It should be clear from the above that the relationship between creation and salvation cuts to the very core of any theological position. Moreover, it is scarcely possible to separate one ’ s views on creation and salvation from views on sin, providence, the emergence of humanity, the church and the consummation of God ’ s work. At a colloquium hosted at the University of the Western Cape in South Africa in 2007, the question was reformulated as ‘ How are they telling (or distorting) the story of God ’ s work? ’ 36
I suggest that the plot of the story of God ’ s work of creation, salvation and consummation (not necessarily in that order) can be structured along four axes, namely, as the replacement of creation with a new creation not subjected
36 See E. M. Conradie (ed.), ‘ How are they Telling the Story? ’ , Scriptura 97 (2008), pp. 1 – 136; 98 (2008),
pp. 137 – 243.
to current problems, as the restoration of (an aspect of) creation, as the elevation of creation, or merely as recycling or becoming, a continuation of the evolutionary process for better or for worse.
(a) A plot structured in terms of replacement is widely discredited in Christian ecotheology but not easily discarded. It suggests that God ’ s creation will have to be replaced by something completely new. Th e old shoes may be thrown away and replaced with a new pair. In some Anabaptist and most dispensationalist theologies, this signals salvation from the earth that hardly supports an ecological spirituality, ethos and praxis. In fact, climate change may need to be furthered since that will hasten the return of Christ.
Nevertheless, this position is much harder to avoid than may appear at fi rst sight. Wherever the problem of natural suff ering becomes central, the only solution may well be a new dispensation not subject to the pain, suff ering, degeneration and mortality of the world as we know it. Th e term ‘ new creation ’ is then used to express the hope that God will act anew in future. J ü rgen Moltmann ’ s theology of hope, despite its clear intentions to the contrary, has oft en been criticized for its emphasis on this radically new creation. 37 Th e emphasis on discontinuity is clearly important in order to address current suff ering, but what kind of continuity may we hope for? Moltmann does suggest that ‘ the new creation takes the whole of the fi rst creation into itself as its own harbinger and prelude, and completes it. ’ 38 Such ‘ completion ’ or ‘ perfection ’ of the world to be without suff ering or violence may then be understood as ‘ elevation ’ rather than ‘ replacement ’ .
Notions of salvation seeking to overcome human fi nitude have been widely criticized, especially in ecofeminist circles. While the biblical witnesses to God ’ s Spirit seem to indicate a passionate love for that which is concrete, particular, embodied, fi nite and mortal, mortal human beings (especially males?) oft en hope to overcome such fi nitude. Th is is expressed in an implicit disgust for that which is bodily, capricious, corruptible and perishable (fl esh, defecation, degeneration, mortality), oft en viewed as our ‘ bondage to decay ’ . In response, salvation is understood as countering the gravitational pull of transience.
37 It needs to be noted that Moltmann has rejected this criticism. For a discussion, see Conradie,
Saving the Earth?, pp. 277 – 320.
38 See Moltmann, Th e Coming of God , p. 266.
Sharon Butcher comments: ‘ Horrifi ed by the Eucharistic liquidity of life, we have developed and carried through an articulation of Spirit an autoallergic reaction to our own humus, our mortal fl esh and earthly habitat. Sublime Spirit has been opposed to futile fl esh and underscored by a dissociative abhorrence of the material, organic, biotic aspects of being. Loathing insures that, while we are within the force fi eld of the earth, we hold ourselves “ apart from ” the earth. ’ 39
(b) In response, some ecofeminists suggest a plot that may be interpreted as the ‘ recycling ’ of that which is bodily, earthly and material. Rosemary Radford Ruether, for example, suggests that we as human beings should accept our own fi nitude, our own human scale and death as the fi nal relinquishment of individuated ego into the cosmic matrix of matter and energy. Th e earth is the womb out of which we arise at birth and into which we are content to return at death. 40 Accordingly, all the component parts of matter and energy that coalesced to make up our individuated self are not lost, but are taken up in the great matrix of being and thus become food for new beings to emerge. 41 In response to Ruether, Moltmann argues that Christian hope is thus turned into ‘ a pantheistic omnipresence of the everlasting matrix of life. ’ He adds that ‘ this eulogy on the good earth overlooks the fragility and destructibility of the earth ’ s organism and thus the earth ’ s own need of redemption. ’ 42
Th e question that one has to raise is how God ’ s agency is understood here, if at all. What diff erence does it make to speak about hope in God or in the continuation of the cycles of nature, or in the cosmic process of becoming? 43 One could say that the hope of being recycled is almost guaranteed but given the laws of entropy, hardly yields a vision of hope. Th is may show an appreciation for natural cycles but comes at the price of a sacralized secularism.
If theologies of replacement oft en remain deist, theologies of recycling tend
39 See S. Butcher, ‘ Grounding the Spirit: An Ecofeminist Pneumatology ’ , in L. Kearns and C. Keller
(eds.), Ecospirit: Religions and Philosophies for the Earth (New York: Fordham University Press, 2007), pp. 315 – 36 (325).
40 See R. R. Ruether, New Woman/New Earth: Sexist Ideologies and Human Liberation (New York:
Seabury Press, 1975), p. 211.
41 See R. R. Ruether, Sexism and God-talk: Toward a Feminist Th eology (London: SCM Press, 1983),
p. 258.
42 J. Moltmann, Th e Coming of God: Christian Eschatology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), p. 276.
43 Th e allusion here is to Catherine Keller ’ s ‘ theology of becoming ’ , in Face of the Deep (2003).
towards pantheism – for which ecofeminist theologies have oft en been criticized, although the charge is usually refuted.
(c) A theology of restoration typically understands the aim of creation in terms of God ’ s glory. Human sin is the root problem that has to be addressed.
Th e incarnation is a response to the fall of humanity only and is aimed at a restoration of the broken relationship between the Creator and (human) creatures. Th is is radicalized in Arnold van Ruler ’ s notion of the incarnation as an ‘ emergency measure ’ in response to the predicament of sin. 44 Sin has a non-necessary character, while salvation is aimed at allowing creatures to exist before God once again.
In the reformed tradition of Swiss, German and Dutch origins, the term ‘ re-creation ’ 45 has been used widely to suggest that the eschatological completion of God ’ s acts of salvation is indeed creative but aimed at healing God ’ s own creation. Th e emphasis is thus placed on the continuity of God ’ s work – in contrast with the concept nova creatio where the emphasis is on discontinuity. 46 Salvation and consummation are not completely new acts of God but are to be understood as ex vetere (John Polkinghorne). Re-creation is not a second creative act leading to a diff erent creation by God, replacing the old, but an act of creating something new out of the old. It is not merely a form of eternal maintenance but a salvifi c act of healing that which is broken.
In short, salvation means ‘ creation healed ’ (Howard Snyder). 47
Both continuity and discontinuity are important for an adequate eschatology, but this tension is exceptionally diffi cult to maintain. 48 A lack of continuity would lead to an escapist eschatology and would cast a dark cloud over the work of the Father. Does the work of the Spirit remain true to the work of the Father? Does the Father remain true to this earth? Are Christians therefore also called to remain true to the earth? It would take away any consolation if there were little or no continuity between my life and eternal
44 See, for example, A. A. van Ruler, Calvinist Trinitarianism and Th eocentric Politics: Essays towards a
Public Th eology (ed. J. Bolt; Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989), p. 131.
45 For a detailed investigation, see Conradie, Saving the Earth .
46 It should be noted that the concepts re-creatio and nova creatio express diff erent views on the
biblical metaphor kaine ktisis (new creation). Th e distinction between a metaphor and a theological conceptual model is therefore important for the sake of clarity. Th e concept nova creatio is not merely a translation of kaine ktisis but one particular (contested) interpretation of it.
47 See Snyder, Salvation Means Creation Healed , p. xii, and the subsequent argument of his book.
48 For a more detailed analysis, see chapter 16 of my Hope for the Earth .
life, this world and the world to come. But in what does such continuity lie?
Is there only an ideal continuity (the immortality of the soul) or also some form of material continuity (the resurrection of the body)? Or is the only continuity to be found in Godself, in God ’ s identity, character and loyalty? Or perhaps only in God ’ s eternal memory? But what salvation is embedded in an omniscient computer that forever keeps suff ering, injustices, and evil? Clearly, one can entertain thoughts about discontinuity (or glorifi cation) only once every form of Gnosticism, Manichaeism and Platonism have been banished.
By contrast, a lack of discontinuity would lead to a stoic or fatalist despair in the light of present suff ering, oppression and evil. It would yield a reductionist eschatology which disallows any creative acts by God. Indeed, the discontinuity in the loving and saving work of God may precisely express God ’ s loyalty to the ‘ old ’ creation. A lack of discontinuity would express the hope of the ruling class to retain the status quo. Too much emphasis on discontinuity would prompt Nietzsche ’ s urge to remain true to this earth; too much emphasis on continuity would prompt a critique of Nietzsche ’ s notion of ‘ will to power ’ and of social Darwinism.
Th e plausibility both of continuity (how is life beyond death possible?) and of discontinuity (how can a new dispensation emerge; where does the ‘ new ’ come from?) has to be demonstrated. Th e failure to address such plausibility can only lead to fatalist despair (if only continuity holds) or to escapist denial (if only discontinuity is maintained) or to a form of Gnostic elitism (where no material continuity is required).
For Christians, the clue to understanding such continuity and discontinuity is obviously the (bodily) resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, the celebration of the Eucharist in the presence of the risen Christ and the hope for the resurrection of the dead. Th e resurrection provides a sign of hope that God can indeed do something anew. 49 But what form of continuity suggested by the ‘ re- ’ in resurrection is possible? Th e problem cannot be resolved on the basis of the symbol of resurrection alone. Intriguingly, the question remains whether the resurrection resolves the problem of sin or of mortality, or both.
If the emphasis is on restoration and thus on continuity, with what is that continuity? If the continuity is with reality (that which is material, bodily
49 See, for example, Th omas, Neue Sch ö pfung , pp. 386 – 87.
and earthly) as we currently know it, that entails continuity with death and destruction. If not, a distinction is needed between what reality is and how it ought to be and presumably was before human sin emerged (which will be contested). However, how would one know what reality (or ‘ nature ’ ) was like before it was aff ected by sin? Such a distinction would necessarily be based on a theological construction, which would off er an expression of hope for the future, more than a description of the past.
If the emphasis is on restoration, how can one then guard against apartheid theology, where the message of salvation was portrayed in terms of the restoration (through law and order) of the diversity of races that are supposedly embedded in the created order [ sic ]? What is it that is to be restored? Th is is a pertinent question in the current South-African context. What would the notion of land restoration suggest if not a return to precolonial times – which is obviously not possible and for most not attractive either. Th e point is that the apartheid past is unattractive and the future daunting. Th e restoration of some previous, cohesive social order would be inappropriate since there has never been such a social order.
How, then, can one know what has to be restored? Most of the problems related to theologies of restoration emerge from a focus on what God has created – which is then used as a point of departure for further refl ection.
Th e meaning cannot be that ‘ creation ’ is restored, as this would suggest an a-historical, non-evolutionary notion of creation. It can scarcely entail a return to the beginning or to some previous state or earlier phase. What is restored is not that which is material, bodily or earthly as such, but something about that which is material, bodily or earthly. What that ‘ something ’ is, remains open to dispute: it could be understood as a return to its evolutionary potential, to its full fruitfulness, its ability to fl ourish, to a sense of orientation, to the original goal, to its relatedness with God, to a reciprocal covenant relationship with God and so forth. Th e healing of creation cannot be an aim in itself. However, the fl ourishing of creation would still need to come to terms with the ‘ arrow of time ’ , with transience and mortality. Ecologically, not every specimen of every species can fl ourish. Would only the strong be able to fl ourish then?
Th e question is, in other words, what the ‘ re- ’ in a whole range of theologi-cal concepts entails. Between repristination and elevation one fi nds a series of theological concepts where a sense of both continuity and discontinuity
is acknowledged but with diverging connotations: reanimation, rebirth, rebuilding, recapitulation, recollection, reconciliation, reconstruction, recov-ering, redemption, refl ection, reformation, refreshment, regeneration, rein-vigoration, remembering, remuneration, renewal, reorientation, reparation, representation, reproduction, respect, restitution, restoration, resurrection, revitalization, revolution, but in short, re-creation (not to be confused with recreation).
(d) Th e alternative to a theology of restoration is to allow room for eschatological completion, fulfi lment and consummation. Accordingly, salvation makes the ennobling, and not merely the restoration, of creation possible. Th e aim of creation is related to God ’ s will to have a relationship of love with (human) creatures. Th is aim to allow human creatures to share in God ’ s own being is realized in Christ. Th e incarnation was therefore necessary irrespective of sin. Christ is portrayed as the highest expression of humanity.
Th ere are at least two candidates for an extension of salvation beyond the roots of evil (sin) and the consequences of sin (evil), namely classic notions of salvation as sanctifi cation, elevation or divinization, and modern liberal notions of salvation as ‘ moral education ’ , evolution (or progress), social ‘ uplift ment ’ and ‘ development ’ or cultural refi nement.
In Christian ecotheology any notion of salvation as elevation is typically questioned. Th e feminist suspicion of interlocking dualisms has helped all of us to resist notions of salvation where ideas, the soul, the spirit, reason and heaven are regarded as more important than matter, the body, the letter, emotion and earth, respectively. Nature is good, but culture is better. Likewise, any notion of salvation as the elevation towards a higher goal of that which is natural is frowned upon. On this basis the hope for immortality, for going to heaven, for divinization has rightly been criticized as escapist or at least in need of reinterpretation. Th e danger is that such a notion of salvation can easily revert to a denigration of that which is material, bodily and earthly. It can breed contempt for the fragility and mortality of being embodied.
An alternative would be to acknowledge that this world is imperfect and that the gospel is aimed at making it a somewhat better place. Th is line is taken by Klaus N ü rnberger: ‘ Th e world is not perfect and never has been. It means that the world process must be accepted, as imperfect as it may be, and channelled into the most wholesome directions available at any point in time. Acceptance
implies forbearance, patience, responsibility and the willingness to suff er for the sake of a transformation that goes in the direction of comprehensive optimal well-being. ’ 50 If so, God may be understood as ‘ the transcendent Source and Destiny of reality as such and as a whole ’ whose ‘ transforming acceptance of the unacceptable is the pervasive and non-negotiable precondition for the existence of reality as such ’ . On this basis he adds: ‘ Th is imperfect world is the world God is busy creating and the world that God loves! God shares the agonies of the victims of natural, biological and social evil and invites the survivors to join him in his creative and redeeming work. ’ 51 He concludes that God targets any defi ciency in well-being and invites humans to participate in God ’ s creative and redemptive project. 52 A Manichaeist position may indeed be avoided through an evolutionary or process understanding of God ’ s engagement (of exploratory experimentation) with the world. But what would be the grounds for such evolutionary optimism that the future holds promise for overcoming former defi ciencies?
Th e modern liberal tendency is to equate salvation with the fl ourishing of inherent potential, with education and development, if not progress, with the dynamics of building a better society, with moral uplift ment through moral education. Here ‘ elevation ’ may well be understood in terms of the development of an inherent potential, allowing for evolutionary change, historical progression and increasing complexity.
An analogy from parenthood may illustrate the lure of this approach. When a baby is born, a parent would describe the baby as ‘ beautiful ’ despite outward appearances. Beauty here is probably the potential and the welcoming of a new person enriching the household. Th at which is bodily and earthly is affi rmed for the moment, but obviously regarded as insuffi cient in the longer term. Many aspects still have to come to fruition. Th e baby needs to grow, learn to walk, to speak, to read and write, to develop her talents, intelligence, expertise and skill. Even more important is moral development, learning to show respect to others and to acquire appropriate virtues. Even that would not suffi ce. Parents would want their children to learn to appreciate the fi ner things in life. Together with that may also emerge an appreciation for
50 See N ü rnberger, Regaining Sanity for the Earth , p. 235.
51 Ibid., p. 243.
52 Ibid., p. 246.
science, cultural refi nement, literature, the arts and religion. Th e child needs to come to an understanding of the secret and mystery of life – the art of living and dying ( ars moriendi ). Th ere may be many obstacles in the way of such education, including bodily disabilities, mental health, a challenging cultural environment and all the structural eff ects of sin (evil) with which the child may be faced. However, the path to what parents would hope for their children is clearly not merely a continuation of what was there in the beginning, but the
science, cultural refi nement, literature, the arts and religion. Th e child needs to come to an understanding of the secret and mystery of life – the art of living and dying ( ars moriendi ). Th ere may be many obstacles in the way of such education, including bodily disabilities, mental health, a challenging cultural environment and all the structural eff ects of sin (evil) with which the child may be faced. However, the path to what parents would hope for their children is clearly not merely a continuation of what was there in the beginning, but the