On bishops, creation and the environment

Terminal week, the Diocese of Oxford posted a video, the first in a planned serial of four, in which Olivia Graham, the recently-appointed bishop of Reading, gave a curt theological introduction to the reasons why Christians should be concerned about the environs. In it, I think she said some unusual and (it turned out controversial) things:

2.48 The incarnation isn't a single birth, only it began 14 billion years ago with an effect nosotros call the Large Bang. At that moment, God poured Godself into the emerging universe…every particle of it charged with the incarnate presence of God. The whole earth, and so, is God'due south body, the whole cosmos is incarnational…

3.22 Creation and incarnation are non two carve up events, but one process of God's self-giving and self communication.

4.22 All that happens is sustained and sanctified; every human action of evolving nature is an act of God, because every act of nature's growth is the energy of divine love. Evolution is not only of God, but is God incarnate.

5.00 Tin can there be whatever separation betwixt the sacred and the profane?

5.xvi Father, we praise you with all your creatures…they are filled with your presence and your tender love.

5.41 Today you [Jesus] are alive in every creature in your risen glory.

I wasn't really surprised that in that location was a reaction to this, since anyone who knows a bit of biblical theology will have spluttered into their tea cups. Simply put, it is a central affirmation of Scripture, and of all orthodox theology in the Judeo-Christian tradition, that God is distinct from God's creation, and should not exist confused with it—in striking contrast to a whole range of other religious traditions. The term 'incarnation' does indeed hateful 'taking on flesh', and past implication means that that which is incarnated was not previously embodied. This both means that the incarnation, the coming of the Discussion of God in homo grade, was a unique outcome, is theologically surprising (since God doesnot take a body), and that it is too something we bodily humans cannot practice; our mission can never exist 'incarnational', since (dissimilar God) we are have never been unbodied—fifty-fifty if our mission engagement is contextual and takes the form of concrete deportment (which are much more helpful terms).

The idea that every act of cosmos is an deed of God is bizarre—are the slaughter of one creature by another, and the previous mass extinctions, all acts of God? I think Stephen Fry's position, that these are a source of offence to the idea of a loving God, is much more than persuasive! Yes, at that place can exist a separation of the sacred and profane; the merely time when this separation is finally ended is when heaven comes down to world in the New Jerusalem at the end of this age. No, all God's creatures are not filled with God's presence; if so, and so there is no need for redemption. And Jesus is non yet alive in every creature—if and then, and then we would have cipher to proclaim.

(I also would want to take upshot with other, more pocket-size points. Environmental disaster is less a ending for the earth (0.28), which volition surely recover if humanity becomes extinct; it is primarily a catastrophe for united states. Environmental business might be important, merely it is not 'admittedly central to our Christian discipleship' (i.xx). I don't retrieve, amongst commentators, in that location is whatever serious claim that 'dominion' in creation permits u.s. to exploit the earth (i.47). Stepping outside orthodox belief doesn't merit the epithet 'to get more broadly and deeper' (two.05). No, we practise not know the story of the incarnation likewise well (2.40); most in our culture at present don't know it at all. And Mary is not our mother (5.35). Though it sounds impuissant, I don't actually have a problem with avoiding the male personal pronoun for God, for these reasons.)

Many of the reactions on social media took the form of rather personal attacks on Olivia, and some talked about her comments every bit 'heresy', neither of which I call up are particularly helpful, and probably illustrate the way in which social media amplifies our emotional responses and reactions to things. Information technology is sobering to note that, in a previous era, almost of would probably never have heard virtually what a suffragan bishop said within his diocese, since there would have been no way of knowing. Merely at present episcopal comment, even if whispered in the corner of a diocese, gets proclaimed from the rooftops of social media.

(It is worth adding that, following the reaction, the diocese issued a 'helpful description' with an boosted comment from Olivia. It opens with the annotate:

Pantheism is divers as a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God

which does suggest that the idea that 'the creation is God's body' is indeed pantheistic. Olivia adds an important clarification:

The event of the Incarnation of Christ, at a moment in time and in a place on Globe was unique, unrepeatable and salvic [she means salvific]. Through this event, as Colossians 1 puts information technology, we run into in Christ, not only the image of the invisible God, but the fulness of God, and the whole of the created world has access to ultimate reconciliation with God… I can see that the words I used had a pantheistic ring to them, which I did non intend (God and cosmos are non the same affair). Simply I retrieve that it is helpful, in considering our relationship to our globe to think nearly the notion that the Divine pervades every part of the universe, while clearly being above, across and greater than the universe.

This is helpful as far as it goes, only the bug in the original video remain, and if she didn't mean to sound pantheistic, then the video really needs to be withdrawn.)

I am also aware that Olivia has been well received by many in the diocese, who have been encouraged that she has wanted to promote the question of the environs as a theological event. If yous await further downward the resources page, you volition find links to excellent cloth, including a number of works past Richard Bauckham, books by Ruth Valerio, and works by Martin and Margot Hodson—including some Grove booklets! All skillful stuff.

Merely there are two issues that demand some reflection: commencement, the theological issue, and second, the question of what we want our bishops to do.

---

On the question of theology, I do think there are some serious issues hither, and that the cardinal things Olivia said that I highlighted are clearly outside orthodox Christian conventionalities, and in particular exterior the doctrine of the Church of England. Roger Olson, in his wide and attainable textThe Mosaic of Christian Conventionalities, uses the linguistic communication of the 'Great Tradition' and talks of the issues around each theological consequence, the boundaries of the Great Tradition and multifariousness inside it, just as well identifies beliefs that are exterior the boundaries of that tradition—and the idea of creation being the 'torso' of God into which God has poured Godself is clearly exterior it.

In his shorter and more contempoThe Essentials of Christian Thought, Olson explains, in two unlike sections in the book, the problem with this view. In chapter half-dozen, 'The Biblical-Christian Perspective on the World', he notes two major alternatives to a Christian understanding as dualism and monism.

Alternative Metaphysical Visions of the World: Monisms

Monism's idea of the world deifies information technology confusing the globe—cosmos—with God or the absolute. Tresmontant rightly asserted that for both Judaism and Christianity, based on the Bible'due south story of God and cosmos, the "absolute," ultimate reality, is not the globe; it is not creation but the one who created. And creation is the gratuitous deed of a personal creator who acted out of his own goodness. And the free, good creator created the world, the universe, out of nothing ("ex nihilo"). The metaphysical structure of the Bible is duality without dualism. The world is not God; God is not the globe. And yet they are intimately related every bit creator to creation by God's grace, power, and self-limiting vulnerability—allowing the world to affect him.

Monism of all varieties, whether Indian (Advaita Vedanta) or Western (Spinoza's speculative pantheism), opens the door to completely unbiblical and anti-Christian idolatry of cosmos. The campaigner Paul identified this as nigh the source of all sin and evil in Romans i: worshiping the creation rather than the Creator… (p 182)

Alternative Metaphysical Visions of the World: Absolute Idealism

High german idealism viewed God equally the "Mind" of the universe and emphasized God's immanence in the globe equally its Absolute Spirit marching toward total harmony through the resolutions of history'due south conflicts (Hegel). Its trajectory was panentheism if not pantheism. Hegel, the ultimate German idealist philosopher of religion, alleged that "without a earth God is non God." In other words, the globe is necessary for God's self-appearing; God depends on the globe equally much equally the world depends on God. Whitehead, the formulator of process thought, agreed, even though he was not a German idealist. For him, equally for Hegel, the world and God exist always interdependently. "It is as true to say that God creates the globe every bit that the world creates God." Panentheism, whether of the Hegelian or Whiteheadian multifariousness, falls into conflict with the biblical-Christian metaphysic considering it turns God'due south relationality into dependence on the earth and elevates the globe to an undeserved status as more than than God's creation. In panentheism, God does not create the world ex nihilo, out of nothing, only strives manner the world, his counterpart, into his platonic of harmony.

All of those extrabiblical views of the world exist in the twenty-starting time century and through diverse media seep into Christians' thinking about reality. 1 way to resist them is to know and understand the biblical view of the world which is, again, that the world is God's good but corrupted creation, dependent on God not only for its beginning but as well for its fulfillment.

In his earlier chapter, 'Non-Biblical, Non-Christian Views of Reality', Olson has offered an overview of different forms of monism. One arises from Eastern religious, which a different course comes from German language idealism, but they have something in mutual:

All deny the fixed gulf evident in biblical revelation between God and creation. All over-emphasize the biblical idea of God as immanent—present with his creation—to the point of letting go of God'due south holy transcendence. They also all implicitly if not explicitly deny the biblical idea of creation—especially creation out of nothing—an idea implicit in the Bible and drawn out explicitly by the early church fathers in contrast to Greek metaphysics. All monisms have the tendency to deify humanity by asserting an underlying oneness betwixt ultimate reality and the human soul or mind.

And yet, in spite of the stark contrast between monism of all kinds and the biblical-Christian metaphysic, various monistic philosophies have worked their style into Christian thought—both popular and scholarly. But this is syncretism at its worst and to exist avoided and corrected wherever it rears its ugly head in churches and church-related institutions (p 117).

This serves to highlight the issues at stake here. Not only does the kind of monistic arroyo to the world which describes the earth as God's body distort our understanding of creation, and fails to see it equally both skillful and fallen, it likewise distorts our understanding of amende, and ends upwards with a thinly veiled universalism. If God is already in everything, and if 'Jesus is alive in all of your creatures', and so people do non need saving, they but need enlightening, so that they might realise what has ever been true in them.

I would like to think that Olivia picked upwardly these erroneous ideas from reading too much Spinoza, Hegel or Whitehead; alas, I fright the caption is rather simpler. Richard Rohr, in i of his daily devotions (which seem very popular in the C of Eastward only at present) comments:

The first Incarnation was the moment described in Genesis one, when God joined in unity with the physical universe and became the light inside of everything.All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to exist. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.—John 1:one-5  Nosotros aim to see as God sees.Light is not so much what you directly see as that past which you see everything else. This is why in John'due south Gospel, Jesus Christ makes the almost exhibitionistic argument, "I am the Low-cal of the globe" (John 8:12).

I believe God loves things by condign them.God loves things by uniting with them, not by excluding them. Through the act of cosmos, God manifested the eternally out-flowing Divine Presence into the physical and material earth. Ordinary matter is the hiding place for Spirit and thus the very Body of God. Honestly, what else could it be, if we believe—as orthodox Jews, Christians, and Muslims do—that "ane God created all things"? Since the very beginning of fourth dimension, God's Spirit has been revealing its glory and goodness through the physical creation. So many of the Psalms affirm this, speaking of "rivers clapping their hands" and "mountains singing for joy." When Paul wrote, "In that location is only Christ. He is everything and he is in everything" (Colossians iii:11), was he a naïve pantheist or did he really understand the total implication of the Gospel of Incarnation?  God seems to take called to manifest the invisible in what nosotros phone call the "visible," so that all things visible are the revelation of God's endlessly diffusive spiritual free energy. In one case a person recognizes that, it is hard to ever be lonely in this world again.

As I take highlighted previously, Rohr'south thought is marked by three things: a careless quoting of Scripture, making it hateful whatsoever he appears to want information technology to hateful inside his argument; the blithe assumption that the textsobviously back up his view, and how could anyone exist and so foolish as to not come across this; a complete ignorance of alternative views, questions, and the very well developed history of idea in this area. It is striking to me that, every bit we accept let become of core, historic, theological disciplines in our preparation for both lay and ordained ministry, the ideas of people similar Rohr have spread far and wide within the C of Eastward.

---

This and so leads on to my second question: what exercise we think our bishops are for, and therefore how do we train and select them? For some commentators, this might be the moment when they noted that Olivia trained part-fourth dimension on a course, and has a Document in Theology, and might then ask a question about whether that is adequate ordination training. Were I to do that, all those who have trained on courses would spring stoutly to her defence; a gold dominion of all discussions nigh ordination training is that we are all convinced that the way nosotros were trained is the best style!

I had the privilege of full-time training over iii years, and my ordination training did have some useful and unusual content that might non appear in other syllabuses. Every bit office of a collaboration between my higher and the Academy of Nottingham, my beginning ii years were spent in the university department, cramming the undergraduate caste into two years, with seminars and supplementary education in the college. That meant I was able to practise courses in Modern Theology, looking at developments over the final 200 years, besides as a dedicated module on Philosophy and Phenomenology, which was, intellectually, ane of the almost useful things I studied. I am not sure I would argue that this is essential for every ordinand—but it provided the kind of foundation that is needed to understand some of the big intellectual movements in our culture, and quickly spot problems with the kind of monism that pops up thanks to Rohr. (Alternatively, we could just enquire everyone to read Roger Olson!) If we now cannot afford this kind of preparation, or demand people to part-fund information technology themselves, then at least nosotros ought to be honest about that.

However, initial, pre-ordination training is not the just issue hither. Olivia Graham trained in the 1990s; she has been ordained more than xx years, has been in parish ministry building for 15 of those, and has been an archdeacon. There has been plenty of fourth dimension for further study! So this raises a question about the nature of standing ministerial education, and the theological literacy of the Church building as a whole.

And then comes the question of what nosotros wait our bishops to do. I have previously spoken up in defense force of our bishops, in response to criticism by Matthew Parris and Sarah Coakley. But on the mode noted what impossible demands we at present brand on them:

The 1 thing I would agree on with Coakley (and possibly Parris) is the desire to bishops who model good preaching and pedagogy. The problem here is putting that alongside all the other demands that we make of them. They demand to exist good administrators (who wouldn't desire a quick reply to a request?); financial managers (how else will the diocese balance its budgets?); competent strategic thinkers (else who will lead the states into growth?); concerned pastors (who else is looking out for the clergy?); effective in subject field (someone has got to keep everyone in line, even if that contradicts the previous concern); they must offer an constructive vocalism in national debates (to raise the quality, as Parris argues)…and so on. As a recruitment consultant once commented, it is the multi-coloured unicorn brief!

Peradventure the question is not so much 'What do we look for in a bishop?' only 'What tin we do without?' or, better, 'What can be delegated to other people?'

I doubtable Olivia Graham might well bring organisational skills, and experience of change management, from her time working with Oxfam. But are managerial skills actually what we are primarily looking for in a bishop? Don't we want them, first and foremost, to be able to teach the faith—both to believers and outsiders? Hither are some extracts from the Ordination or Consecration of bishops, from Common Worship and the Book of Mutual Prayer:

CW: Bishops are ordained to exist shepherds of Christ'south flock and guardians of the faith of the apostles, proclaiming the gospel of God's kingdom and leading his people in mission.

Will you be diligent in prayer, in reading Holy Scripture, and in all studies that will deepen your faith and fit you to bear witness to the truth of the gospel?

Will you lead your people in proclaiming the glorious gospel of Christ, so that the good news of salvation may be heard in every place?

Volition you teach the doctrine of Christ as the Church of England has received it, will you refute mistake, and volition yous hand on entire the organized religion that is entrusted to you?

BCP: ARE you persuaded that the holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation through organized religion in Jesus Christ? And are yous adamant out of the aforementioned holy Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge, and to teach or maintain nothing equally required of necessity to eternal salvation, but that which yous shall exist persuaded may be concluded and proved by the same?

I am so persuaded and adamant, by God's grace.

Will y'all and then faithfully exercise yourself in the same holy Scriptures, and telephone call upon God by prayer, for the true understanding of the same; so every bit ye may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gainsayers?

I will then do, by the help of God.

Be you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and bulldoze abroad all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God'southward Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same?

I am set, the Lord being my helper.

The question then is whether we really believe this. Do we really remember that Scripture is sufficient, and nosotros don't need to 'go more broadly and deeper' to other, non-Christian philosophies, in order to address contemporary challenges like the environmental crisis? Do we really wait to our bishops to teach this biblical faith, and do the selection processes reflect this? Do diocesan education and CME departments as well remember this, so that all clergy tin can deepen their understanding of biblical theology as an essential part of their growth in maturity in ministry? (I wonder how many people in the diocese saw the script or watched the video, and had no comment to brand on information technology.)

The Church of England is currently facing some serious challenges, and these will need conscientious thinking, courageous action, and expert communication. But if the boulder of all this isn't a deepening of our understanding of our faith, rooted in Scripture, then we will be lost.

If you enjoyed this, practise share information technology on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.

Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can brand a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:

Comments policy: Adept comments that appoint with the content of the mail service, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek first to sympathise, then to be understood. Make the well-nigh charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a disharmonize to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.

morriscourponfland.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/on-bishops-creation-and-the-environment/

Share this post