View on GitHub

Warwick Allen's Essays

Theological essays and reflections

Mission as it Relates to Stewardship of Creation

Course Number: MM581

Course Name: The Mission of God

Assessment: Thinking about Mission

Teacher: Emma Stokes

Student: Warwick Allen

Due Date: 19 Aug 2023

Word count: 823 (main text only)

Declaration of Originality

By submitting this assignment for assessment, I acknowledge and agree that:

Mission as it Relates to Stewardship of Creation

This essay explores one of the aspects of the intersection of mission and ecological stewardship, as proposed by Wright in the second chapter of The Mission of God’s People.1 The aspect explored here is the biblical mandate for all Christians to care for creation. A synopsis of the idea is presented, followed by a brief critique. Finally, I share a personal reflection on how my conception of, and attitude towards, mission has developed as a result of this study, and how that development in thinking might play out in my life.

Christians Are Mandated to Care for Creation

Wright states that because creation is a major theme in biblical theology, it should be expected that it would occupy a significant place within a biblical theology of mission. He goes on to build a case for there being a mandate for Christians to care for creation on two main arguments. First, he recounts the Genesis 1:28 command for humanity to rule the Earth,2 which is elaborated in Genesis 2:15 where God commands humans to “work” and “watch over” the garden.3,4 Wright explains that, as God’s image-bearers, we are obliged to exercise the same type of rule of creation as He does. That is a loving, caring, serving rule, seeking the best for that over which we have authority.

Another argument Wright uses to show that Christians have an ongoing mission to care for creation is that Christ, through His atoning work, redeemed not just humanity, but creation also.5 Hence, the redemption of creation is a part of the good news Christians are to proclaim. In support of this reasoning, Wright references (among other verses) Roman 8:19–22.

Wright concludes that “ecological concern and action can … be seen as a fully legitimate part of the mission of God’s people.”6

I am compelled by the biblical passages presented to agree that we have a continuing mandate of creation care. The link between the future redemption of all creation and the part we ought to play in that redemption has merit, but is less clear-cut.

Although I agree with Wright’s overarching message, I disagree with his claim that “the purpose of creation is the glory of God”. He uses verses such as Psalm 98 and Psalm 145 to back his claim. These (and other, similar passages) do not say that the reason for creation is to give glory to God; they describe creation’s activity, not its purpose. God is self-sufficient and has no need to receive glory.7 Following Anselm’s perfect- being theology,8 I posit that it is more perfect to create out of an overflow of love, and a desire to have creatures to receive that love, than to create out of a desire to receive. The glory given to God by creation is an inevitable consequence of its existence,9 but not the reason for its existence. We10 glorify Him by worshipping him.11 And, as we observe the wonder of creation, we are moved to glorify God for His handiwork. Non-rational creation glorifies God through us. Verses describing creation as giving glory to God need not be as mysterious or mystic as Wright suggests.12,13

The Development of My Conception of and Attitude Towards Mission

In this personal reflection, I discuss my understanding of, and experience of, mission before starting the “Mission of God” course. I reflect on how the idea surveyed — that all Christians are mandated to care for creation — has impacted my understanding of mission. I then speculate on and how that idea might impact the outworking of God’s mission through my life.

My understanding of mission was already aligned with Wright’s thinking. When mission is considered in the sense of “task,” then it is obvious to include the outworking of the mandate for creation care in our life’s mission. I have always felt it intuitively true that being seen as responsible stewards of God’s earth will pave the way for the gospel, and help environmentally-conscious people be more willing to accept the message we have to proclaim. I feel a strong resonance with Douglas Hayhoe’s statement:

… when we give to others and look after [God’s] creation, when we give ourselves to the task, we are most like him as the Lord of creation. We do this in liberty, not under compulsion, because it is what Christ living in us wants to do. It may look like an obligation, but it is our new life doing what is natural. And, without doubt, it will appear to others as very serious stewardship of God’s creation, but with a deep sense of humility, freedom, joy, love and unselfish giving of self for others.14

This course has confirmed that intuition, and is giving me the tools to articulate the importance of environmentalism as it relates to mission and evangelism. The confirmation of the strong connection between environmental concern and mission motivates me to intentionally seek opportunities to work to benefit the environment in a way that will open doors to connecting with people to share the good news and to disciple them.

Bibliography

Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010).

Hayhoe, Douglas (2017). “Creation as a Gift: A Neglected Approach to Creation Care.” Science & Christian Belief 29, 93–120

Leftow, Brian. “Anselm’s Perfect-Being Theology.” Chapter. In The Cambridge Companion to Anselm, edited by Brian Davies and Brian Leftow, 132–56. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. doi:10.1017/CCOL0521807468.007.

Wilson, J. R. God’s Good World: Reclaiming the Doctrine of Creation, Baker Academic (2013).

View Source on GitHub

  1. Christopher J.H. Wright, “People Who Care for Creation” in The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010). ↩

  2. Referring to the command in Gen 1:28 to subdue (kavash) the earth and have dominion over (radah) the living creation, Wright explains how neither of these terms necessarily imply violence, and radah has a connotation of servant leadership. It should be noted that both Strong’s and Brown-Driver-Briggs’ lexicons include violent concepts in the definitions for both terms; they both include “violate” in the definition of kavash, and both include “subjugate” in the definition of radah. However, Wright claims that a serving, caring form of authority is in view based on (1) God’s character and on how God rules over us, and the command to care for the earth in Genesis 2:15. ↩

  3. The CSB is used for all bible quotations in this essay. ↩

  4. Wright does not give an argument to why the command to work the garden is necessarily extended to the whole of creation. That point is just assumed. ↩

  5. Wright: “Paul’s vision of the Gospel is as wide as creation itself, and that is because his understanding of the cross includes the whole of creation in the reconciling work of Christ. Now, our mission is founded in the Gospel, so needs to reflect the length and breadth and depth of the Gospel. If, then, the cross of Christ is good news for the whole creation, our mission must include being and bringing good news to the whole creation. So then, our care for creation is motivated not solely by the fact that it was created by God, and we were commanded to look after it, but also by the fact that it has been redeemed by Christ, and we are to erect sign posts towards its ultimate destiny of complete restoration in Christ. God’s redemptive mission includes creation. Our mission involves participating in that redemptive work as agents of good news to creation, as well as to people.” ↩

  6. Christopher J.H. Wright, “People Who Care for Creation” in The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010). ↩

  7. Jonathan R. Wilson states, ‘Because of God’s Trinitarian life, God creates not out of a need for life or relationship but simply as the gift of life and relationship’ in Wilson, J. R. God’s Good World: Reclaiming the Doctrine of Creation, Baker Academic (2013), p. 99. ↩

  8. Leftow, Brian. “Anselm’s Perfect-Being Theology.” Chapter. In The Cambridge Companion to Anselm, edited by Brian Davies and Brian Leftow, 132–56. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. doi:10.1017/CCOL0521807468.007. ↩

  9. Wright expresses a similar concept in stating, “we are most fully ourselves as human beings when we are in a relationship with God in which God is glorified in and through our enjoyment of that relationship” in Wright, The Mission of God’s People, 380. ↩

  10. My use of ‘we’ here includes all of God’s rational creatures (in the Aristotelian sense), both human and non-human. ↩

  11. I have in mind here the broadest sense of ‘worship’, which includes all activity done with the intent of bringing honour to God. ↩

  12. “Nor can we put ourselves into the mind of God the creator and understand how God relates to his nonhuman creation. But the Bible tells us that God does, and that he receives praise and glory from all of it. We may not be able to explain how it is that creation praises its maker. But just because we cannot articulate the how of creation’s inarticulate praise, or indeed the how of God’s receiving of it, we should not therefore deny the fact that creation praises God – since it is affirmed throughout the Bible with overwhelming conviction.” Wright, The Mission of God’s People, 64. ↩

  13. In addition to the concept of non-rational creation glorifying God vicariously through rational creatures contemplating it and responding with praise, verses about creation glorifying God can be further demystified through understand the verses in their poetic or otherwise non-literal sense. ↩

  14. Hayhoe, Douglas (2017). “Creation as a Gift: A Neglected Approach to Creation Care.” Science & Christian Belief, 29, 120. ↩