in fact were almost loathe to articulate systematically even the religious meanings outlined above (e.g., Gustav Aulen, The Christian Faith; Rudolf Bultmann, History and Eschatology; and Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time). In the past two decades, however, the integrity and preservation of nature have posed an absolutely crucial problem for modern civilization. Almost every front—the air and the atmosphere, the seas and lakes, the forests, the waters under the earth, the species on the earth, even the temperature—has shown itself to be endangered by industrial civilization, already perhaps mortally wounded. As has always been known but hardly felt, history is utterly dependent upon nature; yet, as we now realize for the first time, history has the ability not only to exploit nature but also to destroy it—and with that, to destroy itself. A deep sense of the self-destructive possibilities of human creativity and freedom is genuinely “biblical,” as it is also Greek. Neither the Christian nor the Greek traditions, however, contemplated the immanent destruction of nature and life through the enlarged powers of high civilization, and yet that is just what is upon us today.
As a consequence, increasingly since the late-1960s theologies of nature have appeared. They represent efforts to articulate anew the meaning for Christian faith of the symbol of creation and, even more, to give that reinterpreted symbol a centrality in systematic theology unknown before. Earlier in the century the relation of theological reflection to philosophy and to the methods of history was predominant in theologies of revelation, Incarnation, and history; now the relations of theology to science, technology, and ecology are very much to the fore. This renewed interest in nature has rekindled Christian theologies of creation; and they have emphasized the goodness and value of nature, of the purposes of God for the natural order and not just for us, and even of the redemption of nature as well as the redemption of men and women. Thus many theologies (including my own) have emphasized that nature was made in God’s image as a material order of inherent value, not just for us, but for itself and for God, and hence is in its being and its value also a sign or symbol of God. Such a reappreciation of nature, as opposed to its traditional role as backdrop to history or stage for the human drama, sees nature as itself an object of the divine purpose. The divine care has transformed the theological and religious meaning of creation far from its traditional anthropological bias.
As the above indicates, one of the most important aspects of the ecological crisis is the attitude of men and women toward nature. Is nature there only for us, as the stage for our actions, as raw material for our consumption, as a vacation place? A “pragmatic” view of nature esteems the world only insofar as it is of use to us, as it resolves our problems and dilemmas, and as it adds to our well-being. Correspondingly, a scientific view of nature tends to reduce the richness, variety, and integrity of nature—its mystery—to what empirical science can uncover about our physical environment. Thus in modern culture the reality of nature as an objectified and determined system of “vacuous” entities (to use A. N. Whitehead’s phrase) corresponded to our assessment of nature as of value solely to us and so as subject entirely to our use. For this reason, as Herbert Marcuse has said, modern empirical science—if taken as an exhaustive description of the reality of nature—provides the ideological justification for the industrial exploitation of nature; it clears the way for the unimpeded greed of commercial culture. Clearly what is needed is to reawaken human beings to other ways of “knowing” nature’s reality than as the system of determined objects of scientific inquiry and as the usable raw material of industrial process.
The effort to reach beyond both scientific positivism and anthropocentric pragmatism is a multifaceted enterprise. Many scientists have initiated and organized this important work, and artists, writers, and responsible moralists have led the way with regard both to the reality and to the value of nature. There is little question, however, that among these healing forces religion is potentially of vast importance. Historically, it has been through religious institutions of nature and religious symbolism, ritual, and myths that the richness, independence, power, terror, and sublimity of nature have been “known” (these are cognitive relations to nature) and expressed—and that a creative, cooperative relation has been encouraged. These relations need to be reawakened. In the biblical tradition, the symbolism of creation is potentially the locus for a new set of cognitive, emotional, and moral relations to nature. Even the tradition of natural theology—the effort to find in natural experience “signs” of the divine presence—inescapably revives a deeper and richer “knowledge” of nature’s reality. In seeking to establish the reality of God through our experiences of nature as God’s creation, natural theology may effect as much of a change in our attitude toward nature as it does in our confidence in the divine presence. Suddenly and quite unexpectedly, therefore, the symbol of creation, now in relation to our knowledge of and care for nature, has again moved into prominence. Now human well-being and the meaning of history are inextricably intertwined with the independence and integrity of nature. No longer is creation solely of anthropomorphic importance as merely a storehouse and a playground for human beings. Possibly with the ecology crisis there will be a new Copernican revolution with regard to the value of nature.
LANGDON GILKEY
Bibliography
Langdon Gilkey, Maker of Heaven and Earth.
Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation.
Howard J. Van Till, et al., Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World’s Formation.
Cross-Reference: Cosmology, Creationism, Fundamentalism, Holy Spirit, Inerrancy, Nature, Science and Christianity, Space, Symbol, Time.
CREATIONISM
Creationism (“creation science” or “scientific creationism”) is the recent attempt by some conservative Christians to establish on scientific grounds that the created order was established suddenly from nothing (ex nihilo) in six days, that a catastrophic worldwide Noachic flood accounts for the earth’s geological features, that the biological theory of evolution is an insufficient account of origins, that humans and other primates are not related, and that the earth and its living creatures appeared recently. Hard creationists assert that the universe was created in six days about 10,000 years ago. Several versions of soft creationism allow for longer periods of creation and a considerably older creation. Recent polls show that up to 75 percent of the population favors equal time for creationist and evolutionary accounts of origins in the public schools. Several state legislatures mandated a “balanced treatment” of origins in public school science classes. Creationism is a complex phenomenon that includes (1) a theological component that rests on a literal reading of the Bible, especially Genesis 1–2; (2) a scientific component that claims that creation science is empirically grounded and not dependent on the Bible; and (3) a public component that seeks to disseminate its views to the wider society.
Creationism’s theological component contains both apologetic and polemic impulses. Based upon a literal reading of biblical texts, creationism ardently espouses the special creation of humans, a position that tends to minimize humanity’s connectedness to other living creatures. At the same time, creationists attack established biological science as providing an inadequate account of origins, and especially, a distorted view of humanity.
Creationism’s scientific component sets it apart from earlier anti-evolutionary thought. Creationists claim that empirical evidence supports a “young” earth. Because its proponents consider it a science, on the basis of fairness, they seek equal time with evolutionary biology in classrooms as a scientific theory of origins. Scientists, however, have almost unanimously also denied the scientific validity of creationism. Despite creationists’ rhetoric to the contrary, to date they have not established a recognized research program, have not published in respected scientific journals the results of research that have validated their position, and have not swayed scientists outside of their fundamentalist fold that their conclusions have any merit. A creation
