In spite of substantial progress over the past several decades, there are a number of areas that require further attention.
Th e fi rst area relates to public theology, given the place of the church in the public square. One criticism is that the various disciplines dealing with environmental issues tend to operate very much in their own space. It is imperative that all related fi elds of social, scientifi c, agricultural and theological perspectives should engage with each other in a constructive manner. Th at implies that the multiple dialogues referred to earlier need more attention.
Th e second area involves the ongoing process of theological refl ection.
Books in the fi eld of ecotheology continue to appear; but the fi eld as such is not always well integrated with theology generally and does not always appear to fi lter through to teaching. Th e theology of mission is a particular area of
concern. In many cases, mission is still based unashamedly on anthropocentric assumptions.
Th ird, in redefi ning mission for the twenty-fi rst century, it is vital that eco-mission is recognized as an integral part of the missio Dei and not as some kind of ‘ optional extra ’ . Our understanding of the reign of God and God ’ s mission needs to go beyond human well-being to include the whole of creation.
Th e theological base for Christian mission that includes Earth demands the mainstreaming of eco-mission. Th ere is much to be done before that is achieved. In real terms, and in spite of fi ne statements, eco-mission remains largely at the margin.
Fourth, the earlier reference to the church as the people of God that includes Israel raises the whole matter of our relationship with land. As Field puts it, in the light of God ’ s call to Israel to be the people of God in a particular land, what does it mean for a church called by God to be ‘ the transnational people of God scattered throughout the world constituted by communities of people who live in dynamic inter-dependence with the earth ’ . 43
Fift h, an important implication is that as church we need to understand our context as fully as possible. While it is true that ecological mission does not emerge directly from the theme of crisis in a pragmatic sense, it is nevertheless essential that such a mission is informed by an adequate analysis of the forces that are destroying the Earth, so that the people of God can identify with those who are marginalized by environmental degradation. In practical terms, people are increasingly concerned about how they can have a smaller ecological footprint while, at another level, there is a greater awareness of the eff ects that rising sea levels will have not only on small Pacifi c nations but also in low-lying areas with large populations. Climate change will have a disproportionate impact on the poorest and most vulnerable.
A sixth area relates to governance and ministry. Th is has not received much attention in recent times, but our time-honoured assumptions, traditions and practices need to be looked at again in the context of caring for creation. In view of the move away from ‘ top-down ’ models of governing institutions inherent in contemporary global environmental governance, greater emphasis needs to
43 D. Field, ‘ I Believe in the Holy Earthy Church: Toward an Ecological Reinterpretation of the Holiness
of the Church ’ , Scriptura 111, pp. 333 – 47 (333 – 34).
be placed on the participation of all church members as the oikoumene works collectively and collaboratively to protect the integrity of creation.
Seventh, the possibilities of ecumenical action on behalf of the Earth are very real. Offi cial church statements refl ect substantial agreement across the range of confessional traditions. What is now required is engagement at the local and regional level. Such engagement may go far in helping to break down unnecessary barriers and to open up fresh opportunities in the wider community. At some point, we are bound to pause and consider the implications of our relations with people of other faiths. Given the magnitude of the global environmental threat, the possibilities of signifi cant engagement alongside people of other faiths and secular organizations need to be taken seriously. In 2000, the United Nations Environment Programme demonstrated the extent of common ground in Earth care and made a plea for religion and science to work together for the sake of the planet. 44 As a paper prepared ahead of the Edinburgh 2010 Conference rightly affi rmed, ‘ Care for creation is no doubt a promising theme for inter-religious dialogue. ’ 45
Finally, there is a need to close the gap between rhetoric and action. It is not enough for churches to make pronouncements about environmental issues or to state what they believe governments should be doing. Th e Christian community also has an obligation, even a divine calling, to set its own house in order and to engage in practical eco-mission along with other groups with a related vision. One expression of that commitment will be its inclusion in the mission budget of ecclesial bodies! Th e widespread recognition of an ecocrisis presents a signifi cant opportunity for a practical public theology, or for what might be termed ‘ mission in the public square ’ . A signifi cant programme of education for eco-mission should be part of that.
Conclusion
We may ask again: where on Earth is the church? Th ere is no simple answer to that question. In this essay, I have shown that Earth and church are invariably
44 L. Bassett (ed.), Earth and Faith: A Book of Refl ection for Action (New York: UNEP, 2000). See also
the contributions by Heather Eaton and Kim Yong-Bock in this volume.
45 John Knox International Reformed Centre, Witnessing in the Midst of a Suff ering Creation – a
Challenge for the Mission of the Church: A Letter to Churches, Mission Agencies and all Christians Concerned with the Church ’ s Mission (Geneva: John Knox Centre, 2007), p. 21.
linked. I have argued that the nature of the church as the community or body of Christ and as the household of God carries signifi cant implications for the orientation of the church as a movement of God that is not turned in upon itself. Th e church participates in the mission of God that extends to the whole Earth. Practices regarding the governance and ministry of the church vary signifi cantly and can either help or hinder the work of God. Nevertheless, as I have suggested, one key element is whether God is a temple-dwelling, institutional God or a tent-dwelling, mobile God whom we are called to follow amidst the issues of our time. While there is a long way to go, some of us at least are able to hear the call of God in the cries of an embattled Earth.