Creation

One of the central themes of Christian theology is that God is the Creator of the world. This has a number of important implications for our understanding of the everyday world and our place in it, as well as for our experience of the environment.

God the Creator

Belief in God as Creator has its foundations firmly laid in the Old Testament (e.g., Genesis 1-2). The continuing importance of the Old Testament for Christianity is grounded in the fact that the God of which it speaks is the same God revealed in the New Testament. The Creator and the Redeemer God are one and the same. In the past this has been challenged. For example, Gnosticism mounted a vigorous attack on both the authority of the Old Testament and the idea that God was Creator of the world.

Gnosticism, in most of its significant forms, drew a sharp distinction between the God who redeemed humanity from the world and a somewhat inferior deity (often termed the demiurge) who created that world in the first place. The Old Testament was regarded by the Gnostics as dealing with this lesser deity, whereas the New Testament was concerned with the Redeemer God. As a result, belief in God as Creator and in the authority of the Old Testament came to be interlinked at an early stage. Of the early writers to deal with this theme, Irenaeus of Lyons is of particular importance.

Another debate centered on the question of whether creation was to be regarded as ex nihilo (“out of nothing”). In one of his dialogues, the classical Greek philosopher Plato developed the idea that the world was made out of preexistent matter, which was fashioned into the present form of the world. As well as being taken up by most Gnostic writers, this idea was adopted by early Christian theologians heavily influenced by Platonism, such as Justin Martyr. They professed a belief in preexistent matter, which was shaped into the world in the act of creation.

For these writers, creation was not ex nihilo; rather, it was seen as an act of construction on the basis of material that was already at hand, as one might construct a boat from wood, an igloo out of snow, or a house from stone. The existence of evil in the world was then explained in terms of the difficulties in working with this preexistent matter. God’s options in creating the world were limited by the poor quality of the material available. The presence of evil or defects within the world is thus not to be ascribed to God but to deficiencies in the material from which the world was constructed.

In part, however, the idea of creation from preexistent matter was discredited by its Gnostic associations; in part it was called into question by an increasingly sophisticated reading of the creation narratives. Writers such as Theophilus of Antioch insisted upon the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, which became the received doctrine within the church from the end of the second century. Believing in and relating to God as Creator has several major implications.

Created but Not Divine

We must distinguish between God and the creation. From the earliest times Christian thinkers have resisted the temptation to merge the Creator and the creation. This is clearly stated in the opening chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans, which criticizes the tendency to reduce God to the level of the world. According to Paul, there is a natural human tendency, as a result of sin, to serve created things rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). A central element in a Christian theology of creation is to distinguish God from the creation while at the same time affirming that it is God’s creation.

This process may be seen at work in the writings of Augustine and also in the works of Reformers such as Calvin. The Reformers were concerned to forge a world-affirming spirituality in response to the general monastic tendency to renounce the world that was evident in writings such as Thomas à Kempis’s Imitation of Christ.

There is a dialectic in Calvin’s thought between the world as the creation of God and the world as the fallen creation. In that it is God’s creation, it is to be honored, respected and affirmed; in that it is a fallen creation, it is to be criticized with the object of redeeming it. A similar pattern can be discerned in Calvin’s doctrine of human nature, where—despite his stress on sin and the Fall—he never loses sight of the fact that it remains God’s creation and is to be valued for that reason. This encourages a critical world-affirming spirituality, in which the world is endorsed but not idolized or treated as if it were God.

The importance of this point has been stressed by more recent writers, including Lesslie Newbigin. Elements of creation can easily become demonic, through being invested with the authority and power which properly belong to God alone. They can come to usurp a place to which they have no right, the place which belongs to Christ and to him alone. They can, as we say, become absolutized, and then they become demonic.

A proper understanding of creation prevents this process of demonization from taking place by insisting that creational elements may be good but are never divine. It thus provides a framework by which we are protected against the usurpation of divine authority by any aspect of the creation—whether it be a person, a set of values or an institution.

Divine Ownership, Human Stewardship

Creation implies God’s authority over and possession of the world. As the Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper once affirmed, “There is not one square inch of creation about which Jesus Christ does not say: ‘that is mine.’ ” We are a part of that creation, with special functions within it. The doctrine of creation leads to the idea of human stewardship of the creation, which is to be contrasted with a secular notion of human ownership of the world. The creation is not ours; we hold it in trust for God. We are meant to be the stewards of God’s creation and are responsible for the manner in which we exercise that stewardship. This insight is of major importance in relation to ecological and environmental concerns, in that it provides a proper foundation for the exercise of human responsibility toward the planet.

This has important consequences for our everyday behavior. We have been placed within God’s creation to tend it and take care of it (Genesis 2:15), as we do in gardening, craftsmanship and town planning. We may be superior to the rest of the creation and exercise authority over it (Psalm 8:4-8), but we remain under the authority of God and so are responsible to the Creator for the way in which we treat the creation. We hold it in trust. There is a growing realization today that past generations have seriously abused that trust by exploiting the creation and its resources. There is a real danger that we will spoil what God so wonderfully created.

Reflecting on our responsibilities as stewards of God’s creation is the first step in undoing the harm done by past generations. It matters to God that vast areas of our world have been made uninhabitable through nuclear or toxic chemical waste. It matters that the delicate balance of natural forces is disturbed by human carelessness. Sin affects the way we treat the environment as much as it does our attitude toward God, other people and society as a whole. This article of the creed is the basis of a new—and overdue—attitude toward creation.

World-Affirming Spirituality

The doctrine of God as Creator implies the goodness of creation. Throughout the first biblical account of creation, we encounter the affirmation “And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:10, 18, 21, 25, 31). The only thing that is not good is that Adam is alone. There is no place in Christian theology for the Gnostic or dualist idea of the world as an inherently evil place. This is not to say that the creation is presently perfect. The world as we see it is not the world as it was intended to be. Human sin, evil and death are themselves tokens of the extent to which the created order has departed from its intended pattern.

For this reason, most Christian reflections on redemption include some idea of restoring creation to its original integrity, so that God’s intentions might find fulfillment. Affirming the goodness of creation also avoids the suggestion that God is responsible for evil. The constant biblical emphasis on the goodness of creation is a reminder that the destructive force of sin is not present in the world by God’s design or permission.

Our Worldly Calling

The doctrine of creation has important implications for our everyday living. It allows us to feel at home in the world. We are here because God wants us to be here. We are not alone but are in the very presence of the God who made and owns everything. We are in the presence of a friend who knows us and cares for us. Behind the apparently faceless universe lies a person.

This conviction calls into question the Western distinction between sacred and secular. To describe one area of our lives (such as teaching a Sunday school) as sacred and another (such as working in an office) as secular implies that only part of our life is dedicated to God and that only part of the creation belongs to God. In contrast, the Protestant Reformers strongly affirmed the priesthood of all believers and as a corollary the idea of being called to serve God in the world. All Christians are called to be priests to the world, purifying and sanctifying its everyday life from within. Commenting on Genesis 13:13, Luther stated this point succinctly: “What seem to be secular works are actually the praise of God and represent an obedience which is well pleasing to him.” Luther extolled the religious value of housework, declaring that although “it had no obvious appearance of holiness, yet these very household chores are more to be valued than all the works of monks and nuns” (see Chores; Homemaking).

Underlying this new attitude is the notion that God calls his people not just to faith but to express that faith in quite definite areas of life in the world. One is called, in the first place, to be a Christian, and in the second, to live out that faith in a quite definite sphere of activity within the world. Whereas medieval monastic spirituality generally regarded the idea of vocation as a calling out of the world into the seclusion and isolation of the monastery, Luther and Calvin understood it as a calling into the everyday world. The doctrine of creation thus leads to a strong work ethic, in the sense that work in the world can be seen as work for God.

Not Our Final Home

Yet this attitude of being at home in the world needs to be qualified. We are to see ourselves as passing through the world, not belonging there permanently. We are, so to put it, tourists rather than residents. In his Geneva Catechism Calvin suggests that we should “learn to pass through this world as though it is a foreign country, treating all earthly things lightly and declining to set our hearts upon them.” In other words, we are encouraged to enjoy, respect and explore the world—while realizing that it is not our home.

All things that are connected with the enjoyment of the present life are sacred gifts of God. If we abuse them, however, we pollute them. Why? Because we always dream of staying in this world—with the result that those things which were meant to help us pass through it instead become hindrances to us, in that they hold us fast to the world. So it was not without good reason that Paul, wishing to arouse us from this stupidity, calls us to consider the brevity of this life and suggests that we ought to treat all the things of this life as if we did not own them. For if we recognize that we are strangers in the world, we will use the things of this world as if they belong to someone else—that is, as things that are lent to us for a single day.

One of the finest statements of this attitude may be found in Jonathan Edwards’s sermon “The Christian Pilgrim,” in which he affirms that “it was never designed by God that this world should be our home.” Speaking with the eighteenth-century situation in New England in mind, Edwards declared:

Though surrounded with outward enjoyments, and settled in families with desirable friends and relations; though we have companions whose society is delightful, and children in whom we see many promising qualifications; though we live by good neighbors and are generally beloved where known; yet we ought not to take our rest in these things as our portion. . . . We ought to possess, enjoy and use them, with no other view but readily to quit them, whenever we are called to it, and to change them willingly for heaven.

Conclusion

Today people speak of “nature” rather than “creation,” thus suggesting that our environment is something free-standing to be “used” rather than a sacred trust bearing the stamp of the Creator. Further, many Christians without knowing it are profoundly influenced by Gnosticism. For them working with the stuff of this world, whether through farming or dealing with stocks and investments, is less “spiritual” than preaching and evangelism. Really “spiritual” people have as little as possible to do with this world. We are in a situation analogous to the one the great Reformers faced. Recovering a biblical view of God as Creator and the world as created will assist us to serve God wholeheartedly in everyday matters. While this world is not our final home, a new heaven and a new earth are our ultimate destiny. It has been wisely noted that Christianity is the most materialistic of all faiths.

» See also: Calling

» See also: Culture

» See also: Ecology

» See also: Pollution

» See also: Work

References and Resources

I. S. Barbour, Religion in the Age of Science (New York: Harper & Row, 1990); J. N. Hartt, “Creation and Providence,” in Christian Theology, ed. P. Hodgson and R. King (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); P. J. Hefner, “Creation,” in Christian Dogmatics, ed. C. E. Braaten and R. W. Jenson (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 1:269-357; R. J. Lyman, Christology and Cosmology: Models of Divine Activity in Origen, Eusebius and Athanasius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993); G. May, “Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of Creation Out of Nothing” in Early Christian Thought (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995); J. Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985); A. R. Peacocke, Creation and the World of Science (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979); M. Schmaus, Dogma 2: Creation (London: Sheed and Ward, 1969); L. White, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” Science 155 (1967) 1203-7.

—Alister E. McGrath