Environmental-Theology

The uploaded version of the article is my PDF of the publication.
One of the new constellations which, in my opinion, will be much debated on in the post-pandemic time will be the theological interpretation of Creation and of the aims of Creation within the Christian tradition. In my view, this will represent a central subject within the theological debate, since this topic directly involves the goal as such of Creation, on the one hand, and the position, value, right, and duty of mankind within Creation, on the other. The related questions are whether God’s action of Creation is directed to affirming the pre-eminence of mankind and the right of domination of man over all other created entities, or whether God’s action of Creation includes all the created entities in an equal way without God designating superiority to any created entity over any other entity.
In my contribution, I am therefore going to deal with two mutually opposed interpretations of Creation and of the corresponding relations existing among God, mankind, and all the other creatures. The first interpretation could be synthesised in the formula Dominium Terrae of man over other creatures. The second interpretation could be described as God designating to humankind the stewardship of nature. The notions of the two interpretations of God’s Creation have consequences – for mankind’s attitudes and orientations towards nature – which are completely different from each other.
- The first interpretation, which has, as its central feature, foundation, and principle, the notion of man as the image of God, considers mankind as the centre of creation. This interpretation confers to mankind a position of absolute privilege over all of the other creatures; all of nature bows to mankind. The direction of God’s Creation is anthropocentric meaning all creatures and nature in its entirety are at the disposal of mankind, since mankind has received from the very word of God the legitimation for the dominion over nature. Nature is regarded as an object to be used and which can be used. It has no actual worth, no actual value as such; it has no independent position in reality.
- The second interpretation, which insists on the commonality among all creatures, assigns a common dignity to all creatures. God is seen as being present in all of Creation: through Creation, mankind is assigned the duty of stewardship over all of nature. The direction of God’s Creation is not anthropocentric. Mankind is assigned and has thus a precise responsibility towards nature. This responsibility outlines exact limits as regards the use which mankind can make of nature: mankind may exercise no dominion over nature.
Hence, the two interpretations of the Theology of Creation bring about different considerations of nature and of the relationships between mankind and nature. Furthermore, they express different conceptions of mankind as such. In my opinion, the debate on the interpretation of God’s relationship with the created entities and, within this general relationship, the mutual opposition between an anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric Creation will be more present than ever in the post-pandemic time due to its relevance for the general orientation of mankind towards nature. The Theology of Creation involves furthermore a general meditation on the aims and the limits of the technical power towards nature.
For my analysis, I shall concentrate my attention on some passages taken from Genesis, the Wisdom of Solomon, and from Paul the Apostle. To find ideas and suggestions for my analysis, I have referred to the books of Robin Attfield, Environmental Ethics: An Overview for the Twenty-First Century, and of Jürgen Moltmann, Ethik der Hoffnung.
I take full responsibility for the ideas expressed in the analysis.

Anabaptist environmental theologies and ethics could and should do more to engage issues of environmental racism and environmental justice. Since most Anabaptist environmentalisms center on efforts to witness to God’s peace within creation, a failure to address ecologies of racialized violence undermines the tradition’s core theological values. This essay identifies three main varieties of contemporary Anabaptist environmentalism: agrarian virtue, bioregionalist discipleship, and eschatological eco-pacifism. It explores how each variety frames the natural environment within an account of Anabaptist faith and life, considers why and how problems of environmental racism elude that frame, and offers initial suggestions for how advocates and practitioners might sharpen each version in participatory dialogue with movements for environmental justice.

Jurgen Habermas states that religion and philosophy are engaged in a mutual talk that participates in producing modern states norms. From this hypothesis of contemporary society “prepolitical sources” we explore the specificity of French “agriculteurs paysans” commitment. Based on peasants interviews and Christian thinkers writings we show the links existing between an ecologist ethos build around the concepts of autonomy and coherence and a particular Christian thought that emphasizes the importance of action and thought unity. The peasants’ wish of doing agriculture in a not-conventional way is to be linked with their moral motivation of “doing what one should”. Their actions take the form of their moral and philosophical quest. That unity between what one does and what one thinks or believes can be found in the personnalist’s thought of Jacques Ellul, Bernard Charbonneau or Denis de Rougemont. Thanks to Christian interpretations, they all depict human freedom as being the fusion between acting and thinking. Finally, we propose the idea of an affective affinity between the “agriculteurs paysans” ecological ethic and a Christian eschatology spelled out by personnalist thinkers.

The emergence of environmental ethics in the Western world is typically dated to the nineteenth century. However, modern environmentalism was preceded by over two thousand years by Scriptural teaching. This article demonstrates that the Law of Moses contains important ecological care legislation, and that this was well understood by early Jewish commentators. Ecological care in the Law of Moses It is well recognized that the early Hebrews maintained a high degree of ecological sustainability which was unique to their era. "Archaeological records show that the Israelites were the first example in world history of a society that succeeded in managing a sustained management of their environment for about thousand and seven hundred years." 1 "Thus the ancient Israelites developed a level of environmental sensitivity. They were aware of the fact that they had settled in an area with a fragile ecology. They knew that their land would be fertile only if it was managed with proper care." 2 This was a direct result of the Law of Moses, 3 which regulated fruit crops, 4 prohibited certain mixed crops, 5 and required the non-cultivation of the land in the seventh year, enabling the land to recover from human activity. 6 1

Cet article a pour objectif d’expliciter les liens entre la pensée théologique, sociologique et politique de Jacques Ellul à travers l’étude de sa conception de l’histoire. A partir de son commentaire de l’Ecclésiaste nous montrerons que la pensée ellulienne distingue trois temporalités : celle de l’Homme, celle de la Nature et celle de Dieu. Ellul rejette toute idée de progrès intrinsèque de l’homme et de son histoire pour accorder à la transcendance l’origine et la finalité de l’Histoire. Dès lors c’est dans son rapport à la transcendance que l’homme peut ou non s’inscrire dans le sens de cette Histoire. Ceci implique une valorisation du présent ainsi qu’une radicalisation de l’action politique. En ôtant à l’homme toute responsabilité historique dernière, Ellul appelle à se rapprocher de l’anarchie comme doctrine politique luttant radicalement contre tout pouvoir et toute domination.

Having Analyzing the concepts of ‘intrinsic value’ and ‘instrumental value’ in the domain of natural environment, the present essay deals with the major approaches in the philosophy of environment and ethics of environment as well as discusses the approaches in the domain of law, especially in relation to the environmental damages. The basic assumption of this writing is that the orientation of the laws and approaches is still anthropocentric, neglecting the biocentric approaches which include man as one element. In the end, while inspired by the Islamic doctrines in the philosophy of environment and the law of environment, the essay emphasizes on the anthrobiocentric approach.

An influential article in the 1960s led to wide acceptance of the idea that Christianity is directly responsible for the current ecological crisis. In recent years this view has become increasingly criticized, and even secular commentary has acknowledged the value of the Bible's ecological teachings.

گفتگو با برنامه‌ی بامدادی رادیو بی بی سی فارسی در باب سند مهمی که کلیسای کاتولیک در باب بحران زیست محیطی صادر کرده است.

Yaser Mirdamadi's short interview with BBC Persian radio (15/06/2015) about the encyclical letter issued by Pope Francis on the environmental crisis.

This paper is about a new theology of nature and environmental theology based on Ludwig Feuerbach’s major works on religion, the cosmocentric theology of Teilhard de Chardin, and recent deep incarnation theologies, arguing for a newly conceptualized environmental theology that is able to think deeper into both Christ’s presence in the world as well as into the ability of theology itself to attune to the most profound elemental-material layers of this world. In its first part, Feuerbach’s elemental philosophy of religion leads toward the possibility of developing an entirely new view on the theology of nature. By further aligning deep incarnation with deep history in the second part of this paper, theological thoughts are set in dialogue with both Christian evolutionary thought as well as recent findings of the evolution of our homo sapiens species. Finally, cosmic Christ reveals as being incarnate in the heart of the matter, with the sacredness of every living being testifying to a newly revealed environmental theology of flesh.

In today’s scattering world, challenged as it is by climate change, pollution and other forms of environmental degradation, developing an adequate theology of creation is not just an armchair luxury, but a vital task, a mission in which we are implicated whether we like it or not. Such an adequate theology of creation should allow theologians and believers in general to enter into processes of personal and social transformation that bring about justice between human beings and a sustainable relationship of humankind with non-human reality. The contributions to this volume take up the difficult task of developing an adequate theology of creation for our times. They seek to reflect on creation in our scattering world from multiple and diverse perspectives, engaging Scripture, old and new traditions, philosophy, ethics, science, Christology, ecclesiology, sacraments and the liturgy. The wealth and heterogeneity of perspectives gathered in this collection is a gift to be explored and cherished. The articles gathered in this book contribute to an urgently needed re-articulation of the idea of creation and offer to theologians the occasion to sound their own voice in the forum of those who attempt to answer the great challenges posed by the times in which we live.