Wallace, Mark I.

English

Works

 Swarthmore CollegeWorks   Religion Faculty Works   10-1-2005  Review Of "A Political Theology Of Nature" By P. Scott  Mark I. Wallace Swarthmore College, mwallac1@swarthmore.edu   Let us know how access to this work benefits you.  Follow this and additional works at: http://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-religion   Part of the Religion Commons   Recommended Citation Mark I. Wallace. (2005). "Review Of "A Political Theology Of Nature" By P. Scott". Journal Of Religion. Volume 85, Issue 4. 672-674. http://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-religion/26  This work is brought to you for free and open access by the Swarthmore College Libraries. It has been accepted for inclusion in Religion Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Works. For more information, please contact myworks@swarthmore.edu. Peter Scott, A Political Theology of NatureA Political Theology of Nature by Peter Scott, Review by: Mark I. WallaceThe Journal of Religion, Vol. 85, No. 4 (October 2005), pp. 672-674Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/499458 .Accessed: 03/03/2014 13:23 .Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspJSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. .The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheJournal of Religion.http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 130.58.64.71 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:23:16 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsThe Journal of Religionfriars. His task was to provide the friars with a convincing argument for theexistence and mission of the Order of the Friars Minor as an alternative tothe Joachite movement.In his discussion of the issues involved here, Anderson refers to various mod-ern interpretations of Bonaventure, arguing that the Seraphic Doctor seemsto go as far as possible with the Joachite movement among the friars. But whileJoachim looked toward a perfect church in a future age of the Holy Spirit,Bonaventure looked to the original historical form of the church as the modelto which reform should be moving. He is concerned with the apostolic church,and even with the prelapsarian state of Adam and Eve, to provide appropriateinsights as to what a reformed church should be like. In this way Bonaventurediffers significantly from the Joachite movement of that time. He is also con-cerned with a healthy relation of the friars to the secular clergy, even if thelatter are problematic in many ways.Thus, in Anderson’s view, Bonaventure is addressing questions that are verysimilar to issues in the experience of the Roman Catholic Church after VaticanII. How are we to understand the mission of the church in the world? Howare we to understand hierarchy and authority in the context of church reform?Bonaventure sees Christ as the model for how a reformer should act: withhumility, patience, and obedience. He tells the friars that they can expect re-sistance, but they should respond with love and forgiveness. This will enablethem to become ever more deeply conformed to the mystery of Christ.Anderson singles out the meaning of piety in Bonaventure’s thought. As agift of the Holy Spirit, piety is expressed in a form of self-giving that imitatesGod’s own self-diffusive goodness and finds its primary realization in the callfor unity and obedience. It is a quality that was crucial for the friars’ ministryof reform within the church. Anderson’s argument is presented in a style thatis clear and thoughtful but not cluttered with highly technical language. Hispresentation opens a very complex medieval text to the modern reader in ahelpful way. The possibility of parallels between the situation of Bonaventureand that of the church today is striking. This might lead us together withAnderson to ask Bonaventure’s question in our own time: “Where is piety to-day?” (198).ZACHARY HAYES, OFM, Catholic Theological Union.This content downloaded from 130.58.64.71 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:23:16 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions672SCOTT, PETER. A Political Theology of Nature. Cambridge Studies in ChristianDoctrine. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. xiii275 pp. $65.00(cloth); $24.00 (paper).This new work by Peter Scott makes a powerful case for a social and politicalbasis for ecological theology. Scott analyzes the necessary social conditions forjust and equitable relationships between humanity and nonhuman nature. Thetask of theology is to articulate the Trinitarian and Eucharistic basis for reor-dering the social production of nature in a manner that is coparticipatory andliberatory for all beings, human and nonhuman. The book is elegantly writtenand precise in its criticisms of contemporary theologies influenced by deepecology.Drawing on neo-Marxist theory, Scott shows that capitalism is a contradictorysystem that both produces extravagant wealth for a select few and grindingpoverty and environmental degradation for most others (136–56). Christian673This content downloaded from 130.58.64.71 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:23:16 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsBook Reviewsfaith stands in prophetic judgment against this system. Faith undergirds a pos-itive social exchange between humankind and otherkind by sacramentallypointing to the manner in which nature can be productively changed—ortransformatively produced, to use Scott’s materialist vocabulary. Eucharisticallyspeaking, nature is teleologically unfulfilled apart from its capacity to signifyChrist. In ritual bread and wine, its point is to aim beyond itself to the Godof Christian faith. “What is the theological concept of nature operative here?We might call it a concept of un/natural nature: although eucharistic practiceis founded on material elements which are social productions, yet the theo-logical point is that the Eucharist represents the resurrection and crucifixionand thereby the sociality and openness of nature. . . . Once more, immersionin nature—some naturalistic fantasy—is ruled out” (250). Nature needs to betransformed because in and for itself it is incomplete. The point of nature, as“un/natural” rather than simply “natural” and sufficient in itself, is not simplyto be but to witness symbolically to the liberating truth of the Gospel message;in this witness just social relations are enacted.Scott’s argument against valorizing nature for its own sake in favor of itssymbolic potential is a searching challenge to contemporary nature-basedecotheology. He derides “immersion in nature” as a “naturalistic fantasy” thatfails to understand nature’s true purpose as a sign pointing beyond itself tosomething else (250). He approvingly cites Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s commentthat the sacraments “set free” the “dumbness” of the natural world; now “en-slaved nature” can speak God’s Word (244).The point Christian deep ecology makes, however, is that nonhuman natureis complete and fulfilled in itself. It does not need the mediation of humansymbol-making to speak; its voice is not dumb and enslaved but is already loudand clear for those who have ears to hear. Instead of relegating nature toplaying a mediatory role as a witness to the Gospel, Christian deep ecologycelebrates nature itself—the well-being of all things in their fecundity and di-versity—as the basic thrust of the Christian message. It is not nature that needsto be liturgically fulfilled but the Gospel that needs to recover its earthenancestry. Until and when the Gospel becomes reattached to its roots in theworld of nature and flesh—the story of the good creation in Genesis, the eco-logical message of Job, the saving truth of the Christian witness that God em-bodied Godself in Jesus—it will not achieve its true purpose in a world benton ecocide for all of its inhabitants, human and nonhuman alike. “Immersionin nature,” far from being a “fantasy,” is the demand of our time.But nature immersion theologies, according to Scott, ignore the ontologicaldifferences among God, humanity, and nonhuman nature in favor of a non-hierarchical respect for all life-forms (221). Such theologies see God in allthings and the natural world as sacramental, even holy ground. Yet for Scottnonspeciest equal regard blunts sharp political analysis concerning, for ex-ample, energy use and resource extraction that is crucial for democraticallyrobust theology. Theology influenced by deep ecology cannot make these nu-anced judgments and degenerates into a totalitarian juggernaut fueled by apolitics of sameness and identity (63–88). Is this a fair criticism? It strikes methat the most potent theologically engaged political criticism today is advancedby those who are motivated by a sense of the omnipresent sacred, and whocall for sustainable lifestyles and an equal regard for all species. Some of theseconcerns are resonant with Scott’s political theology of nature, and some areSUCHOCKI, MARJORIE HEWITT. Divinity and Diversity: A Christian Affirmation ofReligious Pluralism. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003. 125 pp. $18.00 (paper).Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki sets forth in this work to ground a commitment toreligious pluralism in the fundamental beliefs and concepts of the Christiantradition. To do so, she must steer between the dogmatism of Christian exclu-sivism and the paralysis of cultural relativism. Suchocki finds many resourceswithin the Christian tradition to support a commitment to pluralism. Relyingheavily on a process-relational theological framework, she devotes a chaptereach to a theology of creation, a theology of incarnation, a theology of theimage of God, and a theology of the reign of God.Creation (chap. 2) is understood in call-and-response terms. God called theworld to creation, and the world responded. However, creation is not a com-pleted task. God continues to call the world, and the world continues to re-spond. In the process, both God and the world develop creatively. But theresponse of the world is not a single response. The response is varied depend-ing on the object or organism. Even among specific organisms it varies. Forexample, human beings have responded differently to God’s call. The world’sreligions represent varied responses to God’s call. Yet they all are worthy andvalued responses, and thus pluralism can be affirmed.Similarly, Suchocki interprets incarnation (chap. 3) in a radical fashion. Asreligious cultures respond to God’s call, they also incorporate God’s influence.In this sense, the incarnation of God is not a unique historical moment thatfocuses on the life and death of Jesus Christ but an ongoing and culturallydiverse experience occurring around the world and throughout history.Suchocki turns to the concept of the Trinity to interpret the image of God(chap. 4) in pluralistic terms. God cannot be reduced to one aspect of theTrinity. A Christian’s image of God is necessarily of a complex or pluralisticunity. Similarly, human beings, created in God’s image, form a complex orpluralistic unity. No single religion or culture should be reduced to another.Just as God can be understood by virtue of the complexity of the Trinity, sowhat it means to be human and to respond to God’s call can be understoodthrough religious and cultural diversity.Given the arguments of chapters 2–4, it becomes clear why the reign of God(chap. 5) should be understood very differently than it traditionally has beenin the Christian faith. No longer is it about establishing a particular system ofbelief around the world. Instead it is the rejoicing in God’s activity with andthrough the plurality of religious traditions contained in the world.It is clear that Suchocki rejects any form of Christian exclusivism. Christian-ity has no exclusive claim to the truth and thus no monopoly on the path(s)to salvation (chap. 6)—however that concept is defined. Instead, Christianityshould embrace the pluralism represented by the world’s religious traditions—seeing them as partners in the investigation and presentation of truth as wellas viable paths to salvation. This is what missionary work (chap. 7) is all about.One does not go out to convert the other but to befriend the other in all ofhis or her uniqueness.674This content downloaded from 130.58.64.71 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:23:16 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsThe Journal of Religionnot. Could it be that ecomysticism and Christian materialism are not suchstrange bedfellows after all?MARK I. WALLACE, Swarthmore College.

Review Of  A Political Theology Of Nature  By P. Scott

https://works.swarthmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&amp;context=fac-religion

Review Of A Political Theology Of Nature By P. Scott

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Works