Human Beings in the Household of Creation

HUMAN BEINGS AS MEMBERS OF

THE HOUSEHOLD OF CREATION:

IMPLICATIONS FOR AN ECOLOGICAL

ETHICS

ABSTRACT The environmental crises demand that we read

the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature with

new eyes. A new Christian anthropology emerges

which recognizes our interconnectedness with all as

kin in the household of creation.

Dan Lunney E5107 – Environmental Ethics: Sources,

Norms and Issues. Professor Dawn M. Nothwehr,

OSF, Ph.D.

1

Human Beings as Members of the Household of Creation

E-5107

November 30, 2014

HUMAN BEINGS AS MEMBERS OF THE HOUSEHOLD OF

CREATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR AN ECOLOGICAL ETHICS

“The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of

thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind (sic)” –Albert

Einstein (italics added for emphasis)

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used

when we created them.” – Albert Einstein

INTRODUCTION

The earth is ill and crying out. Modernity, with its focus on hyper-rationality,

individualism, and emphasis on unlimited progress, is not equipped to address the

environmental problems that are a result of its values. Feminist, postmodern and

postcolonial critiques of modernist, anthropocentric, androcentric, and mechanistic ways

of thinking and living provide a means of discovering, or more accurately, rediscovering

a different way of being. The environmental and related crises demand a new way of

thinking which moves from a rational mode of thinking to a relational mode of being.

Many of the classical and modern theological anthropologies are rationally rather than

relationally focused. Systems thinking correlates with many of the rediscoveries and

reinforces the importance of inter-relationality. Franciscan spirituality, mysticism and

theology provide frameworks for a more healthy way to live within the household of

creation. The emerging paradigm that is put forward by deep ecology of a radically

interconnected and interrelated universe that exudes the love of God.

There will be three main sections of this paper based on classical theology’s

senses of creation as creatio originalis, creatio continuo, creatio nova, that is, original

2


E-5107

November 30, 2014

creation in the beginning, continuous creation in the present here and now, and new

creation at the redeemed end-time.1 The conclusion will consist of using Eucharist as a

practice in support of the environment. The audience to which this paper is addresses is

Roman Catholics who are looking to integrate care for the environment in their belief

system and practices.

PART 1: CREATIO ORIGINALIS: GENESIS, THE COMMON STORY OF

CREATION, AND THE BOOK OF NATURE

A Critical Reading of Genesis 1: A Movement away from Dominion, Subjugation

and a Narrow View of Co-Creation.

Scripture begins with the story of creation in the book of Genesis. Our reading

and understanding of the two main accounts of the creation in the book of Genesis are

influenced by our social location and the values of modernist culture. We read Genesis 1

in light of what Sallie McFague calls the common story of creation2 or as Elizabeth

Johnson reclaims the ancient concept of the book of nature3.

Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our

likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the

tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.

God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male

and female he created them. God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile

and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea,

1Elizabeth A. Johnson, Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love (New York: Bloomsbury Continuum,

2014), 123, Kindle edition. 2Sallie McFague, The Body of God: An Ecological Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), loc. 609,

Kindle edition. The common creation story is the reality of creation beginning with the “big bang” and that

all of creation is related and contains the same genetic building blocks. 3Johnson, Ask the Beasts: Darwin, 10. “Dialogue is based on the view that the book of nature and the book

of scripture, to use that lovely ancient metaphor, have the same author.”

3


E-5107

November 30, 2014

the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth. (Gen 1:26-28,

NAB)

Both McFague and Johnson use a feminist critique of the interpretation of the

creation story in Genesis by putting it in dialogue with a scientific account of creation.

For McFague, the common story of creation highlights the interconnectedness and

interrelationship of all creation. For Johnson, book of nature manifests and is written by

the same author as the book of scripture thus are complimentary not contradictory.

Denis Edwards provides a necessary corrective to our interpretation of Genesis,

“It is unfaithful to the wider biblical tradition to interpret the ‘dominion’ text as

supporting the ruthless exploitation and the domination of nature by large corporations in

our day… It does not respect the biblical heritage of the goodness of creation, the

community of all creatures before God, the call to humans to act as images of God, or the

divine command to cultivate and care for creation (Gen 2: 15).”4 Edwards proposes a

theocentric model to counter the misuse of the interpretation of ‘dominion’:

In this broad biblical vision, God creates each creature, sustains its

existence, delights in its goodness, and blesses it with fertility. Human beings are

a part of God's creation, interrelated with all other creatures yet called to act

responsibly before God within creation. In these texts and in many others, the

Bible sees all creatures in relationship to God. It offers a fundamentally God-

centered (theocentric) vision of reality rather than a human-centered

(anthropocentric) one.5

Dawn Nothwehr provides interpretation of this passage in light of the context it

was written and in light of other passages in Hebrew Scripture:

4Denis Edwards, Ecology at the Heart of Faith (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2006), loc. 409-413, Kindle

edition. 5Edwards, Ecology at the Heart, loc. 380-383.

4


E-5107

November 30, 2014

In Genesis, the creation of humans is for the service of living creatures

with which humans share an earthly kinship. To keep the meaning of “subdue”

and “dominion” in perspective, it is helpful to recall that these stories were written

during the Neolithic Age, when likely little was known about egalitarian

relationships. So humans (Hebrew = adam) are to rule over the biota (Gen 2:19),

the Leviathan over the sea (Job 40:25-32; 41:1-22), and the Behemoth over the

land (Job 40:15-24). But all of those “ruling” are ultimately accountable to God,

who is their Creator, the loving God of the covenant.6

Even the phrase, “be fruitful and multiply” needs to be interpreted critically.

These passages have been narrowly interpreted to mean begetting children. A broader

reading of these passages in light of Scripture can open up a more holistic understanding

of the role of creation in the ongoing unfolding of creation. Creative agency is attributed

and inherent in God’s design of creation.7

Nothwehr wraps up the importance of Genesis 1:

In summary, Genesis 1 confesses belief in a God who creates, bringing

order out of chaos in a nonviolent manner. In this context, the commission given

by God to humankind, made in God’s image, is to protect the balance of life that

God’s ordering word has built into the earth, and to promote the continuation of

all species having a place in that delicate balance.8

Attributes of Creation: The Foundations for a Christian Anthropology

As noted in the previous section, dominion, subjugation, and a narrow concept of

co-creation are not attributes of creation correctly understood. All creation is radically

interrelated and interconnected. As McFague notes: “We are united to one another

6 Dawn M. Nothwehr, Ecological Footprints: An Essential Franciscan Guide for Faith and Sustainable

Living (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2012),loc. 597-601, Kindle edition. 7 There are many examples in Scripture of the call to join in God’s creative work. There are parallels

between being co-creators and participating in the ushering in of the reign of God. Many parables are rich

in images from creation to demonstrate these parallels (cf. The parable of the mustard seed, Mt 13:18-19) 8Nothwehr, Ecological Footprints: An Essential, loc. 638-640

5


E-5107

November 30, 2014

through complex networks of interrelationship and interdependence, so that when one

species overreaches its habitat, encroaching on that of others, sucking the available

resources out of others' space, diminishment and death must occur at some point.”9

McFague goes on to highlight our interrelatedness, “From this beginning came all that

followed, so that everything that is related, woven into a seamless network, with life

gradually emerging after billions of years on our planet (and probably on others as well),

and evolving into the marvelously complex and beautiful earth that is our home.”10 As

will be discussed in the section Mutuality, Interconnectedness, and Interrelationality, this

interconnectedness will serve as the foundation for the concept of the kinship of creation

(see Kinship in the Household of Creation). In the long view of creation, human beings

are a very recent addition, so it is arrogant to pretend that creations is made for humans.

Douglas John Hall discusses four existential human conditions which are inherent

in the creation story: loneliness, limits, temptation, and anxiety. Hall states, “There are at

least four conditions in the saga of creation—especially in the older of the two versions

of creation, viz., that of the Yahwist—which constitute, if not suffering as such then the

stuff out of which some types of human suffering are made.”11These conditions have the

potential of making us feel alienated from God and creation. Coming to terms with each

of these conditions can help us to be more rooted in and connected to creation.

Embracing loneliness can lead to solidarity, embracing limits can lead to acceptance of

9McFague, The Body of God, loc. 1400-1401. 10McFague, The Body of God, loc. 1446. 11Douglas John Hall, God and Human Suffering: An Exercise in the Theology of the Cross (Minneapolis:

Augsburg Pub. House, 1986), loc. 725-727, Kindle Edition.

6


E-5107

November 30, 2014

our place within and among creation, embracing temptation can lead to a healthy use of

our creativity, and embracing anxiety can lead to a generative harnessing of pathos.

The Breath of Life

In order to understand God’s role in creation, it is essential to discuss the role of

“ruach” – the breath of life. Johnson states, “Ruach can refer to the meteorological

movement of air, or again to the life breath of animals or human persons inhaled and

exhaled, which breath itself becomes an analogy for the human spirit or self.”12 Even

systems thinking places breath in a prominent position, “Spirit – the breath of life – is

what we have in common with all living beings.”13Life is impossible without the breath

of God. A loss of the breath of life would mean death. The very essence of God is found

in all of creation which is known as panentheism.

PART 2 CREATIO CONTINUO: THE PLACE OF HUMAN BEINGS IN

CREATION

The Role of the Trinity: The Interrelationship of Humans to all of Creation

To understand creation, one needs to understand the nature of God. This

discussion of God will flow from Franciscan theologians. Dawn Nothwehr describes

Bonaventure’s concept of exemplarism as follows: “God is the prototype of everything

12Johnson, Ask the Beasts: Darwin, 134. 13Fritjof Capra and P. L. Luisi, The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision(Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2014), 277, Kindle edition.

7


E-5107

November 30, 2014

that exists, and so everything in creation expresses the divine, thus revealing the Creator.

Exemplarism can be defined as ‘the doctrine of the relations of expression between God

and creatures.’”14 Not only does creation express the divine, it follows the model of the

Trinity, “the mutual trinitarian relations signal the normative mode of all moral

relationships.”15 Leonardo Boff stresses the importance on perichoresis, “which

etymologically means circularity and inclusion of all relationships and of all related

beings,” as being central to our understanding of the Trinity, “Christian trinitarian

language, perichoresis captures the relationship of mutual presence and interpenetration

between God and the universe or between the three Divine Persons among themselves

and with all creation.”16

Denis Edwards points out the link between creation and the sacramental (see:

Sacramentality) nature of the Trinity, “The diversity of creation, and the diversity of life

on Earth, can be seen as sacramental, as expressing and representing the abundance and

dynamism of the divine communion.”17

Jamie Schaefer quotes Bonaventure to describe the relationship between the

Trinity and creation, “All creatures were identified as vestiges (literally, footprints) of the

Holy Trinity, and the faithful were urged to use their five senses as entry-level tools to

contemplating God.”18The interrelationship and interconnectedness of creation and God

14Nothwehr, Ecological Footprints: An Essential, loc. 1140-1142. 15Nothwehr, Ecological Footprints: An Essential, loc. 1214-1215. 16Leonardo Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1997), loc. 675-678,

Kindle edition. 17Edwards, Ecology at the Heart, loc. 1969-1971 18Jame Schaefer, "Modeling the Human in an Age of Ecological Degradation," in Theological Foundations

for Environmental Ethics: Reconstructing Patristic and Medieval Concepts (Washington, DC: Georgetown

University Press, 2009), 1253, Kindle edition.

8


E-5107

November 30, 2014

is foundational to developing an ecological ethics and will be discussed in more detail in

the section Mutuality, Interconnectedness, and Interrelationality.

Nothwehr and Edwards on the Value of Mutuality Flowing from the Holy Spirit

Nothwehr engages in a critical dialogue with the work of Denis Edwards to

support her thesis that, “...Edwards’ ecotheology of the Holy Spirit provides a warrant for

mutuality as a central norm for Catholic environmental ethics.”19 In the article Nothwehr

expands upon the role of the Holy Spirit and the centrality of mutuality for an approach to

ecological ethics. Nothwehr develops Edwards’ four proposals regarding the proper role

of the Holy Spirit which are:

1. In creation and redemption, the Trinitarian Persons act only in profound

communion and in undivided unity with one another, but this one

undivided action does not exclude a proper role of each person.

2. A foundation for a theology of the proper role of the Spirit in creation can

be found in the work of contemporary theologians who discuss the proper

roles of the Trinitarian Persons in the incarnation and Pentecost event.

3. A first argument for a proper role of the Spirit in creation is that ongoing

creation is best understood as a dynamic relationship between each

creature and the Trinity; such a relationship approach would involve

distinct Trinitarian Persons.

4. A second argument for a proper role of the Trinitarian Persons in creation

is that what are distinctive about the Trinitarian Persons (their relations of

origin) come into play in the one work of diving creation.20

Nothwehr stresses, “This ecological theology of the Holy Spirit points to a

morality governed by an ethics of mutuality.”21 Which leads her to discussion of

19Dawn M. Nothwehr, "The Ecological Spirit and Cosmic Mutuality: Engaging the Work of Denis

Edwards," in College Theology Society, ed. Bradford E. Hinze (2003), 49:167, Adobe PDF. 20Nothwehr, "The Ecological Spirit and Cosmic," in College Theology Society, 49:170-172. 21Nothwehr, "The Ecological Spirit and Cosmic," in College Theology Society, 49:173.

9


E-5107

November 30, 2014

mutuality. She defines mutuality as, “…a sharing of ‘power-with’ by and among all

parties in a relationship in a way that recognizes the wholeness and particular experience

of each participant toward the end of the optimum flourishing of all.”22 Nothwehr builds

on Edwards thinking by developing the concept of mutuality further. She describes four

forms of mutuality: cosmic mutuality, gender mutuality, generative mutuality and social

mutuality.23 A stance from the location of mutuality, “expands the idea of the moral

subject”, “focuses on the reciprocity in moral agency” and “moves the starting place for

ethical reflection to a radically inclusive place.”24 Thus Nothwehr, through her dialogue

with Edwards, takes us to a radical reclaiming of the role of the Holy Spirit and the

centrality of mutuality with all of creation which will be discussed in more detail (see

Mutuality, Interconnectedness, and Interrelationality)

There is a multilevel dialogue going on as Nothwehr engages the works of

Edwards and Edwards engages contemporary and classical theologians. Nothwehr brings

the parallels and unique contributions of feminist theologians to the dialogue which

complement and deepen the work of Edwards. Nothwehr provides a necessary corrective

by pointing out that Elizabeth Johnson’s book, Woman, Earth, Creator Spirit was prior to

Edwards’ work.25

Nothwehr highlights some of her hermeneutical framework by citing Gadamer

and Ricoeur’s insistence “that knowledge of any text is also an interpretation of the

22Nothwehr, "The Ecological Spirit and Cosmic," in College Theology Society, 49:176. 23 For a fuller and nuanced discussion of each, see Nothwehr, "The Ecological Spirit and Cosmic,"

in College Theology Society, 49:176-179. 24Nothwehr, "The Ecological Spirit and Cosmic," in College Theology Society, 49:180-181. 25Nothwehr, "The Ecological Spirit and Cosmic," in College Theology Society, 49:176.

10


E-5107

November 30, 2014

text”26 and in raising the question, “How do we attend to the texts of the nonhuman

world?”27 Anton Boisen, the founder of clinical pastoral education, described people as

living human documents.28 The text of each created thing will need to be read and

interpreted as documents.

The methodology of both Nothwehr and Edwards is from the underside of history.

There is an emphasis on listening to the voices of “the Other” especially those that have

traditionally been neglected is characteristic of a postmodern approach.

Sacramentality

Creation is a privileged place for God’s self-revelation. According to John Duns

Scotus, “God creates in order to reveal and communicate God’s self to others as the

fullness of divine love.”29 Illia Delio also points out the sacramentality of Bonaventure’s

thought, “Creation is a theophany for Bonaventure, an expression of God’s glory

manifested in the sacred order of creation. Because the world expresses the Word through

whom all things are made (John 1), every creature is itself a ‘little word.’ The universe,

therefore, appears as a book representing and describing its Maker.”30 Delio links the

sacramentality with the Trinity (see: The Role of the Trinity: The Interrelationship of

Humans to all of Creation) in the thought of Bonaventure,

26Nothwehr, "The Ecological Spirit and Cosmic," in College Theology Society, 49:180. 27 Nothwehr, "The Ecological Spirit and Cosmic," in College Theology Society, 49:181. 28Glenn H. Asquith, Jr., "Anton T. Boisen and the Study of 'Living Human Documents,'" Journal of

Presbyterian History (1962-1985) 60, no. 3 (Fall 1992):244, accessed September 14, 2014,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23328440. 29Ilia Delio, A Franciscan View of Creation: Learning to Live in a Sacramental World (St. Bonaventure,

NY: Franciscan Institute, St. Bonaventure University, 2003), loc. 758, Kindle edition. 30Delio, A Franciscan View of Creation, loc. 712-714.

11


E-5107

November 30, 2014

The notion of the sacramentality of creation was taken up by Bonaventure

and given a deeper theological meaning. Bonaventure drew an integral relation

between the Trinity of self-diffusive goodness and the goodness of creation. The

whole of creation emerging out of the fecundity of divine goodness reflects an

intimate relationship to the Creator and is oriented to God as its source and goal.31

Nothwehr notes, “Just as a painting or a sculpture reveals something of the artist

who created it, so too everything in the cosmos speaks to us of God.”32 Delio points to

the contributions of Teilhard, “Within Catholicism, Teilhard's thinking offered a more

this-worldly spirituality, a creative revitalization of the tradition's sacramental sensibility,

along with a rearticulation of its relationship to secularism, science, and evolution—

central to all of which was the actualization of the “new Christ” in and through the

world.”33 Denis Edwards captures the ability of the sacramental to touch us deeply by

coining the concept of sacramental imagination.34

The sacramentality of creation has the potential of capturing our imaginations

regarding the self-giving nature of the love of God. This self-revelation by God induces a

sense of awe. Jamie Schaefer brings to light images of God which flow from God’s

sacramentatlity:

Through the dynamic unfolding of the universe, God can be perceived as

empowering the universe forward to complete itself while serving as its

invigorating spiritual ground. God can be perceived as freedom giving through

the ability of the universe to self-organize and produce entities out of many

possibilities without dictation or oppressive coercion. God can be perceived as

31Delio, A Franciscan View of Creation, loc. 920-922. 32Nothwehr, Ecological Footprints: An Essential, loc. 268. 33Ilia Delio, ed., From Teilhard to Omega: Co-creating an Unfinished Universe (Maryknoll: Orbis Books,

2014), loc. 3526-3528, Kindle edition. 34 Denis Edwards, Jesus the Wisdom of God: An Ecological Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008),

19.

12


E-5107

November 30, 2014

generous through the many diverse beings and forces that can be observed and

measured by providing the possibility for their emergence over eons of time in

expanding space. God can be acknowledged as caring by continuously sustaining

the evolution of an internally self-sufficient universe of diverse beings that

function harmoniously. God can be perceived as humble by allowing the universe

with its diverse beings to emerge without interference and to play itself out in

surprising ways amid considerable suffering, decay, waste, and death. God can be

perceived as patient through the billions of years of the universe's expansion

from a very small entity to billions of galaxies out of which at least one planet

evolving around a medium-sized, middle-aged star has produced a magnificent

array of ecosystems with their varied biota, including intelligent beings who have

the ability to receive and respond to God's self-communication through the

universe. God can be perceived as encouraging the universe with its many

diverse entities to become fully themselves, to function according to their natures

in relation to others, and to complete itself at the end of time.35

These images of God can help us to deepen our connection to God and celebrate

the amazing reality of creation. These images can serve as models for how we are to live.

God’s self-revelation demonstrates the nearness of God to all of creation. Creation is

sacred and reveals the Creator because of being made by God. The images of God and

how God reveals Godself in creation have implications for our lives as disciples and as

communities of disciples. The sacramental nature of creation is connected to the

incarnation which will be discussed in the next section along with atonement.

The Incarnation and Atonement

The initial incarnation of God took place in creation. The incarnation was

deepened when the second person of God became flesh. Nothwehr describe the doctrine

of Incarnation as understood by John Duns Scotus, “…the reason for the incarnation, in

35Schaefer, "Modeling the Human in an Age of Ecological," in Theological Foundations for

Environmental, loc. 1329-1338.

13


E-5107

November 30, 2014

the first place, was God’s free and eternal decision to have (outside himself) someone

who could love him perfectly. Through the humanity of Jesus, God expressed the

absolutely free divine desire to communicate divine love in a contingent and finite

world.36 The incarnation has implications for all of creation. Nothwehr states, “Because

the entire cosmos in some way resembles Christ, the ‘first born of all creation’ (Col 1:15-

20), we must cherish creation with reverent care, just as we reverence Christ.”37

Keith Warner solidly locates Franciscan spirituality and theology within a certain

understanding about the Trinity and Incarnation from which an inclusive ecological

ethics flows:

I explain how Franciscan perspectives on the Incarnation and the Trinity

hold potential for revisioning all creation as a community of moral concern. The

Franciscan understanding of the Incarnation emphasizes continuity between

humanity, creatures, and elements. The Franciscan vision of Trinity as

community-of-persons, inspired by Francis's Canticle of Creatures, supports a

more inclusive vision of the moral community. The Franciscan tradition can

contribute to the field of Christian environmental ethics as it inspires individuals

to great love for creation as a manifestation of God's revelation in and to the

world.38

Warner continues his discussion of the Franciscan perspectives on the Incarnation

as linked with sacramentality:

Francis understood the Incarnation to be the greatest possible expression

of love and humility, and the Christian project is to live out these values. Thus, his

love of creatures is integrally related to his experience of Jesus Christ in the

materiality of the world, in his understanding of the material kenosis of the

Incarnation. Humanity, plus creatures and the material world, all have religious

significance for Francis, for as a whole they bear Jesus Christ to us…The

36Nothwehr, Ecological Footprints: An Essential, loc. 3569-3571. 37Nothwehr, Ecological Footprints: An Essential, loc. 3596-3597. 38Keith Warner, OFM, "Franciscan Environmental Ethics: Imagining Creation as a Community of

Care," Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 31, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2011): p. 145, PDF.

14


E-5107

November 30, 2014

Incarnation was not an afterthought, a remedial strategy. Rather, the Incarnation

was conceived before the creation of the world as a means to unite humanity with

God through love; it was not a discrete historical event, nor merely a precondition

for the Word to be preached to us; it was not necessitated by sin. Rather, the

Incarnation is the highest expression of divine love.39

In Franciscan thought, the incarnation and creation are woven together in a way

that is impossible to understand the one in the absence of the other. It bears reiterating

that in Franciscan thought, the focus of the incarnation is not atonement – the redemption

of a fallen humanity – the focus is the gratuitousness of God’s love.

The concept of embodiment is closely tied to the incarnation. Sally McFague

discusses the importance of recognizing embodiment for developing an ethic of care for

creation, “In a theology of embodiment, space is the central category, for if justice is to

be done to the many different kinds of bodies that comprise the planet, they must each

have the space, the habitat, they need.”40 McFague goes on to make an important point,

“If the earth is an aspect of God's body, and if the paradigmatic story of Christianity is

that the Word became flesh to liberate, heal, and include all who are needy, then

Christians have a mandate to love the earth.”41

God reveals Godself through creation (sacramental) and God’s creative presence

is found through all that is created by God (incarnation). While Francis did not articulate

either a sacramental or incarnational theology in this way, they are both implicit in his

writing and vitae. Keith Warner sums this up:

39Warner, "Franciscan Environmental Ethics: Imagining," p. 148-150. 40McFague, The Body of God, loc. 1413. 41McFague, The Body of God, loc. 1424.

15


E-5107

November 30, 2014

We may not wear rags, live in a cave for several months of the year, and

eat only gruel and bread and nuts and berries. But we can choose to create a

community that's charged with religious meaning, that sees the sacraments as a

part of a broader sacramental vision of the material world, that sees the material

world as charged with the grandeur of God.42

Mutuality, Interconnectedness, and Interrelationality: Moving Beyond Dualism

To begin our discussion of mutuality, interconnectedness and interrelationity,

Nothwehr connects us back to the Trinity:

Scotus’s discussion of the Trinity is significant for understanding that

mutuality is fundamental to human relationship for several reasons. First, the

Trinity can be understood as a model for human relations—all members of the

Godhead are distinct and of equal value, but they share a mutually life-giving life

with one another. Second, the individuality Scotus claims for each person of the

Trinity provides the metaphysical basis for mutuality; the persons of the Trinity

are constituted as persons through the relationship (ad intra) of mutuality.43

The reality of our mutuality, interconnectedness, and interrelationality runs

counter to the modern concept of individuality and an anthropocentric worldview.

Human being are not at the center of the universe any more than the earth is the center of

the universe which was once was commonly believed to be true. Boff points out that

anthropocentrism is very narrow and based on destructive ideas, “The Earth is also crying

out. The logic that exploits classes and subjects peoples to the interests of a few rich and

42U.S. Catholic, "St, Francis Patron of Ecology: A U.S. Catholic Interview with Keith Warner, OFM," U.S.

Catholic, April 2010, 25, accessed February 2, 2014, http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2010/09/st-francis-

patron-ecology. 43Nothwehr, Ecological Footprints: An Essential, loc. 3717-3720.

16


E-5107

November 30, 2014

powerful countries is the same as the logic that devastates the Earth and plunders its

wealth, showing no solidarity with the rest of humankind and future generations.”44

Schaefer puts forth a necessary corrective of how some of the medieval theology

has developed or been interpreted, “A model of the human for our time must avoid

dualistic thinking that places humans over or apart from other entities and views them

merely as instruments to be used for whatever purposes a human desires.”45

Nothwehr is a major proponent of mutuality as a norm,

“Asking questions concerning mutuality seeks out the threads of common

human needs and desires, placing everything and everyone in the context of a

history and a developmental continuum with a beginning, middle, and end. When

utilizing the norm of mutuality, one constantly involves the potential ‘other’ in

some manner—whether through a personal conversation or an environmental

impact study—toward forming a consensus that maximizes the flourishing of

everyone and everything involved in the situation.”46

Although not coming out of a post-colonial context, Nothwehr’s discussion of

power in relation to an understanding of mutuality fits with a post-colonial critique of

power. Nothwehr defines mutuality as, “‘the sharing of ‘power-with’ by and among all

parties in a relationship in a way that recognizes the wholeness and particular experience

of each participant toward the end of optimum flourishing of all.’”47

Richard Rohr points out the dangers of an individualistic stance, “But if you do

not see the individual ego (the separate self) as a problem, it is almost impossible to

recognize the corporate separate self as an even worse problem. Thus nationalism, ethnic

44Boff, Cry of the Earth, loc. 150. 45Schaefer, "Modeling the Human in an Age of Ecological," in Theological Foundations for

Environmental, loc. 4358. 46Nothwehr, Ecological Footprints: An Essential, loc. 1835. 47Nothwehr, Ecological Footprints: An Essential, loc. 1853.

17


E-5107

November 30, 2014

cleansing of various sorts, burning of heretics, persecution of all that was ‘not me,’

including the rest of creation (animals, all growing things, earth, and water), were

literally ‘fair game’ for us.”48 Our understanding of what it means to be human flows

from our understanding of radical interconnectedness in relation to a loving God, as

Denis Edwards states,

What finally makes us unique before God is not any one capacity we

possess or any partial aspect of the human. It is the whole human being

understood as personal and as interpersonal. Being created as the imago Dei

means that God creates human beings as persons in order to embrace them in

interpersonal love. God, of course, can be thought of as embracing in love and

promising final fulfillment to persons whose own capacities are limited by illness

or disability.”49

Bringing in systems thinking to our discussion reaffirms the importance of

interconnectedness, “We have discovered that the material world, ultimately, is a network

of inseparable patterns of relationships; that the planet as a whole is a living, self-

regulating system.50 Capra and Luisi go on to describe systems thinking, “This new

conception of life involves a new kind of thinking – thinking in terms of relationships,

patterns, and context.51 Systems thinking is a move away from mechanistic thinking,

“The basic tension is one between the parts and the whole. The emphasis on the parts has

been called mechanistic, reductionist, or atomistic; the emphasis on the whole, holistic,

organismic, or ecological.”52 Capra and Luisi describe further, “According to the

systems view, an organism, or living system, is an integrated whole whose essential

48Richard Rohr, "Creation as the Body of God," in Spiritual Ecology: The Cry of the Earth, a Collection of

Essays, ed. Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee (Point Reyes, Californa: Golden Sufi Center, 2013), loc. 3049. 49Edwards, Ecology at the Heart, loc. 331. 50Capra and Luisi, The Systems View of Life, p. xi. 51Capra and Luisi, The Systems View of Life, p. xii. 52Capra and Luisi, The Systems View of Life, p. 4.

18


E-5107

November 30, 2014

properties cannot be reduced to those of its parts. They arise from the interactions and

relationships between the parts.”53 From these descriptions the correlation between

systems thinking and the interconnectedness of ecological thinking becomes clear. The

emerging Christian anthropology views human beings in relationship to creation not

having power-over but power-with creation. This flows into the concept of kinship

which is discussed in the next section.

Kinship in the Household of Creation

Although we do not have many of the writings by St. Francis, what is striking is

the prominence of kinship language in the writing that we do have. Francis wrote, “If a

mother nourishes and loves her son in the flesh, how much more lovingly should one love

and nourish his spiritual brother” (RB 6.8).54Gilberto Cavazos-Gonzalez points out the

importance of brotherhood:

Just as the flesh gives children to the mother, the Spirit gives brothers to

brothers. In the medieval household carnal/natural brothers did not choose each

other but were brothers because of a shared paterfamilias. Being in the same

household translated itself into a fraternal bond with the obligation of care for

each other.55

In the Canticle of Creation, Francis extends this brotherly and sisterly bond to all

of creation in the household of God the Father.

Denis Edwards describes the place of humans in creation, “We are born of the

universe, made from stardust, part of evolutionary history of life on Earth and, as such,

53Capra and Luisi, The Systems View of Life, p. 10. 54RB Regula Bullata or Bulled Rule (1223) of St. Francis of Assisi. 55Gilberto Cavazos-Gonzalez, Greater than a Mother's Love: The Spirituality of Francis and Clare of

Assisi (Scranton [Pa.]: University of Scranton Press, 2010), 167.

19


E-5107

November 30, 2014

made in the image of God and kin to all the wonderfully diverse plants, insects, birds, and

animals of our beautiful planet, and called to cultivate and care for the Earth and all its

creatures.”56 Leonardo Boff highlights the contributions of feminists in developing a new

model, “It is the merit of ecofeminism to have developed critically (against rationalism,

authoritarianism, compartmentalization, and the will to power, which are historic

expressions of androcentrism and patriarchalism) and constructively the new pattern for

relating to nature within a perspective of kinship and a planetary and cosmic

sacredness.”57

Christine Firer Hinze cites Methodist theologian M. Douglas Meeks to deepen our

understanding of household by going to the etymology of Greek “oikos”:

…oikos may be understood as, first, the household in which God wants to

give people access to life: this is the deeper theological meaning of “economy,”

whose traditional concern has been livelihood. Second, oikos may refer to the

household of creation in which God wants God’s creatures to live together in

interdependence; here is the religious ground for “ecology,” whose concern is

mutual and beneficial relatedness with nature. In a third usage, oikos refers to the

world that God wants to make into a home by establishing divine justice and

peace among peoples and nations. Meeks connects this usage to the root meaning

of oikoumene, ‘ecumenics’- the inhabited world drawn close together, whose

concern is “mutually recognized and supportive habitat in peace. 58

Firer Hinze discusses economics by writing, “Modern economics focuses on

production, consumption, labor, capital, and profit-making in the competition for scarce

resources. But economics in its fuller, classical sense is the science whose subject is the

56Edwards, Ecology at the Heart, loc. 504. 57Boff, Cry of the Earth, loc. 737. 58Christine Firer Hinze, "Catholic Social Teaching and Ecological Ethics," in And God Saw That It Was

Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment, ed. Drew Christiansen and Walter Grazer (Washington,

DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1996), p. 171.

20


E-5107

November 30, 2014

gathering, cultivating, and distributing of the earth’s material resources, with a view to

the survival and thriving of human communities.”59

The next section will move forward in an environmental vision which is rooted in

the Trinity of love, responsive to the sacramentality of creation, attuned with the

incarnation, and which recognizes our mutuality and interconnectedness with all of

creation.

PART 3 CREATIO NOVA: DEEP ECOLOGY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR A

CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY

Echoing the words of Albert Einstein, we need to change the way we think.

Dawn Nothwehr states, “Put simply, we need to shift our self-understanding and the

focus of our choices from our presumed superiority to what we hold in common with

others—especially nonhumans.”60The enormity of the ecological crises can cause us to

become numb but we need to take courage and dare to strive for a better world. The

model of environmental ethics which fits best with this radical inclusion is deep ecology.

Capra and Luisi state, “Deep ecological awareness recognizes the fundamental

interdependence of all phenomena and the fact that, as individuals and societies, we are

all embedded in (and ultimately dependent on) the cyclical processes of nature.”61 They

go on to point out the difference between old ecological models and deep ecology by

stating:

59Firer Hinze, "Catholic Social Teaching and Ecological," in And God Saw That It Was Good, 171. 60Nothwehr, Ecological Footprints: An Essential, loc. 1806. 61Capra and Luisi, The Systems View of Life, p. 12.

21


E-5107

November 30, 2014

Shallow ecology is anthropocentric, or human-centered. It views humans

as above or outside of nature, and as the source of all value, and ascribes only

instrumental, or “use,” value to nature. Deep ecology does not separate humans –

or anything else – from the natural environment. It does see the world not as a

collection of isolated objects but as a network of phenomena that are

fundamentally interconnected and interdependent. Deep ecology recognizes the

intrinsic value of all living beings and views humans as just one particular strand

in the web of life. Ultimately, deep ecological awareness is spiritual awareness.

When the concept of the human spirit is understood as the mode of consciousness

in which the individual feels a sense of belonging, of connectedness, to the

cosmos as a whole, it becomes clear that ecological awareness is spiritual in its

deepest essence.62

Denis Edwards describes the implications of this new awareness and connects the

new understanding with concepts which were developed in Part 2 Creatio Continuo: The

Place of Human Beings in Creation:

Adopting the kinship model demands a form of conversion. It involves a

new way of seeing and acting. It involves extending the love of neighbor to

embrace creatures of other species. It involves extending the love of enemy to

involve creatures that confront us as other and inspire fear in us. It involves loving

and valuing others as God loves and values them. Ultimately, it is a God-centered

(theocentric) view of an interconnected community of creatures that have their

own intrinsic value.63

In conjunction with changing from an anthropocentric to a theocentric view, deep

ecology has to stir the imagination and have a spiritual foundation. Leonardo Boff

provides a caution if it does not:

If there is no new mystique, a new spirituality underlying ethics, that is, a

new harmony between human beings and all other beings, thereby establishing a

new “re-ligation” (derivation of “religion”) there is a danger that such an ethics

will degenerate into legalism, moralism, and behavioral patterns of restraint

62Capra and Luisi, The Systems View of Life, p. 12-13. 63Edwards, Ecology at the Heart, loc. 472.

22


E-5107

November 30, 2014

instead of a joyous pursuit of life in a reverent and gentle relationship with all

other beings.64

As we form a deep ecological ethic, we need to keep in mind what Sallie

McFague reminds us, “This is an unfinished universe, a dynamic universe, still in

process… At the very least, this suggests that in our current picture God would be

understood as a continuing creator, but of equal importance, we human beings might be

seen as partners in creation, as the self-conscious, reflexive part of the creation that could

participate in furthering the process.”65

As human beings, collectively we have had a negative impact on the environment,

we need to join together to be in harmony in our household of creation. Part of the new

way of thinking and acting must include listening to the hidden and silenced voices

within creation. Care of the poor, sick and creation do not pose contradictions to one

another. The real challenge of deep ecology is to move from the ideas and concepts to

develop practices and a way of living out (praxis) this kinship of creation in the

household of God.

66

64 65 McFague, The Body of God, loc. 1457-1458. 66 From http://dripley91.wordpress.com/ accessed 11/22/2014

http://dripley91.wordpress.com/

23


E-5107

November 30, 2014

Conclusion: Eucharist as a Practice of Deep Ecology Flowing out of a New Christian

Anthropology

Eucharist incorporates many of the elements of the emerging Christian

anthropology in that it highlights our interconnection with God, one another, and

creation; highlights the incarnation as connected with our embodiment; is sacramental;

connects our spirituality with our life, and affirms us as co-creators. Eucharist is also a

practice which can affirm and sustain us to live the in accordance with the ethics of deep

ecology. The Eucharist is a celebration but it also involves challenge. Laura Hartman

describes the Eucharist as a practice which is “community-defining” and “community-

building.”67 The nourishment of the Eucharist, “…is a recurring miracle of incarnation:

Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, continually feeding those gathered together.”68 Christ

is not only found in the elements of the Eucharist, “Christians encounter Christ in one

another well as in the elements as they gather, or commune, for the Eucharist, or

communion.”69 Accepting Eucharist as offered entails challenge, “Becoming part of the

body of Christ is significant and demanding: it means being willing to endure what

Christ’s body endured, to serve, to be broken, and to ‘become food for others.’”70

Margaret Scott helps to further our understanding of the Eucharist as an

ecological practice in this powerful reflection:

The Presentation of the Gifts makes us priests in the great temple of

creation, giving God thanks and praise for all his gifts. It awakens in us an

67Laura M. Hartman, "Consuming Christ: The Role of Jesus in Christian Food Ethics," Journal of the

Society of Christian Ethics 30, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2010): 53, PDF. 68Hartman, "Consuming Christ: The Role," 54. 69Hartman, "Consuming Christ: The Role," 54. 70Hartman, "Consuming Christ: The Role," 54.

24


E-5107

November 30, 2014

awareness of the presence of God in the womb of the earth. It makes us

responsible not only for the human family but for the survival of the earth itself.

The Offertory nurtures in us a deep ecological sensibility and a spirituality of

interconnectedness that embraces the wholeness of the cosmos. It imparts a sense

of mutual bondedness that encircles the interpersonal, interstate, international, and

interplanetary. It initiates a spirituality of the communion of all creation; of the

cosmic embrace of a St. Francis of Assisi or a Rabindranath Tagore; of the

appreciation of Mother Earth, Gaia, Pachamama; and of wonder at her varied and

delicate living system. It teaches us to listen to the heartbeat of the whole of

creation.71

Hartman stresses that the practice of the Eucharist cannot be separated from the

way we live our lives, “Puzzles abound: how to live in the world; how to consume in

ways that manifest God and bespeak holiness, ways that avoid harming others or sinning,

and how to properly steward physical resources while remaining committed to God above

all.”72 The Eucharist must connect us with the life and the on-going ministry of Christ

including feeding the hungry, caring for the earth, and being aware of from where our

food comes as Scott points out, “Because the Eucharist is incarnated in our lives and

rooted in our soil, they bring the poor and their struggles and the rape of the earth to the

center of the eucharistic celebration.”73

Eucharist helps us to envision and practice the kinship of all creation in the

household of God. Scott sums up the importance of the Eucharist as a practice, “An

attentive weekly or daily exposure to the Eucharistic Prayer can gradually refocus our

71Margaret Scott, The Eucharist and Social Justice (New York: Paulist Press, 2009), loc. 1074, Kindle

edition. 72Hartman, "Consuming Christ: The Role," 58. 73Scott, The Eucharist and Social, loc. 886.

25


E-5107

November 30, 2014

vision and change our perspective. It can make God’s memory and passion the paradigm

for our own life, our reflection, and our caring.”74

Bibliography

Asquith, Glenn H., Jr. "Anton T. Boisen and the Study of 'Living Human Documents.'"

Journal of Presbyterian History (1962-1985) 60, no. 3 (Fall 1992): 244-65.

Accessed September 14, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23328440.

Boff, Leonardo. Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1997.

Kindle edition. Capra, Fritjof, and P. L. Luisi. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2014. Kindle edition.

Delio, Ilia. A Franciscan View of Creation: Learning to Live in a Sacramental World. St.

Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, St. Bonaventure University, 2003. Kindle

edition.

———, ed. From Teilhard to Omega: Co-creating an Unfinished Universe. Maryknoll:

Orbis Books, 2014. Kindle edition.

Edwards, Denis. Ecology at the Heart of Faith. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2006.

Kindle edition.

———. Jesus the Wisdom of God: An Ecological Theology. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis

Books, 1995.

Firer Hinze, Christine. "Catholic Social Teaching and Ecological Ethics." In And God

Saw That It Was Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment, edited by Drew

Christiansen and Walter Grazer, 165-82. Washington, DC: United States Catholic

Conference, 1996.

Hall, Douglas John. God and Human Suffering: An Exercise in the Theology of the Cross.

Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1986. Kindle Edition. Hartman, Laura M. "Consuming Christ: The Role of Jesus in Christian Food Ethics."

Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 30, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2010): 45-62.

PDF.

74Scott, The Eucharist and Social, loc. 1169.

26


E-5107

November 30, 2014

Johnson, Elizabeth A. Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love. New York:

Bloomsbury Continuum, 2014. Kindle edition. ———. Women, Earth, and Creator Spirit. New York: Paulist Press, 1993. Kindle

edition. McFague, Sallie. The Body of God: An Ecological Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,

1993. Kindle edition.

Nothwehr, Dawn M. Ecological Footprints: An Essential Franciscan Guide for Faith

and Sustainable Living. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2012. Kindle

edition. ———. "The Ecological Spirit and Cosmic Mutuality: Engaging the Work of Denis

Edwards." In College Theology Society, edited by Bradford E. Hinze, 167-88.

Vol. 49. 2003. Adobe PDF.

———. The Franciscan View of the Human Person: Some Central Elements. St.

Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, St. Bonaventure University, 2005.

Rohr, Richard. "Creation as the Body of God." In Spiritual Ecology: The Cry of the

Earth, a Collection of Essays, edited by Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee, 235-44. Point

Reyes, Californa: Golden Sufi Center, 2013.

Schaefer, Jame. "Modeling the Human in an Age of Ecological Degradation." In

Theological Foundations for Environmental Ethics: Reconstructing Patristic and

Medieval Concepts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2009. Kindle

edition.

Scott, Margaret. The Eucharist and Social Justice. New York: Paulist Press, 2009. Kindle

edition. Warner, Keith, OFM. "Franciscan Environmental Ethics: Imagining Creation as a

Community of Care." Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 31, no. 1

(Spring/Summer 2011): 143-60. PDF.

Human Beings in the Household of Creation

Documents

Transcript of Human Beings in the Household of Creation