19 Faith and a Sustainable Pacific
379
of creation does not permit a nature-grace dichotomy…. The whole of nature – the
biophysical universe – is … an expression of grace” (Nash 1991, p. 95).
The Bible begins with the affirmation that “In the beginning God created.…”
Creation represents an affirmation about the world and us. In all its finitude and
limitation, creation is good, even though Duchrow and Liedke (1989) have a point
when they argue that the initial reference now should rather be the suffering of
creation. This raises a wider identity issue; it is reflected in the oikos image of the
Church as “the whole household of God”, which as Conradie (2007, 2011) notes,
has emerged as a significant “theological root metaphor” in ecumenical discussion.
We can assume that “the household of God” refers to a unique people called out
from the wider community—a position not without biblical support: but when we
acknowledge that the whole of creation and all life belongs to God, a different
understanding is suggested.
Conradie’s question is valid: “if the church is not itself the household of God,
what is its place and mission within this household?” (2011, p. 118). Perhaps part of
the answer to that question may be in the development of the notion that the Spirit of
God seeks to transform a portion of the world into the church so that, as transformed
world, the church may live for the future of the world. Such an approach is suggested
when the various metaphors are taken together as various facets of a diamond. Or
again, while both theologically and sociologically the church is clearly a discreet
entity, its life is lived within the wider environs of the earth itself. Conradie concludes
that “the church offers a particular vision of the very architecture, building and
ownership of the house”, and it is “that place within the house where one can find
traces that bear witness to the presence of the owner and keeper of the house” (2011,
p. 120).
Ultimately, the “house” is the Earth itself and all the life upon it—God’s creation—
and not merely our nation, or those who are “like us”. It is fine to believe that
humankind has a special place and responsibility in the economy of God, but we
are part of what Sanguin (2007, pp. 170f.) calls the “kin-dom” of God, and we are
slowly beginning to grasp something of the importance of that inter-connection.
In biblical terms, the concept of covenant is potentially important. It is, after all,
describing a relationship. Bühlmann contends that the primary covenant is in fact
what he calls the Covenant of Creation. He argues that “without the creation account
it would be unclear just who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God
of Jesus Christ, the God of all humankind” (1982, p. 11). One of the covenantal
implications of humankind’s creation in the image of God is that we are thereby
called to follow God’s lead in caring about all life.
Another way of expressing that is in terms of a ministry of reconciliation; if our
preaching about reconciliation means anything at all, it must have something to say
about healing divisions and even the Earth itself. As the Apostle Paul wrote in 2nd
Corinthians, “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and
has given us the ministry of reconciliation”. In his book “Intercession” Lukas Vischer
wrote:
379
of creation does not permit a nature-grace dichotomy…. The whole of nature – the
biophysical universe – is … an expression of grace” (Nash 1991, p. 95).
The Bible begins with the affirmation that “In the beginning God created.…”
Creation represents an affirmation about the world and us. In all its finitude and
limitation, creation is good, even though Duchrow and Liedke (1989) have a point
when they argue that the initial reference now should rather be the suffering of
creation. This raises a wider identity issue; it is reflected in the oikos image of the
Church as “the whole household of God”, which as Conradie (2007, 2011) notes,
has emerged as a significant “theological root metaphor” in ecumenical discussion.
We can assume that “the household of God” refers to a unique people called out
from the wider community—a position not without biblical support: but when we
acknowledge that the whole of creation and all life belongs to God, a different
understanding is suggested.
Conradie’s question is valid: “if the church is not itself the household of God,
what is its place and mission within this household?” (2011, p. 118). Perhaps part of
the answer to that question may be in the development of the notion that the Spirit of
God seeks to transform a portion of the world into the church so that, as transformed
world, the church may live for the future of the world. Such an approach is suggested
when the various metaphors are taken together as various facets of a diamond. Or
again, while both theologically and sociologically the church is clearly a discreet
entity, its life is lived within the wider environs of the earth itself. Conradie concludes
that “the church offers a particular vision of the very architecture, building and
ownership of the house”, and it is “that place within the house where one can find
traces that bear witness to the presence of the owner and keeper of the house” (2011,
p. 120).
Ultimately, the “house” is the Earth itself and all the life upon it—God’s creation—
and not merely our nation, or those who are “like us”. It is fine to believe that
humankind has a special place and responsibility in the economy of God, but we
are part of what Sanguin (2007, pp. 170f.) calls the “kin-dom” of God, and we are
slowly beginning to grasp something of the importance of that inter-connection.
In biblical terms, the concept of covenant is potentially important. It is, after all,
describing a relationship. Bühlmann contends that the primary covenant is in fact
what he calls the Covenant of Creation. He argues that “without the creation account
it would be unclear just who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God
of Jesus Christ, the God of all humankind” (1982, p. 11). One of the covenantal
implications of humankind’s creation in the image of God is that we are thereby
called to follow God’s lead in caring about all life.
Another way of expressing that is in terms of a ministry of reconciliation; if our
preaching about reconciliation means anything at all, it must have something to say
about healing divisions and even the Earth itself. As the Apostle Paul wrote in 2nd
Corinthians, “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and
has given us the ministry of reconciliation”. In his book “Intercession” Lukas Vischer
wrote: