The Biblical Theology of Creation and Creator

It may (or may not, depending on how well you know me) come as a surprise that the one who is most outwardly pursuing topics in biblical interpretation is also the one most actively skeptical about it. That is, contrary to Berry, I do not see the need to reconcile the so-called Christian worldview with the sustainable management of this holy creation. Nor do I see the need to appeal to Nietzsche, Heidegger, Thoreau, or Heraclitus in order to advocate the same. For me, both of these essays deal with something that is very concrete and practical through abstracted notions such as Logos, poetry, or biblical theology. And I think the appeal to these notions has negative consequences.

Is it not sufficient to make the argument on the grounds that we are slowly making the Earth uninhabitable for carbon based life forms? And even if there are some religious fanatics who disregard this notion because “it will all be fixed when Jesus returns”, making a theological argument completely outside of their established tradition is probably not going to be very effective.

Additionally problematic is that there is really no such entity called biblical theology or ideology to which we can appeal. What is the biblical ideology of the Creator or creation? It really depends on who is driving the hermeneutical steering wheel. The reason is that ideology is not an inherent property of any given text, but it is rather how the text is used. To speak of the ideology of a text is really to speak of how a text has been used in the past and present. The text itself, I believe, is quite neutral. This is evidenced in the vast ways in which the biblical text has been used over the centuries, both positive and negative. We can use the same document to preserve the status quo or flip the establishment on its head! We are simply living in a time and place where we need the bible to have a biblical theology of the Creator and creation that promotes are own understanding of the world around us. Just as the knights of the Crusades needed their biblical theology to promote their conquests, so we need our biblical theology in order to promote sustainable farming. In both cases, the theology/ideology is socially constructed by the interpretive community more than it is an inherent property of the text. It seems as though Berry himself alludes to this when he writes: “[The Bible] is best read and understood outdoors, and the farther outdoors the better. Or that has been my experience of it.” Our biblical interpretation is very much subject to our own experiences.

So what is the point? My point is simply that I think we should let the argument of not destroying the Earth as we know it stand on its own merit, without abstracting it to what is surely a dubious interpretive enterprise. I feel that we need to be liberated from the confines of biblical interpretation on these issues. Writers like Berry seem to perpetuate the Christian myth that we cannot act (or at least should be ashamed to do so) according to our own common sense and reason unless there is a biblical precedent for such behavior. Suppose the bible does or does not promote the concept of caring for creation as our holy equals. Does it really matter as far as your responsibility is concerned? Suppose the bible does or does not promote the condemnation of homosexual behavior. We could debate about the biblical interpretation of homosexual behavior in some academic seminar, but then we are bound to the conclusion of the expert exegetes.

I agree with Reece’s conclusion to simply affirm the world, but his understanding of the Logos of John is oversimplified and shaky at best. But what do we gain from arguing this point as it relates to experiencing nature? What does he gain, aside from a paycheck, in arguing for the Logos of Heraclitus over John? Although it may seem that Reece is challenging the conventional wisdom and standing up to the oppression of religious conviction, he is still operating under the same the oppressive system, a system which binds human conviction and reason to abstract concepts created by academics.