocate of process thinking. Mooney, pp. 203,204, criticises this dynamic
50 COLLOQUIUM 27/1 (1995)

picture of Christ, but his solution to the problem is to return to the static Christ
figure of the early tradition. Teilhard's attempt, whilst not satisfying most
modern theologians, opens the door for a new and relevant image of Christ to
emerge.
24 Hill, p. 130.
25 See, for example, Moltmann's examination, pp. 294,295, of Teilhard's positive
reaction to Hiroshima and faith in the continuance of human existence even in
the face of threat from atomic disaster.
26 See, for example, L. E. Johnson, pp. 36-40, for an examination of the
ambiguities of evolution, and the attitudes towards nature of those who are in
favour of an ever advancing technological and industrial world. Especially
poignant is the quote from John D. Rockefeller, p. 37, note 10.
27 A. Primavesi, From Apocalypse to Genesis (Fortress Press, 1991), pp.
128,129. Primavesi discusses clearly the non-hierarchical human nature of
Jesus on p. 129.
28 C. E. Gunton, Christ and Creation (Eerdmans, 1992), p. 58.
29 See, for example, Gunton, p. 32.
30 ibid., p. 48.
31 ibid., p. 87.
32 ibid., p. 91.
33 Lane, p. 154.
34 S. McDonagh, To Care for the Earth (Geoffrey Chapman, 1986) pp. 118,119.
35 This is the view of D. Edwards, Jesus and the Cosmos (St. Paul, 1991), p. 86,
and Gunton, p. 96. What is interesting to note is the different perspectives
from which these essentially opposing views arrive at the same conclusion on
this point: the first, non-anthropocentric, and the second, quite explicitly
opposite.
36 This paper understands 'sin' as any form of oppression which causes one being
or community of beings to seek prosperity from the exploitation or destruction
of another.
37 Primavesi, pp. 132,133.
38 Moltmann, p. 281.
39 P. Wilson-Kastner, 'Does the World Have a Future?', Church and Society
Documents, 1988, No.5, p. 16.
40 Edwards, p. 131.
41 Moltmann, pp. 282,283.
42 ibid., p. 274.
43 W. Fox, Toward a Transpersonal Ecology (Shambhala, 1990), p. 200. This
sentiment is echoed by L. E. Johnson, pp. 272,273.
44 See J. E. Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (Oxford University
Press, 1979, 1987). The section most relevant to the question of pollution is
between pages 107 and 122.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.