Chapter 4: An evaluation of Sallie McFague's body of God cosmology
5.3 McFague's views on sin and responsibility
5.3.2 The scope of McFague's definition of sin
Is McFague's definition of sin broad enough? A central concern for the researcher is her conjecture that human beings are not sinners if they rebel against God. Her argument is that if the universe is thought of as God's body then by sinning against the universe human beings are rebelling against God. But what if the universe was not be perceived as God's body? What if a metaphor were chosen that stresses the goodness of creation, but does not think of the universe as God's body. How would rebellion against God then be conceived? L. Van Dyk also takes issue with the body of God model in this regard. She maintains that an incorrect dichotomy is established in McFague understanding of sin (1994: 179). McFague implies that rebelling against God is different from the refusal to accept one's place. Van Dyk notes that rebelling against God includes being unwilling to remain in one's place. This critique is reasonable, because the NT commandment means loving God and neighbour41. Failing to love one's neighbour, or, according to McFague's understanding, failing to stay in our place, means rebelling against God.
41 By neighbour the researcher means all of creation. This affirms W. Persaud's view that the notion of neighbour needs to be extended to the natural order as well (1992: 296f).
On the other hand the notion of original sin also needs consideration. Like Pelagius, McFague does not stress the impact of original sin or the fall on humanity42 and the created order.
McFague, although suspicious of how human beings have treated creation, has a positive anthropology. She believes human beings are responsible agents . She writes, "Human responsibility for the fate of the earth is a recent and terrible knowledge" (1991b: 15).
However, there are difficulties by not stressing the fallen nature of creation.
A. Linzey believes there are four consequences to this (1998: 23-6)44. First, the natural world has no evil. This means that morality has no reference to nature. In this manner human beings view the cruelty demonstrated in nature as normal occurrences. The danger with this is that human beings themselves may be tempted to emulate such cruelty or may become morally neutral to nature. Second, it is impossible for nature to be redeemed. Instead God uses nature's cruelty as an agent instead of saving it through the Holy Spirit. Nature cannot be saved, as
"there is nothing to be improved upon" (: 24). Third, human beings are not obligated to collaborate with God to redeem nature, because the cruelty of nature is a morally neutral issue.
In this manner morality is merely a human concern. Finally, if nature cannot be redeemed than God's moral goodness is questionable. If God has deliberately created a morally flawed universe than God is immoral.
McFague argues for a strong ethical approach in regard to humankind's relationship with the natural order. The body of God anthropology encourages human beings to adopt a loving eye towards creation. This appears to be a vital and necessary insight and provides a significant argument for human responsibility. However, a danger with this approach is that it does not require human beings to acknowledge the cruelty of nature. The loving eye does not appear to take natural evil seriously. In this manner God's goodness is questioned particularly in regard to natural disasters and the victims of evolution. The body of God anthropology is thus in tension with points one and four of Linzey's analysis. However, the strength of McFague's approach is that it insists that there is an ecological crisis and that nature needs to be saved and human beings need to exercise their responsibility in partnership with God to care for the
42 Augustine focused on original sin and its impact on humanity. He does not appear to address the relationship between original sin and creation. M. Fox notes this human-centred view of salvation has lost the beauty and goodness of creation (1983:46-51).
43 McFague seems to be in agreement with K. Rahner here. He maintains that when a subject experiences himself (sic) he realises himself to be responsible and free to the depth of his existence (1978: 37f).
44 For another treatment of the fall and ecological theology see J. Clatworthy's article, "Let the Fall Down: The Environmental Implications of the doctrine of the Fall" (1998: 27-34).
creation. However, Linzey's warnings need to be taken seriously in any anthropology that does not stress the fallen nature of creation and the impact of original sin on it.
In addition to this a Christian ecological anthropology that does not consider the impact of original sin by focusing instead on an evolutionary view of life may not be theocentric. An example of this is J. Hick's mythological approach to original sin (1993: 115-7). He does not view original sin literally, opting instead for a mythological interpretation of it as, "the fact of universal human imperfection" (: 115). Hick contends that according to evolutionary
anthropology human beings didn't descend from a single created pair, but evolved from lower life forms over an incredibly long period of time. The earliest humans had an animistic worldview, but were never in complete communion with God. In addition to this humankind was never in a harmonious relationship with each other and nature, but were involved in a battle for survival. Human beings were fallen in the sense that they were morally and
spiritually deprived. They were never in an ideal state. For Hick the idea of the fall should be abandoned. This is a clear example of how far from theocentrism anthropology may traverse.
The danger for the body of God model anthropology is that by avoiding the doctrine of original sin and the consequence of the fall on all creation, it may become naturalistic and not
theocentric.
This tendency towards cosmocentrism or creation-centredness is also a danger for those varieties of ecological theologies that emphasise creation spirituality. McFague argues against such an approach. She maintains that replacing "redemption spirituality" with "creation spirituality" is insufficient (1991b: 15). While the emphasis on redemption to the neglect of creation needs to be addressed and the notion that the common creation story invokes an appreciation for creation, these approaches do not focus on sin as the cause of the earth's predicament. Theology acts as a frame of reference for establishing humanity's compliance in creation's degradation. It is for this reason that there needs to be a radicalising of, "the Christian understanding of sin and evil" (: 15). McFague believes creation spirituality is Utopian, because it does not describe how reality is, but how it ought to be. There is thus an element of the prophetic in creation spirituality, however it tends to romanticise reality by not taking sin seriously. McFague thus attempts to find a balance between creation and redemption spiritualities. On the one hand the body of God anthropology stresses the beauty of creation and on the other hand it takes sin seriously.
To summarise. There are a limited number of difficulties with this anthropology. McFague's understanding of sin seems to need more reflection on original sin and the fall. The neglect of this doctrine seems to be due to a Pelagian understanding of human freedom. Moreover, her understanding of rebellion against God did not seem clear to the researcher. However, the body of God anthropology provides valuable insights into the nature and consequences of sin. It takes human responsibility seriously vis-a-vis the degradation of nature. The value to this approach is that it opposes anthropocentrism by stressing the dependency of humankind on creation. Moreover, a strength of McFague's anthropology is that it does not endorse a privatised, individualistic view on sin. Sin is not only an issue between the self and God, it includes sin against all creation. The body of God anthropology also intimates the notion that sin is a breakdown of relationships. McFague's definition of sin seems to be broad enough for a Christian ecological theology and is thus in agreement with point four of the anthropology reflection.