Missiology and Ecology: An assessment of the current state of the debate Ernst M. Conradie Department of Religion and Theology, University of the Western Cape
[email protected] A keynote address delivered at the conference of the Australian Association for Mission Studies (AAMS), Sydney, 22 to 25 September 2011 Abstract This contribution offers a broad theological orientation on the ways in which mission, salvation and creation is understood in current discourse on Christian ecotheology. It suggests that a multi-dimensional notion of mission, including earth mission, requires clarification on the conflicting soteriological concepts that are employed (liberation, healing, reconciliation, moral education). However, more than that is required in order to do justice to both God’s work of creation and of salvation. Following Arnold van Ruler’s work on God’s loyalty to creation, I argue that salvation is not about salvation or about “being saved” or even about the Saviour, but about the being of the saved, that is, about creation. I will offer a number of theses on mission and ecology on this basis. Key words: Ecology, mission, salvation Current discourse on mission and ecology How can the state of the debate on mission and ecology be captured? In an editorial of Missionalia David Bosch observed that a Christian responsibility towards the environment “has only very rarely been linked with the church’s missionary enterprise”.1 He later said: “A missiology of Western culture must include an ecological dimension. The time is long past that we can afford to exclude the environment from our missionary agenda”2 Two decades later his observation in the editorial would no longer be quite as appropriate. Over the last four decades a large corpus of literature on Christian ecotheology has emerged.3 This includes a significant number of articles where “mission” is used as a key term.4 Numerous others touch on similar themes such as the responsibility of Christians towards the biophysical environment, the notions of being “stewards” or guardians” of the land, earthkeeping projects of local congregations and so forth. Here the word “mission” is not 1 2 3 4
Bosch 1991b:1. See Bosch 1995:55. See the indexed bibliography and an introduction to such literature in Conradie 2006. Theological reflection on mission and earthkeeping should be understood in juxtaposition with a number of other discourses in the field of ecotheology. These include at least the following: a) multi-faith collaborative discourse on “religion and ecology”, for example in the context of the Forum of Religion and Ecology where “religion” serves as an umbrella term for various distinct theologies and “earth” for the emergence of human culture and religion, b) ecumenical discourse on eco-justice with regard to the threats of economic injustices and inequalities and ecological destruction, c) numerous contributions to applied ethics on environmental themes such as climate change, biodiversity and animal ethics, d) discourse on an ecological biblical hermeneutics, for example in the context of the Earth Bible series, e) reconstructive work on the ecological ambiguities and wisdom embedded in particular Christian traditions (e.g. the Franciscan tradition to mention one example), f) theological reflection on Christian beliefs and symbols, g) theological reflection on liturgical renewal, for example on the celebration of a “Season of Creation” and h) reflections on a wide variety of Christian earthkeeping projects and the greening of institutions. It is striking that such discourses remain somewhat disjointed from one another and that the methodological differences between the various theological sub-disciplines remain unresolved in this context.
necessarily mentioned, although those who opt for a more expansive notion of mission would easily recognise such engagements as belonging to the mission of the church. In recent reflections on this corpus of literature (in the process leading towards the Edinburgh 2010 conference5) I suggested that there is an emerging consensus on the following issues: a) The environmental impact of the history of (cross-cultural) Christian missions is highly ambiguous. b) God’s mission to the world (through Christ and the Spirit) includes an ecological dimension which may be expressed through various forms of Christian earthkeeping. c) The ecological dimension of Christian mission touches upon each and every mode of Christian witness (marturia), including leitourgia, koinonia, kerugma and diakonia. Although such claims are often reiterated in missiological literature, they are not necessarily well understood or acknowledged in dominant forms of Christianity. However, there remain a number of crucial unresolved issues: a) Although a theological rationale for Christian earthkeeping is often discussed in the available literature and more often assumed, there remains considerable confusion in this regard.6 b) The ways in which the various modes of Christian witness (leitourgia, koinonia, kerugma and diakonia) are related to each other remain a point of controversy in reflection on Christian mission and on Christian earthkeeping alike. c) Christians involved in earthkeeping projects typically sense the need for inter-faith or multi-faith cooperation in this regard. This is understandable since ecological concerns such as climate change can only be addressed in common.7 However, there remains difference of opinion as to how the rationale for Christian earthkeeping is related to earthkeeping in other religious traditions. Three dominant models The state of the debate on mission and ecology is of course also influenced by the competing paradigms of Christian mission. The old debates are merely reiterated with respect to a new theme. The classic questions around missionary agency cannot be avoided either: Who are the agents of mission? Who sends whom where to do what and for what purposes? Moreover, in ecological theology there are as many typologies available as there are approaches that can be identified and categorised.8 Both the terms are therefore highly complex. Let me use the socalled offices of Christ as an organising principle to offer some brief reflections on mission and ecology, with Southern African examples as illustrations. a) In Southern Africa the dominant missionary model followed by Christian organisations (not so much churches) in the 19th century was to establish “mission stations” where the transforming impact of the gospel could be embodied and practised. Although much maligned as a result of their role in colonial expansion and the Eurocentric assumptions behind crosscultural mission, such mission stations offered a form of “holistic” development aid through schools, hospitals, agricultural services and political advice to indigenous chiefs and kings. The secret behind this missionary impulse was expressed through proclamation and liturgy. Several contemporary earthkeeping ministries continue along the same lines hopefully adopting the same holistic understanding of what may be called priestly service to people in need. Examples of such work may be found in two volume work African Earthkeepers by 5 6 7
8
See Conradie 2010. For a survey of some 20 conflicting ways in which a rationale for Christiane earthkeeping is expressed, see Conradie 2011. As Sean McDonagh (1990:192-193) observes, “There are no Catholic lakes, Protestant rivers or Muslim forests. We all share a common earth and in the face of a threat to the survival of the planet we should unite our efforts and forget which institutions should have precedence, and other ecclesial niceties.” For a survey of such typologies, see Conradie 2006, 2011.
2
Marthinus Daneel on the Zimbabwean Institute of Religious Research and Ecological Conservation (ZIRRCON),9 the website of A Rocha, a Christian nature conservation organisation, and the Khanya programme of the Methodist Church, to mention only three well-known examples.10 Such work is typically faced with the same impasses that confront development discourse with the regard to the “failure of development”. Clearly, no notion of development can be called “sustainable” if it assumes sustained economic growth as measured by biophysical production. b) The cross-cultural assumptions of this missionary model could not be maintained in the African context – following processes of political liberation, urbanisation, industrialisation and the rapid social change that characterised the 20th century. It was therefore to be expected that the underlying missionary motivation would be universalised. This is best expressed in the widespread interest in missional churches and missional theology (the legacy of Leslie Newbigin). Ironically, such discourse is found in South Africa especially in the context of the Dutch Reformed Church, while programmes on “theology and development” are very popular elsewhere. Where such a generic notion of mission is related to earthkeeping practices, one typically finds an emphasis on vocation (or the ministry of all believers in society) and responsible stewardship. This understanding of “mission” is perhaps best expressed in the initiative to establish eco-congregations, in South Africa led by Anglican clergy and lay people such as Sue Britton, Kate Davies, Tim Gray and Andrew Warmback. The strength of this “royal paradigm” is indeed its emphasis on responsibility with regard to the ownership of possessions in an ecclesial context (church land, buildings and investments). The many weaknesses of such a notion of stewardship have often been noted in ecumenical literature.11 Nevertheless, the underlying emphasis on responsibility is never doubted, only the tendency to universalise and prioritise the metaphor of being a “steward”. c) A third model of missionary engagement with ecological concerns is that of prophetic critique. Given the gravity of the environmental crisis, most notably climate change but also issues around biodiversity, water quality and so forth, the need for such prophetic critique should be quite obvious. However, there is some irony here. Many Christian ethicists are overwhelmed by the complexity of the issues and refrain from what James Gustafson would describe as prophetic moral discourse.12 By contrast, scientists have become the somewhat unlikely prophets of our day, perhaps against their methodological inclinations. The strongly worded title of James Lovelock’s book The vanishing face of Gaia: A final warning illustrates the point, but even the cautious formulations in the IPCC reports have prophetic undertones.13 In South Africa the work of the South African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute provides perhaps the best example of sustained prophetic critique based on participation in public hearings on government policy. This is epitomised by the prophetic style of Geoff Davies, the “green” Anglican bishop. Another illustration of such prophetic engagement, but addressed at local church leaders rather than the government, business or industry, is a document published by the South African Council of Churches entitled Climate Change – A challenge to churches in South Africa (2009). This document recognises that prophetic critique would not suffice. The task of a prophet is not merely to denounce evil and injustices 9 10 11 12
13
Daneel 1998, 1999. For a discussion, see Conradie et al 2001. For a survey of such literature, see Conradie 2011:81-94. In an influential analysis Gustafson (1988) identified four modes of moral discourse in documents from the World Council of Churches, namely prophetic discourse, narrative discourse, policy discourse and ethical discourse. See Lovelock 2009.
3
but also to inspire people with an attractive vision for the future, helping them to see what the next appropriate step is. This suggests the need for moral leadership, moral courage, moral vision and moral imagination. A multi-dimensional notion of mission? The very nature of this analysis suggests that an integration of these three offices would be required. In the same vein others have suggested the need for “holistic mission” based on the recognition that Christian witness (marturia) may be expressed through the proclamation (kerygma), service (diakonia), fellowship (koinonia) and worship (leitourgia) of Christian communities. Following the lead of David Bosch, a multi-dimensional notion of mission has been proposed in many South African contributions to missiology. However, such a multi-dimensional model does not necessarily imply a form of integration or a “holistic approach”. Since we cannot see the whole, it is difficult to know what defines any such a whole. Bosch himself insists that mission ultimately remains undefinable. At best we can hope for approximations.14 Indeed, the emerging ecumenical paradigm of mission that he sketched is partly to be understood as an attempt to unravel the shackles of an Enlightenment rationality and the logic of definition and control. In a recent contribution to reflections on the publication of Transforming mission twenty years ago,15 I argued that the power of Bosch’s depiction of an emerging ecumenical paradigm of mission is related to his recognition of this irreducible complexity and his willingness to maintain creative tensions without resolving them prematurely. However, I suggested that Bosch’s underlying soteriology begs further questions. A missiologist may be content with juxtaposition. A systematic theologian also needs to maintain creative tensions (Calvin may serve as an excellent example). However, it soon becomes necessary to reflect on the relationship between reconciliation and liberation, between justification and sanctification, between kerygma and diakonia, between the spiritual and the social agendas of the church,16 between God’s work of creation and of salvation, between God’s mission and our mission, between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. A multi-dimensional notion of mission, including earth mission, requires clarification on the conflicting soteriological concepts that are employed in order to clarify the apt but rather empty notion of “comprehensive well-being”. In work within the Christian Faith and the Earth project I explored the famous typology of Gustaf Aulén17 to identify and describe the differences between three soteriological paradigms that are also employed in ecotheology.18 In the contribution on Transforming Mission I employed the same analysis to engage with Bosch’s own reflections on salvation.19 I cannot repeat the analysis here. Suffice it to say that the dominant soteriological concepts of liberation (see Aulén’s “classic” type), reconciliation based on the proclamation of God’s forgiveness (see Aulén’s “Latin” type) and moral education or development (see Aulén’s “modern” type) remain alive and well in post-apartheid discourse in South Africa. Demaine Solomons a doctoral student based at UWC is currently exploring such differences under the rubrics of “Justice through reconciliation in Jesus Christ” (epitomised by the Belhar confession) “Justice and reconciliation after liberation” (epitomised by the Kairos Document) and “reconstruction requires national reconciliation” (epitomised by the planning towards the proceedings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission). These views (on reconciliation) are evidently not easily reconciled with each other! 14 15 16 17 18 19
Bosch 1991:9. Conradie 2011. See the doctoral thesis by Jansen 2008. See Aulén 1931/2002. Conradie 2010. See Bosch 1989.
4
On the basis of such ongoing work let me spell out the significance of that for the theme of ecology and mission. How is the logic of missiology related to the logic of ecology? In the context of discourse on Christian mission “ecology” cannot be interpreted merely in a secular way as “the study of the biophysical environment”. It refers to the underlying logic (logos) of the whole household of God (oikos). This household, the world as we experience and know it today, is theologically speaking always already the product of God’s work of creation, the impact of human sin, God’s providence, God’s work of salvation, the ambiguous legacy of Christianity and the hope for the consummation of God’s work, all of this mixed together, confused and conflated. The relationship between these aspects of God’s work begs much further theological reflection. This applies especially to the relation between creation and salvation.20 If, then, in the context of discourse on ecology and mission, conflicting soteriological concepts are employed, this cannot but lead to further confusion. Instead of discussing this complex task of (systematic) theological reflection on ecology (the logic of the household of God), let me jump ahead by spelling out the implications of that for Christian mission, by asking what theology and more specifically missiology can contribute to wider discourse on ecology. Rethinking mission and ecology: A few theses Where can one find a sense of direction for further reflection on mission and ecology? In the remainder of this contribution I dare to offer a number of theses without elaborating on each in full detail. 1. Christian discourse on mission can offer secular discourse on ecology a sense of moral vision. As many secular observers have noted, the underlying problem in the failure of climate change negotiations is not so much a lack of knowledge, funding or technology, but of moral leadership, moral energy and moral courage. We know what to do and how to do that but do not know why we should. While there are many expressions of a moral vision, what is lacking is moral inspiration in order to confront the assumptions of neo-liberal capitalist modes of production and consumerist lifestyles. Such inspiration may come from the symbols, archetypes and belief systems of the world’s religious traditions – if these are taken seriously and not merely captured under generalised rubrics. 2. Christians cannot speak about a moral vision without reference to their confession of faith in the triune God. They cannot articulate their sense of hope merely in abstract terms. They cannot contribute to the well-being of the planet on the basis of the role assigned to religion since Kant, namely to strengthen the moral fabric of society in a functionalist way. The source of inspiration has to be revealed. The moral imperative is derived from the theological indicative. 3. The Christian moral vision offers a way of seeing the world as we know and experience it through God’s eyes. This is a cosmic liturgical vision in which Christians gradually learn to see the world in the light of the Light of the world. This is a vision that change our way of looking at God’s world. 4. This liturgical vision may be understood as a re-description and a theological ascription of a world that can be described in a multi-dimensional way, including the languages of science, 20
This is the theme of current work within the Christian Faith and the Earth project and cannot be discussed here at any length. A number of collaborative publications on the relationship between creation and salvation are forthcoming, all bearing the main title of “Creation and salvation”, namely one on the legacy of Abraham Kuyper, one on classic theologians, one on recent theological movements and a monograph on the term recreatio in the reformed tradition of Swiss, Dutch, German and South African origins. See the bibliography under Conradie (2011) for details.
5
governance, business, jurisprudence and poetry. Formulated in abstract language, to understand the world as God’s own creation allows one to view the social construction of reality from the perspective of the social construction of Ultimate Reality (or Ultimate Mystery) by providing provisional answers to common human questions about the ultimate origin, destiny and purpose of the universe. It offers an answer to the question: What makes the world go round? It yields a response to questions about coping with the demands of life, with pain, suffering, injustice and evil – from the outside but also from inside one’s own heart. 5. This liturgical vision is derived from particular experiences in the Jewish-Christian tradition over a period of close to four thousand years. It is therefore expressed in narrative form. It tells a story21 of God’s work, of God love and God’s joy in what God has created. It portrays the whole universe as God’s own beloved child.22 One may tell this story in different ways – for example as one of God’s coming, God’s caring and God’s sending. Missiological discourse reflects, more specifically, on God’s mission, I would insist, primarily in the light of the devastating impact of human sin. 6. Given this emphasis on a liturgical vision with cosmic scope and moral persuasion, the redescription of mission as the triune God’s own mission is entirely appropriate. Mission is thus defined pneumatologically as the sending of the Spirit by the Father to carry through the work of Christ. In response to the question “Who sends whom where to do what?” only a trinitarian answer will do. This is also the gist of current reflections from within the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism: The Spirit is the agent of mission. The Spirit is then defined in feminine terms as ruah, the breath of life, a breath of fresh air, one may say.23 This suggests an asymmetry between the Spirit’s mission and our mission, but also their perichoretic reciprocity. 7. This redefines any prior notions of mission, especially the cross-cultural assumptions of 19th century missiological discourse. Mission is not the work of Western agencies or even churches, but God’s own sending. Moreover, there is a fundamental asymmetry between God’s mission and our mission – if God’s mission includes the work of creation, continuing creation, providence and consummation.24 The notion of Missio dei therefore cannot be used merely as a decorative, metaphoric way to describe what Christian activists are doing to save the world. Even the work of salvation is not our responsibility. We are nothing more than forgiven sinners. A Christian confession of guilt (e.g. around climate change) may therefore be more appropriate than rather desperate attempts to save the world through our own efforts.25 As the CWME document concludes, We see our participation in the missio Dei as the fruit of the Spirit. The church in Mission can only be sustained by spiritualities deeply rooted in the Trinity’s communion of love. These life-affirming spiritualities reflect the ru’ach’s transformative presence and lead us to embody afresh Christ’s mission in communion with Creator and Creation. 8. The decentralisation of the church in God’s mission may be found especially in the Dutch theology of the apostolate as introduced by Hendrik Kraemer, articulated by Arnold van Ruler 21 22 23
24 25
This is the conclusion of my recent essay on “Creation at the heart f mission?” (Conradie 2010). See Fensham 2011 (forthcoming). See the beautifully crafted document entitled “God’s transforming Spirit: Reflections on Mission, Spirituality and Creation” produced by a Working Group of the Council for World Mission and Evangelism on Mission & Spirituality, in cooperation with the Climate Change Programme of the WCC and the WCC Indigenous Peoples Project. It speaks of the Spirit in feminine categories as ru’ach, as breath, the essence of life, the dynamic of life. This is the gist of my article on “Creation at the heart of mission” (Conradie 2010). See my essay on confessing guilt in the context of climate change (Conradie 2010) and the SACC’s document on climate change (2009:62-64).
6
and later radicalised by his former student JC Hoekendijk.26 This decentralisation became possible on the basis of a consistently eschatological approach to the apostolicity of the church so that mission became the clue to the meaning of history and of time itself.27 This missionary vision therefore “does not think simply in the categories of continuity and of that which is natural. If that were the case, then one would have to view ecclesiology as an extension of Christology.”28 However, the direction, the goal towards which mission is aimed at is precisely that which is natural. Van Ruler’s theology, for example, may be characterised as a radical attempt to do justice to God’s ultimate loyalty to creation. At the heart of his theology lies his insistence that God’s work of salvation is for the sake of creation (as creatura). Salvation is not about salvation itself or about “being saved” or even about the Saviour, but about the being of the saved, that is, about creation.29 Sanctification is not about becoming holy but about again allowing something to “be”. The aim of the proclamation of the Christian gospel is not to turn humans into Christians but to allow sinners to become human. Mission is not about Christianising the world but about allowing creation to exist before God. In my view, discourse on mission and ecology would do well to retrieve such a position rather than the dominant Barthian discourse on missio Dei. 9. Such an emphasis on God’s loyalty to creation and the subsequent decentralisation of the church in God’s mission requires further reflection on the place of the church in God’s household (oikos). Mission need not be understood as an attempt by the church to take up more and more rooms in God’s house. Neither does it need to be understood as a humble acceptance of a small room in the servant’s quarters, or in an upper-room for spiritual retreats. The church cannot be restricted to one room of the house. That would amount to a privatisation of the sphere of influence of the church and to a domestication of the power of the gospel. Perhaps an open-plan house would suit the church best. Instead, the church offers a particular vision on the very architecture, building and ownership of the house. The church 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. The church also concerns itself with the rules for the management of the house. On this basis the church can proclaim that this is indeed the household of God, despite the devastating impact of sin in the world. On this basis Christian communities may act, precisely as children and heirs of the household, also as domestic servants in the house, adopting the way of Jesus Christ towards the well-being of the whole household. This may provide a well-integrated theological rationale to encourage the earthkeeping ethos, praxis and spirituality of the human members of God’s household. This should also entail the church’s involvement in housing schemes for the homeless, participation in the search for appropriate forms of habitation, in numerous tasks of housekeeping,30 26
Van Ruler later distanced himself from Hoekendijk and corrected his own decentralised notion of the church by recognizing the eschatological significance of the church. This is expressed in volume of mediatation on why one would still consider going to church, published in the year of his death (Van Ruler 1970). 27 See Van Ruler 1989:203. 28 See Van Ruler 1989:204. Van Ruler adds: “Eschatology creates enormous space (ruimte) and tension (spankracht) in Christian thought. It can in no case be christomonistic thinking; it must display a fully trinitarian structure – with plenty of elbow room (speelruimte) for creation, humanity, time and history” (1989:205). 29 See, for example, Van Ruler 1978:55. 30 See the following comment by Anne Nasimiyu-Wasike (1998:67): “The sacrifice that mothers make for their children sheds light on the selfless character of the divine love for humanity. Millions of African women are struggling in body, wasting away and working hard in tilling the land, baby-sitting, home-keeping cooking, washing clothes, fetching water, looking for firewood and petty trading in fruit and vegetables, leading the singing and prayers at liturgical and paraliturgical celebrations, so that the lives of others may flourish.”
7
but also an invitation to others to abide in Christ (John 15:4), to hear that the Holy Spirit lives amongst the community of disciples (John 14:16), to long for life in the house of the Father (John 14:2f). Indeed, the church community longs for the day when this household will offer a home for all God’s creatures. It prepares the house for the home-coming feast. It does not long for another home; it hopes that the house which it inhabits will indeed become God’s own home, on earth as it is in heaven. Bibliographic details Aulén, G. 1931/2002. Christus victor: An historical study of the three main types of the idea of atonement. Eugene: Wipf & Stock. Bosch, D.J. 1989. Salvation: A missiological perspective. Ex Auditu 5, 139-157. Bosch, DJ 1991. Transforming mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Bosch, DJ 1991b. Editorial: Mission and ecology. Missionalia 19:1, 1-2. Bosch, DJ 1995. Believing in the Future: Towards a Missiology of Western Culture. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International Conradie, EM (ed) 2011. Creation and Salvation: A mosaic of selected classic Christian theologies. Berlin: LIT Verlag. (forthcoming) Conradie, EM (ed) 2011. Creation and Salvation: Dialogue on Abraham Kuyper’s Legacy for Contemporary Ecotheology. Leiden: Brill Publishers. Conradie, EM (ed) 2011/2012. Creation and Salvation: A medley of contemporary theological movements. Volume of essays currently underway. Conradie, EM 2006. Christianity and ecological theology: Resources for further research. Study Guides in Religion and Theology 11. Stellenbosch: SUN Press. Conradie, EM 2008. The earth in God’s economy: Reflections on the narrative of God’s work. Scriptura 97, 1336. Conradie, EM 2010. Creation at the heart of mission. Missionalia 38:3, 380-396. Conradie, EM 2010. Mission and earthkeeping: The state of the debate. In Ross, KR: Edinburgh 2010: Fresh perspectives on Christian mission, 73-78. Pasadena: William Carey International University Press. Conradie, EM 2010. The salvation of the earth from anthropogenic destruction: In search of appropriate soteriological concepts in an age of ecological destruction. Worldviews: Global religions, culture, ecology 14: 2-3, 111-140. Conradie, EM 2011. Christianity and Earthkeeping: In search of an inspiring vision. Stellenbosch: SUN Media. Conradie, EM 2011. Confessing guilt in the context of climate change: Some South African perspectives. In: Bergmann, S & Eaton, H (eds): Ecological awareness: Exploring religion, ethics and aesthetics, 77-96. Berlin: LIT Verlag. Conradie, EM 2011. Creation and salvation? The legacy of the reformed term re-creatio. Incomplete manuscript. Conradie, EM 2011. Missiology and soteriology: The power and limits of a multi-dimensional approach. Article submitted for publication in Missionalia. Conradie, EM et al 2001. The struggle for eco-justice in the South African context. In: Hessel, DT & Rasmussen, LL (eds): Earth habitat: Eco-injustices and the church's response, 135-158. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Daneel, ML 1998. African Earthkeepers Volume 1: Interfaith mission in earth-care. African Initiatives in Christian mission 2. Pretoria: Unisa. Daneel, ML 1999. African Earthkeepers Volume 2: Environmental mission and liberation in Christian perspective. African Initiatives in Christian mission 3. Pretoria: Unisa. Fensham, C 2009. Planet in peril: Towards a just eco-missiology rooted in relational human stewardship. Unpublished paper read and distributed at the annual meeting of the South African Missiological Society held at Unisa, 14-16 January 2009. Gustafson, JM: Varieties of moral discourse: Prophetic, narrative, ethical, and policy (Grand Rapids: Calvin College, 1988). Jansen, Cedric 2008. Die AGS en armoede: Die plek van armoede in the multi-dimensionele missionêre taak van die kerk. D.Phil. thesis. University of the Western Cape. Koopman, NN 2011. “The threefold office, Christology and public life”. Paper read at the 9th biannual meeting of the International Reformed Theological Institute, Potchefstroom, 5-10 July 2011. Lovelock, J 2009. The vanishing face of Gaia: A final warning. New York: Basic Books. McDonagh, S 1990. The greening of the church. New York: Orbis Books. Nasimiyu-Wasike, A 1998. African women’s legitimate role in church ministry. In: Mugambi, JNK & Magesa, L (eds): The church in African Christianity: Innovative essays in ecclesiology, 57-70. Nairobi: Acton
8
Publishers. South African Council of Churches, Climate Change Committee 2009. Climate Change – A challenge to the churches in South Africa. Marshalltown: SACC. Van Ruler, AA 1970. Waarom zou ik naar de kerk gaan. Nijkerk: GF Callenbach. Van Ruler, AA 1978. Verwachting en voltooiing: Een bundel theologische opstellen en voordrachten. Nijkerk: Callenbach. Van Ruler, AA 1989. Calvinist trinitarianism and theocentric politics: Essays towards a public theology (edited by John Bolt). Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press. World Council of Churches, CWME and Climate Change working groups on Mission, Spirituality and Care for Creation 2011. God’s transforming Spirit: Reflections on Mission, Spirituality and Creation. Unpublished draft document.
9
