In the previous two posts I argued that a proper theology of nature will be apocalyptic and christological.
A good picture of this is provided by Jesus’ encounter with the man possessed by a legion of demons. There Jesus reclaims part of God’s good creation — ‘planting the flag’ of God’s future in the soil of the present if you like — allowing the man’s distorted humanity to find true fulfilment. Yet in disentangling this man from the evil, anti-creation forces that have claimed him, what is required is nothing short of a massive wrenching. In Christ, grace perfects nature apocalyptically.
This provides some leverage on the traditional thought that creation’s telos is to glorify God. Creation is indeed the arena in which God’s glory is displayed (cf. Rom 1.18-20). And, as Augustine argued (e.g., in On Christian Doctrine), it’s to be used for the enjoyment of God not enjoyed as an end in itself.
All this is true and right, as is a recognition that creation is (in Colin Gunton’s terms) a ‘project’ — something open to the future and full of potential that human beings are privileged to be involved in drawing out (cf. Gen 2.5).
The danger is that emphasising this can cause us to skate over the fact that belief in creation is an article of faith (as Barth emphasises). It is thus fundamentally determined by the reality of God’s Triune being. More, the realisation of creation’s purpose to glorify God the Father requires not just human participation but also God’s decisive reconciling action in the Messiah, Israel’s — and humanity’s — unique Spirit-anointed representative, the Word of God become flesh.
This is reflected in the sequence of thought in Rev 4 and 5. Although the stage is set for all creation to raise its voice in praise of its Creator by the end of Rev 4, there’s an inexplicable pause at the beginning of Rev 5. No-one is found who is worthy to open the scroll and implement God’s plan for the world. No-one, that is, until the Messiah, the Lion of Judah — who is, shockingly, also the Lamb who was slain — turns up. And he ultimately shares in creation’s glorification of the Father in the power of the Spirit…
In short, an adequate theology of nature will be thoroughly trinitarian.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 22, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Matthew Moffitt
Hey Chris, great post – thanks.
Do you thin it’s OK to call nature nature? I think I heard Katay or Ian Powell say we should refer it to creation rather than nature.
October 26, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Chris Swann
Hi Matt,
I guess maybe it depends on what we mean by it. To me, the word ‘nature’ doesn’t particularly suggest any lack of relation with God (e.g., of dependence on Him, etc).
I think I was using ‘theology of nature’ as a way of suggesting something that fills the mental ’slot’ of natural theology without falling into its trap.
The Reformers began to break away from the natural theology of medieval scholasticism. But O’Donovan (among others) has pointed to what he calls ‘the concealment of creation’ in most of the reformation confessions — that is, their silence on what might stand in the place of natural theology. Whatever you call it — a ‘robust doctrine of creation’ or a ‘theology of nature’ — I hope we can agree that we need it!