Ecology and the Theology of the Cross: A continuation of a study on the Theology of the Cross

Jürgen Moltmann, author of the book “The Crucified God,” begins his book by explaining “the cross is not and cannot be love.” Moreover, he further notes that “only the crucified Christ can bring the freedom which changes the world because it no longer afraid of death.”1 The cross was a method of torture, humiliation, and murder and it is here that Jesus’ revealed his glory to the world. In the first paper, a summary was given about the two theologies by mainly focusing on the work of Gerhard Forde. The relevancy of a theology of the cross can still be debated. We live in a post modern-world where scientific fact is valued more than religion or philosophy. It is for this reason that a more in depth comparison study is needed between contemporary theologies and a theology of the cross. The Theology of the Cross is still relevant in the church today especially when view through Ecological theology.

First we must begin by looking at the historical context of Eco-theology. The cross is at the center of any credible Christian Theology. It has come to define the faith of Christians, but not always in the same way. For any theologian, whether they be an Ecologist or a Liberationist theologian, “the cross either offends rationality or becomes a tool to perpetuate an anemic will and a slave-like disposition.”2 The interpretation of the cross is a complicated debate in the church today. Each group holds a different interpretation of the cross and the crucifixion. For some, the cross is a gruesome sign of torture and is avoided at all cost, while others see the boldness “of a god that dies the death of a condemned criminal” as something to be desired.3 Living 2000 years post the cross event, it is difficult to determine what the intended meaning of the cross was for Christianity. The church is still left with questions as to why Jesus had to suffer and because of these questions, multiple interpretations of cross abound rather than unity surround the Cross event.

The study of ecology first began in the 1950s, and was intended to explore what humanity’s affect has been on the environment.4 In recent years, Ecology has become an important issue in the church once again. Kwok Pui-lan, author of the article “Ecology and Christology,” expands on ecology as not only encompassing “nature (natural ecology) but culture and society (human ecology, social ecology, and so on).”5 According to Victor Westhelle, author of the book “The Scandalous God, the early church viewed ecology and creation as something to be cherished, not to be exploited and abused as it is today.

Ecology, when viewed through a theological lens, finds its origins in the Doctrine of Incarnation. According to Westhelle, this doctrine and the ideas found within are uniquely a Christian construct. It is here that God’s embodiment “is not a lofty display of God’s majesty, but a descent into the most deprive level of the human condition, down to the abject death itself.”6 God did not separate God’s self from creation but became a part of creation. Martha Kirkpatrick, author of the article “For God so loved the world: an incarnational ecology,” argues that the covenant made with Noah was not just to humanity, but was made with all of creation. It was this covenant that express “the constancy of God’s love for all life, human and non-human alike.”7 God is constantly recreating the world “by deconstructing it until nothing remains but a stump, so that it may be redeemed.”8 Simply put, God went to the bottom of creation, into humanity, so that all of creation might be encompassed.

God has included all of creation into the covenant but how does that covenant translate into life at the end of time? Is the world condemned or will the world be resurrected just as we will be resurrected? There are scripture references, however, that could be interpreted where creation is condemned. In Luke 23:42, Jesus tells the condemned convict hanging on the cross next to him that he will join Christ in paradise. Westhelle argues that this promise essentially condemns the world. Reformation theology tries to combat the notion that all creation is condemned. Martin Luther’s supposed claim that he would plant an apple tree even if he knew the world would end tomorrow shows the idea that creation will not stop when the world stops but will continue.9 There is a Latin dictum that says, “Justice be done even if the world is doomed” but does that mean creation will be resurrected just as we are resurrected?10

The importance of creation can be seen throughout Luther’s sermons, commentaries, letters, and lectures. Luther taught “the view we have of nature is the blindness we have to creation” and “only faith can see creation.11 But to acknowledge creation as good also means acknowledging that parts of creation has evil interlaced in it. To deny this claim would mean denying the cross.

Suffering and evil are a result of the human condition and are therefore a part of creation. Westhelle uses the metaphor of a neatly wrapped present to explain this. While the wrapping is beautiful, the true gift is not the paper, but rather what is inside that holds the promise. We have to trust and hope that the gifts given are good but sometimes the gifts we receive are not what we were expecting. Evil can exist even in the best wrapped gifts but we still need to open the box and explore so that we can show the respect the gift rightfully deserves. Creation is the same way. To limit God to just the beauty of the wrapping paper would limit the power of God and the ability to have God revealed on the cross. God is not just hidden in the beauty and goodness of nature but also in the ugliness and evil of nature as well.12

Now that we have a basic understanding of an eco-theology, we now can begin to investigate how this contemporary theology fits into a theology of the cross. Both a theologian of the cross and an ecologist will argue that God is even present in the evil and ugliness of creation. It is because of this understanding of God in this way that our entire view of God has to change. This is where a distinction of a theology of the cross and a theology of glory can be made. A theologian of glory would call all of creation good because it is created by God and ignore the evil and ugliness left in creation. A theologian of the cross calls a thing what it is--evil and ugly. Westhelle makes the point that “God should not be praised for the greatness of creation in spite of evil; God should be praised in the midst of evil where God’s continuing creation works out the annihilation force of evil.”13 When God created (and still creates) God’s creation, God created “out of nothing, out of sin and evil, the terrifying abyss of utter emptiness (creatio ex nihio).”14 To deny that God cannot take something as evil and turn it into something astonishing is to deny the cross event. It is here that God took the cross, a representation of evil and ugliness in the world, and revealed what the coming Kingdom of God would envision.

For both a theologian of the cross and an ecologist, evil is a part of the world because of the human condition of sin. All of creation suffers because of humanity’s sin. Westhelle argues that we cannot “ignore the visible or to flee from it in search of the pure Word.” To do this would “take the cross out of this world.”15 To deny evil and suffering as a result to the human condition denies the cross.

Westhelle argues that ecologists believes all of humanity shares in the responsibility of the world’s problems. It is here that our failures and faults come to the surface and our suffering “makes the visible transparent when the suffering seen is proclaimed by the Word to be the suffering for which humans share responsibility, either by action that perpetrates it or by omission in failing to respond to it.”16 Ecologists argue that we all share in this common responsibility to care for the creation that suffers because of our own sin. Jesus never tells us that we can simply sit on the side lines but that we all need to invest ourselves into the community and world around us. The cross gave us the revelation of God’s kingdom, but it also showed us that Jesus was crucified because he taught us to care for one’s neighbor and community. It is through the cross that we are given the ability to strive for more and to care for what God has deemed good. We are no longer limited but liberated by the cross and are therefore freed to do what Jesus taught us to do.

Puilan offers three ways to show God is with all of creation: “In acts of compassion and solidarity, in movements of people who are bearers of hope, and in rituals that celebrate life and evoke the power of the divine.”17 First, we must remember that Jesus’ life was spent among the poor, the needy, and the oppressed. Jesus went against the status quo and proclaimed that the Kingdom of God was for all. For many Christians today, humanity is at the top and the rest of creation is below humanity. In both of these theologies, however, humanity is at the bottom and by Christ going to the bottom, all of creation benefits from the cross. Second, Jesus disclosed himself as a renewer of society and was therefore condemned to death for it. The authorities condemned and tried to destroy everything Jesus stood for. But by the cross, all that Jesus taught and did was brought to the surface. If it was not for the cross, Jesus would have been in vain. Finally, it is in the rituals that we not only remember but we see the incarnation of Jesus. Christians have been doing rituals for centuries. They remind us of not only who we are, but also shows us a glimpse of God’s love. In communion and baptism, our earthly elements are taken and made holy. God takes the ugliness of our earthly elements: societal outcasts, the cross, and our rituals and creates something beautiful. Our rituals may define us but it is the cross that gives meaning to the rituals.18

It is through a “theology of the cross [that] the suffering in and of the world is recognized as the locus of God’s creative work.”19 In Jesus’ death, we see who God is meant to be, how God takes evil and ugliness and turns it into something good and beautiful, and it is in creation that we see God’s imagination continue.

A theologian of the cross and an ecologist view the cross very similarly. The church has always been for creation and it is only recent years that this mindset has been lost. Ecology’s first goal was to study how humanity has affect creation and the cross reminds us that we all have a responsibility in creation. The cause of evil is our human condition. God will continue to create good out of evil, but we are left with the responsibility to care for it. God is in creation, both good and evil, just as the cross is found in both joy and suffering.

------------------------------

• 1 Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), I.
• 2 Victor Westhelle, The Scandalous God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 2.
• 3 Victor Westhelle, The Scandalous God, 2.
• 4 Victor Westhelle, The Scandalous God, 27.
• 5 Pui-lan, Kwok. "Ecology and Christology." Feminist Theology: The Journal of the Britain & Ireland School of Feminist Theology no. 15 (May 1997): 113.
• 6 Victor Westhelle, The Scandalous God, 27.
• 7 Kirkpatrick, Martha, "For God so loved the world": an incarnational ecology." Anglican Theological Review 91, no. 2 (March 1, 2009): 199.
• 8 Kirkpatrick, Martha, "For God so loved the world": an incarnational ecology," 200.
• 9 Victor Westhelle, The Scandalous God, 94.
• 10 Victor Westhelle, The Scandalous God, 94.
• 11 Victor Westhelle, The Scandalous God, 97.
• 12 Victor Westhelle, The Scandalous God, 101.
• 13 Victor Westhelle, The Scandalous God, 101.
• 14 Victor Westhelle, The Scandalous God, 101.
• 15 Victor Westhelle, The Scandalous God, 103.
• 16 Victor Westhelle, The Scandalous God, 103.
• 17 Pui-lan, Kwok, "Ecology and Christology," 124.
• 18 Pui-lan, Kwok, "Ecology and Christology," 123-124.
• 19 Victor Westhelle, The Scandalous God, 103.