Abstract
We are grateful to Stephen Plant, the Editor of Theology, for the opportunity to act as guest editors for this edition of Theology. This follows upon our search for an appropriate place to publish a collective set of reflections on ‘The journey of doing Christian ecotheology’ and his willingness to consider a format that is different from the usual.
A group of scholars from different disciplines gathered for a colloquium on ‘Christian Theology and the Earth’ from 16 to 17 November 2011, just before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion, held in San Francisco. The purpose of the colloquium was to reflect on the many discourses that currently constitute Christian ecotheology and to seek to map the terrain. The term ‘ecotheology’ is admittedly contested, as the contributions to this volume of Theology will amply illustrate, but it is widely used and has therefore been adopted here. To add the focus on Christian ecotheology is to acknowledge that similar theological reflections are also found in other religious traditions. The aim of the colloquium was to offer a descriptive account of the field, not to offer a normative assessment of what it should be. Such a mapping of the field will hopefully invite further reflections on the road ahead for Christian ecotheology in relation to other discourses.
Such a discussion had several goals:
to understand the variances within ecotheology, which depend on context, tradition, concern and focus; to expand our methodological tools; to assist in building bridges and alliances across these differences.
The people who attended had all worked in various fields of ecotheology for some time, and were familiar with a range of ecotheological discourses. We came from Canada, South Africa, the UK or the USA, thus gathering together perspectives that reflect these contexts and the academic careers that we follow. A similar gathering in Brazil, Ghana, India or South Korea may therefore have brought with them very different perspectives.
Before the meeting, we drafted some comments on how we see the field and circulated that beforehand. Each person wrote a reflection identifying the key questions or concerns in her or his particular work in the field of Christian ecotheology. The desire to ‘map the terrain’ included not only the various topics we address directly but also the manner in which we address them and why we consider these important. There was an emphasis on discerning presuppositions, beliefs, motivations and convictions that often lie at the heart of our work, but are not usually part of our discussions.
We also received inputs from scholars who were invited but could not participate in the colloquium. We spent one evening reflecting on the factors influencing ecotheology and identified various angles to describe the differences, conflicts, affinities, resonances and solidarities within the field. The conversation occurred in an open-facilitated style, and we did not predetermine exactly how we would go about the mapping aspects. After considerable discussion on how to do this, one participant suggested that we ‘map’ in groups, with visual aids. Given that our location was a church basement, there were only paper, crayons and markers. Academics with crayons are not often seen in public. With some hesitation, we decided this might be more creative and divided into groups.
We then spent a morning developing four or five different maps of the terrain and an afternoon reflecting on these conceptual maps. Agreeing on what kind of map would allow for sufficient complexity was a creative, fun and insightful process. One group developed a road map, with different entry and exit points, indicating that we are not all together on the ecotheology roadway. There are particular roads, and larger and smaller thoroughfares. Yet it is a journey going from where we are to a place of hope and ecological sustainability. Another group, with some artistic competence, drew a multifaceted hydrologic system, and expanded this into a geological terrain. Each part represented different aspects of the natural world, religion and ecology, ecotheology and other fields that bring clarity to our work, such as Earth sciences (see the contribution by Mark Wallace on the ‘river map’). A third group produced three maps. It became clear that distinct presuppositions were held by its members. This is important as it also reflects the importance of grappling with very different world-views that operate within the field of ecotheology. We also discussed the road ahead and searched for ways to make our deliberations available to others working in the field.
Several insights emerged that are worth noting, and that we bring to the larger ecotheological conversations. People have particular questions, arising not only from their personal situations but also from their specialized interests and competences. Sources and dialogue partners are distinct. For some, the Bible is indispensible and, for others, the natural sciences. Concerns about justice, while felt by all, dominate the horizon for some, while spirituality does for others. And on goes the list of differences. What was revealing in this exercise was the need to begin to build alliances across these differences. If the field of ecotheology is to have traction within specific Christian traditions, within Christian efforts globally, and towards a sustainable future, it is important to develop mutual understanding and collaboration.
What is offered here is a collective effort to capture our deliberations followed by a series of individual reflections on the mapping of the terrain and how we situate our own contributions. This collective effort is based on the maps (with some beautiful graphics) and metaphors that we developed through our conversations with each other. We have consolidated the descriptions of these maps to make this accessible and understandable to those who were not there. The differences between the maps that were developed are brought out through the individual reflections on this exercise. This collective effort is offered as a collegial invitation to others to participate in this journey. Developing and reading such maps cannot be an aim in itself; it can only serve to facilitate the journey. The value of such a mapping exercise would lie in the collaborative inquiry and not in developing a definitive map. The overall goal is that all our ecotheology efforts can make a constructive difference for an ecologically vibrant and just future.