“Shalom, therefore is not detached from the reality of everyday life in the world, nor is it in any sense super spiritual, utopian, or otherworldly…It is well-being that exists in the very midst of threats — from sword and drought and wild animals…Active and practical, shalom never avoids the realities of an imperfect world.”

Last week I listened to a very enjoyable interview with Clayton Crocket, who was a recent guest on the Freestyle Christianity podcast. Josef and Clayton talked about lots of stuff, including Clayton’s new collaborative project. Apparently, in the new project Josef and Clayton were talking about, Clayton makes a distinction between eco-theology and a theology of ecology, and how a theology is needed that genuinely takes account of the Earth without lapsing into “wishful thinking” about what it means to live in harmony with nature. In setting up a question for Clayton to respond to during the interview, Josef says this:

“I can hear Zizek in the back of my head when I read this stuff, because Zizek often times talks about: ‘can you imagine the disaster that must have happened to produce the world which we are actually living in? There is no harmony, there is no good Mother Earth to whom we can return. We should cut the new age bullshit and accept the world for what it is.’”

Now, full disclosure, I consider myself to be a “radical thinker” to some degree, but I also like eco-theology; folks like Teilhard de Chardin, Goethe, Rudolph Steiner, Thomas Merton, A.N. Whitehead, Thomas Berry, John Cobb, Phillip Clayton, Mary Evelyn Tucker, Michael Dowd, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Jay McDaniels, Bob Mesle, Patrica Adams Farmer, Catherine Keller, Sallie McFague, Vandana Shiva, Wendell Berry, Matthew Fox, Joanna Macy, Martin Buber, and Randy Woodley (to name just a few) have been huge influences and inspirations to me. so when Crockett very briefly summated his criticism of eco-theology in the interview, my ears perked up and I wanted to understand it better. Clayton’s a smart guy and he probably knows lots of things that I don’t! So I thought I’d better take this seriously.

I went right out and bought Crockett’s new book, An Insurrectionist Manifesto (the e-book version), skipped right to his chapter called “Earth: What Can a Planet Do?” and, I have to say, it’s  fantastic! I honestly resonate with basically everything he writes; Crockett is a lucid and concise writer who must have done a ton of research for this chapter. The first section where he lays out his interpretation of how we got to our current geological era (the Anthropocene), is particularly fascinating, as is his explanation of Deleuze’s critique of 19th century thermodynamics in favor of the more contemporary non-equilibrium physics of thermodynamics. As I suspected though, my only quibble (and in the grand scheme of things it’s a relatively small one) was regarding what I heard him talk about briefly in the interview; namely, his criticisms of “eco-theology” found in Part II of his chapter.

To make a long story short, Clayton characterizes the goal of eco-theology (the Christian flavored kind anyway) as liberating “the true essence of Christianity” and purging it from it’s “Greek overlay” so we can “restore harmony between men and men, men and women, and man and nature.” Clayton see’s two problems with many varieties of eco-theology:

1) Crockett thinks eco-theology still needs something beyond the world to provide value to the world, i.e. a transcendent God sneaks through.

2) Crockett thinks many varieties of eco-theology appeal to a kind of natural and spiritual harmony. He writes, “The assumption is that humans existed in a harmonious state of nature up to a certain point…A view of nature that exists in a state of natural harmony is imaginary; it is the product of nostalgia…We romanticize earlier states in light of the conditions of later ones.”

Crockett only cites one eco-theologian in the article as an example of this type of thinking, as far as I can tell, a Christian eco-theologian named Mark I. Wallace and his book Finding God in the Singing River. I haven’t read Wallace’s book and so maybe he is guilty of what Crockett accuses him of, i.e. romanticizing the past and appealing to a transcendent God in order to establish value in the world. And at this point I am willing to admit my general, overall ignorance on just…well…everything. I’m not a scholar by any means. I’m not a theologian, I’m not a philosopher, I’m not an academic. I haven’t read all there is to read. I’m a graphic and web designer, and for all I know Crockett might be right to make this sweeping negative criticism of eco-theology. Maybe the majority of thinkers working under this label are committing these sins that Crockett talks about.

That being said, as I mentioned above, my understanding of what “eco-theology” is comes mainly from a few places: Western philosophical schools like process-relational/Whiteheadian, some deep ecology and western emperically based “epic of evolution” narratives, Eastern religions (Vedic/Hindu/Buddhist), Eastern and Western philosophical blends like integral philosophy, and Indigenous religions/cosmologies (Native American, esoteric/occult/pagan et al.). So when I hear the term “eco-theology” this is where my mind goes. When reading Crockett’s two criticisms of eco-theology (listed above), I thought to myself, ‘there’s no way he’s talking about the sort of eco-theology that I’m familiar with.’

Crockett references Deleuze’s ontology throughout his essay. Now I have not read much of  Deleuze first hand (save for a decent chunk of Pure Immanence, where he sort of comes off as a mystical non-duel pantheist, imo), but based on what I know of him second hand, he really seems to be saying some very similar things to what Whitehead said 40-45 years earlier. I don’t intend this comparison to be negative or dismissive of Deleuze, but just wish to point out that he was obviously influenced by Whitehead and other process thinkers in some way, and actually seemed to have approved of Whitehead’s unique, creaturely panentheistic conception of God. In other words, what I’m saying is that it’s really hard for me to believe that Crockett was talking about the Whiteheadian influenced forms of eco-theology in his chapter/interview (I mean, geez, In 1971 process theologian, John Cobb, wrote the first single-author book in environmental ethics, Is It Too Late? A Theology of Ecology). I also find it hard to believe that Crockett would throw the entire Vedic tradition under the bus. Vandana Shiva’s Vedic Ecology, for example, simply doesn’t fit into Crockett’s categories. Along these lines, Indigenous eco-theologies, e.g. the Native American Harmony Way and ancient Hebrew notions of Shalom should not to be lumped in under Crockett’s criticism column either.

The Native American harmony way and Hebrew shalom, for example, have a lot in common with each other. Superficially, I suppose both can be understood to be all about peace, harmony, wholeness, completeness, prosperity, welfare and tranquility, but there is nothing romantic or nostalgic about these philosophies/cosmologies. Indigenous eco-theologian, Randy Woodley explains:

“Shalom is communal, holistic, and tangible. There is no private or partial shalom. The whole community must have shalom or no one has shalom. As long as there are hungry people in a community that is well fed, there can be no shalom. Where there are homeless and jobless people amidst the employed and wealthy, shalom cannot exist. Shalom is not for the many, while a few suffer; nor is it for the few while many suffer.”

Early on in his chapter, Crockett describes the New Materialism as a “new kind of orientation to thinking and acting, a new way of being in and of the Earth.” Well ok. Cool. I guess that makes the Native American Harmony Way and Shalom old but still relevant (perhaps timeless?) sorts of orientations to thinking and acting and being in and of the Earth. Woodley again:

“As a social construct, shalom is also dynamic, Shalom is not a utopian destination; it is a constant journey. One does not wait on shalom; one actually sets about the task of shalom. This active, persistent effort takes place at every level, from personal relationships to societal and structural transformation…For Native Americans, finding harmony is also practical, and it is accomplished through direct involvement in ways such as interventions and ceremonies…God is active in and through creation, in personal relationships, in covenant relationships, in the incarnation of Jesus, and in redemption; consequently, shalom is reflected in all God’s activity. Shalom, therefore is not detached from the reality of everyday life in the world, nor is it in any sense super spiritual, utopian, or otherworldly…It is well-being that exists in the very midst of threats — from sword and drought and wild animals…Active and practical, shalom never avoids the realities of an imperfect world.”

I get what the postmodern allergy to pie-in-the-sky/wishful thinking is all about (I have it too, actually), but I honestly don’t know too many people who could take an honest, comprehensive look back through history and attempt to say things were perfect “back then.” Accordingly, I don’t think there are too many people around who, when presented with an honest, comprehensive picture of the world today, will claim things are anywhere near perfect.

Conversely, I do know lots of people who would want to point to at least a few things that aren’t so bad today. Likewise, these people might also take an honest, comprehensive look back through history and pick out certain things that might have been forgotten which could actually help us out a bit today. Woodley makes this astute point in his book, Shalom and the Community of Creation: An Indigenous Vision, when he talks about the ancient prophets’ desire for Israel to re-member:

“While I am not saying that we should all “live in the past,” that is to say, to live as if we are in another time, I am saying that we should not live as if the past has no bearing or reference to the here and now. Jeremiah’s hopes were that his people would return to the sacred reference points from their past in order to live better into the present.”

I need to say again that I really liked Crockett’s essay and look forward to reading the rest of the chapters in the book which were all written by different authors I admire. I appreciate Crockett’s insistence that theology and/or metaphysics needs to be informed by the best science around (he’s in good company on this) and should delve “into the theoretical process of scientific invention itself and [should be] informed by the best theoretical thinking about science…” I also really like how he describes the New Materialism as “a theological materialism based on energy transformation.” “Energy,” Clayton insists, is “never static, but always dynamic, and being itself is energy conversion.” This sounds a whole lot like process-relational panexperientialism to me, which I’m very fond of (and which, by the way, does not appeal to a “transcendent,” removed God to provide value for the world). Modern cosmology and non-equilibrium thermo­dynamics demonstrate, as Crockett rightly points out, that we live in a universe where conditions for higher orders of complexity may actually be increasing discontinuously in time. This view of a self-developing, self-organizing universe “unfolding” toward higher levels of complexity and social organization seems very consistent with Deluze’s philosophy, but it is also right on par with Whitehead’s process-relational cosmology, or “philosophy of organism.” And if you asked me, It’s all pretty friggin’ mind blowing! So I for one, as a Whiteheadian influenced thinker, am not so fast to criticize or completely dismiss “new age,” esoteric, indigenous or other non-duel/mystical movements because, lets be honest, once we start talking about everything being “energy conversion,” or “energy transformation,” and insisting that “Energetic repetition organizes life,” I’m afraid that there isn’t much else we could do to sound more like new age, hippy dippy shamans dosing on Ayahuasca, proclaiming that ‘everything is energy, man!’

Tags:Clayton Crockettharmony waynew materialismprocess philosophyradical theologyRandy Woodleyshalom