Chúa Kitô & Sáng tạo: Mô hình Sinh thái học - Luận án Tiến sĩ của Evan Dunstan Pederick

Christ and Creation a model for ecotheology This thesis is presented as part of the requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Murdoch University by Evan Dunstan Pederick Perth, Western Australia 11 July 2016 i Declaration The material contained in this thesis is my own account of the research carried out by me during my PhD candidature, 1 October 2008 to 11 July 2016. The thesis contains as its main content work which has not been previously submitted for a degree at any university. A portion of my Honours thesis, ‘The Cycle of Creation and the Soul’s Journey into God’ (Murdoch University, May 2004) has been included within sections of chapters one and two of this work. The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA.

Used by permission. All rights reserved. Author’s signature: (Evan Pederick) Student ID: 30034144 Date: 11 July 2016 ii Copyright licence/Restriction Permission to copy all or parts of this thesis for study and research purposes is hereby granted. Author’s signature: (Evan Pederick) Date: 11 July 2016 Title of thesis: Christ and Creation: a model for ecotheology iii Abstract In this thesis I develop the parallel noted by Ewert Cousins between Teilhard de Chardin’s evolutionary Christology and the trinitarian theology of St Bonaventure, in order to develop a contemporary ecotheology.

Teilhard’s anthropocentrism and determinism is corrected through an extension of his noosphere construct as a shared noetic space for a more-than-human ecology, identified as a site of both risk and potential reconciliation. I further develop the noosphere model by noting its congruence with Bonaventure’s vision of eschatological shalom, which proposes resurrection as the inauguration of a transformed creation. Although the application to ecotheology of Bonaventure’s trinitarian thought has been widely noted, the extended parallel with Teilhard’s evolutionary Christology enables it to be better applied to the contemporary ecological problem with its roots in the development of scientific models of evolution. Conversely, Teilhard’s neglect of trinitarian theology and failure to connect his Christ-Omega with the central Christian kerygma of crucifixion and resurrection is implicated in a deterministic and anthropocentric bias.

This is corrected by bringing Teilhard’s evolutionary model into conversation with Bonaventure’s trinitarian theology. My argument links a robust creation-centred Christology with a theoretical model for the more-than-human ecology, and connects human and divine wisdom with contemporary noetic models of ecological process. As a construct with a history of application in the life sciences, the noosphere provides a local and temporally proximate frame for theological dialogue with ecology. My extension of Teilhard’s noosphere underpins an ecological anthropology in which human existence is oriented towards Christ through dialogic relationship with all created things.

By linking Bonaventure’s eschatological vision of shalom with the extended noosphere model the iv claim of convergence on Christ-Omega is made relevant for an ecotheology, and an ecotheological eschatology emerges within which creation is identified both as cruciform and as a site of redemptive transformation. v Acknowledgements I wish to extend my thanks to my principal supervisor, Dr Alexander Jensen, for his constant encouragement, clarity and critical feedback throughout the years of my candidacy, and without whose depth of knowledge and patient support this thesis could not have come to fruition. I also thank my supervisor at Murdoch University, Dr Suzanne Boorer, who has encouraged me and provided valuable feedback in the final stages of writing. I am indebted to Dr Cecily Scutt who provided encouragement and support during a critical period through the ‘Writing Space’ workshops offered by the Murdoch University Graduate Centre.

Special thanks should be extended to the Anglican Diocese of Perth, whose financial support made it possible to accomplish much of the writing during a sabbatical in 2015. I also acknowledge the personal support and patient listening of colleagues, most especially that of Bishop Tom Wilmott in his role as Chair of the Anglican EcoCare Commission. Finally, I thank my wife Alison for her love and support during the years of research and writing, her willingness to listen to ideas and plans, her encouragement during difficulties and her unwavering confidence. vi Table of Contents Declaration.

i Copyright licence/Restriction. v Table of Contents. 1 1 Bonaventure’s trinitarian theology .1 Neo-Platonism and Christian thought .1 Middle Platonism and the Biblical tradition.2 Early Christian neo-Platonism .3 Neo-Platonism and medieval theology.2 Bonaventure's theology of creation .1 The doctrine of the Trinity.2 Creation and the eternal ideas. 78 2 Creation and the journey to God .1 Christ and creation .1 Incarnation and cosmic completion .2 Christ as cosmic centre .2 Wisdom and the soul's journey to God .1 The soul's journey to God .2 Ecstasy and the spiritual senses.

118 3 Evolution and the Great Chain of Being .1 Evolutionary thought in the 18th century .1 Leibniz, compossibility and process .2 Robinet's germ theory .3 Lamarck and the creative agency of organisms .4 Schelling and the unfolding of creation .2 Darwin’s theory of evolution and its reception .1 The decades before Darwin .2 On the Origin of Species and its reception .3 Bergson's agential evolutionary philosophy. 163 4 Teilhard's evolutionary Christology .1 Teilhard, Christ and evolution .1 Teilhard's early life and context .2 Teilhard's evolutionary Christology .3 Evolution, complexity-consciousness and the 'within' .4 Human evolution and the noosphere .2 Current perspectives on Teilhard .1 Current evolutionary perspectives on teleology .2 Critique of Teilhard's evolutionary Christology. 222 5 Exemplarity, creative process and the Noosphere .1 Exemplarity and Ecotheology .1 Creative process, radial energy and exemplarity .2 Trinitisation, the multiple and exemplarity.3 Exemplarity and creaturely autonomy .4 Re-imagining the eternal ideas .2 Noosphere and ecological process.1 Re-imaging the noosphere .2 The noosphere and ecological systems. 270 6 Towards an Ecotheological Eschatology .1 Process, noogenesis and Omega.1 Noosphere and intersubjectivity .2 Eschatology and the noosphere .2 History, eschatology and the age of shalom .1 Eschatology in Bonaventure's theology of history .2 Francis as a model of wisdom and piety.

319 7 Shalom and the hope of the earth .1 Covenant and shalom .2 Resurrection and shalom. 360 1 Christ and Creation: a model for ecotheology Introduction This thesis is a comparative study of the Christocentric doctrines of creation of St Bonaventure (d. 1274) and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (d. 1955), which aims to develop a model for ecotheology with principal application in the areas of Christology, anthropology and eschatology.

While rejecting Teilhard’s dualistic and anthropocentric conception of the noosphere, I develop an alternative model of the noosphere as the shared noetic space for a more-than-human ecology. I identify the amended model as a site of both ecological risk and potential reconciliation, further developing it by comparison with Bonaventure’s Franciscan vision of eschatological shalom in creation. Both Bonaventure and Teilhard understand Christ as the centre of the created order. Bonaventure develops a dynamic trinitarian doctrine that sees Christ as the persona media of the Trinity and exemplar of the created order.

This provides the metaphysical basis for a Franciscan spirituality that connects creation with Incarnation. For Teilhard, Christ is understood as the centre and telos of an evolutionary and convergent universe. Like Bonaventure, Teilhard’s doctrine of creation based on the convergence of all things in Christ is deeply incarnational. Teilhard initially proposes an understanding of matter as inseparable from spirit, describing evolution as an underlying pull towards complexity- consciousness.

In his discussion of human evolution, Teilhard abandons his metaphysical commitment to matter, suggesting the formation of a noosphere or layer of human intellect that becomes disembodied and supra- personal as it continues its evolutionary development into union with Christ- Omega. This aspect of Teilhard’s thought has been much-critiqued. I propose a reformulation of the construct of the noosphere that, like Teilhard’s model, is centred and convergent on Christ, but that incorporates the shared 2 Christ and Creation: a model for ecotheology physical and noetic space of the more-than-human ecology. I argue that the noosphere reflects a process-ecological model of interaction and suggests an ethos of intersubjectivity, or deep attentiveness to the non-human realm as subject rather than object.

The noosphere as a site both of risk and potential ecological harmony can be connected with a Wisdom Christology. I argue that the ethic of intersubjectivity and attentiveness to systemic flows of information throughout the ecological system reflects the Biblical theme of wisdom. The noosphere, which Teilhard envisages both as a seminal stage in the development of a collective human wisdom and as a way-point in convergence on Christ-Omega also reflects in my formulation the participation of all created reality in divine Wisdom. By drawing together the noosphere with Bonaventure’s eschatological vision of shalom in creation, the hope of a renewed creation can be more specifically articulated as one in which the crucified and risen Christ stands as its centre.

I extend the parallel between Bonaventure’s and Teilhard’s thought by noting that Bonaventure’s vision of shalom in creation is also underpinned by a Wisdom Christology and anthropology. For Bonaventure, the age of eschatological peace reflects the spirituality of St Francis, who I argue enacts both the wisdom spirituality of Jesus and an Edenic model of shalom within creation. Bonaventure’s eschatological vision, which draws on Francis’ mystical identification with the crucified Christ and the image in Revelation ch. 7 of the sixth angel of the apocalypse, also suggests a narrative of resurrection as the inauguration of a transformed creation.

Definition and scope of ecotheology As a theological perspective framed by concern for the environment, ecotheology has historical roots in Biblical traditions and in Benedictine, 3 Christ and Creation: a model for ecotheology Franciscan, Orthodox and Celtic traditions. Ernst Conradie suggests ecotheology should be regarded not as a subdiscipline of theology but rather a mode of theological reflection or a reform movement which emerged in the years following the 1961 speech by Joseph Sittler at the World Council of Churches assembly in New Delhi. Sittler argued that the unity of the Church founded in the reconciliation of all things in Col 1.15-20 is inseparable from the fate of the non-human ecology.1 Sittler’s claim marks the beginning of ecotheology as a movement, approximately coinciding with the beginning of public environmental concern. Conradie notes the seminal 1961 essay by Lynne White that attributed the historical cause of the environmental crisis to Christian theology and praxis.2 Describing Christianity as the ‘most anthropocentric religion the world has seen’, White argued that Christianity had directly contributed to Western technological superiority and the anthropological assumption that, made in the divine image, ‘man is master’ of nature.

Thus like feminist theology ecotheology engages in a ‘twofold critique’, in that it offers a critique from the perspective of Christian theology on cultural and social institutions that underlie the ecological crisis and at the same time engages in the critique of Christian theology and praxis from an ecological perspective.3 Conradie suggests that for this reason, ecotheology should be viewed as part of a wider reform movement within Christianity itself. Like all 1 Ernst M. Conradie, “Contemporary Challenges to Christian Ecotheology: Some Reflections on the State of the Debate after Five Decades,” Journal of Theology for South Africa, no. 147 (2013): 106–23; See also Ernst M.

Conradie, “Towards an Agenda for Ecological Theology: An Intercontinental Dialogue,” Ecotheology 10, no. 2 Conradie, “Contemporary Challenges to Christian Ecotheology,” 106–7; Lynn White, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” Science 155 (1967): 1203–7. 3 Conradie, “Contemporary Challenges to Christian Ecotheology,” 107. 4 Christ and Creation: a model for ecotheology reform movements, it lacks a clear organisation or agenda, is beyond the ability of the institution to control and often unwelcome.4 In relation to ecotheology’s ‘twofold critique’, Conradie suggests the importance of restating the fundamentals of Christian theology from the perspective of creation and the environment.

He notes that over the decade to 2013 it has become clearer ‘what is theological about ecotheology’. Conradie identifies six core theological issues requiring further reflection from an ecotheological perspective: i.