The question as to what basis Christian ethical positions on ecology are or should be taken on is not new. A lot of work has been done in the fields of eco-theology and Christian eco-ethics over the last few decades (see for example Bouma-Prediger 2001; Santmire 2000; Scharper 1997; Oelschlaeger 1994; Schaeffer & Middelmann 1993), mainly in response to Lynn White Jr’s critical article accusing Christianity of the ecological crisis (White 1967). White argued that the biblical view of humans made in the image of God and given dominion over the earth introduced a dualism between humans and nature and a licence for exploitation. A further critique against Christianity is focused on ‘perceived inadequacies of Christian eschatology’ (Bouma-Prediger 2001:71), accusing Christianity of otherworldliness and little rationale for creation care. As observed by Horrell (2010c), in certain circles it seems as if:

Christian hope is construed in terms of an imminent return of Jesus, other-worldly salvation for the elect, and fiery destruction for the earth; attempts to preserve the earth are thus futile and contrary to God’s purposes. (p. 8)

The contributions in response to the ‘ecological complaint’, as Bouma-Prediger (2001:69) refers to it, have drawn at least two serious critiques of their own. Firstly, the critique that Christian eco-ethics and eco-theological resources often start with a doctrine of creation and tend to derive morality from a religious interpretation of cosmology (Jenkins 2008). The field of eco-theology has contributed mainly on what has been referred to as the ‘cosmological axes’ (Jenkins 2008:14) with little attention to soteriological insights into Christian eco-ethics. The second critique is one of hermeneutics. The response of a positive ecological narrative of creation care, a strategy of ‘recovery’ (as found for example in the Green Bible project, Horrell 2010b) based on a different reading of the Bible, has been criticised in several publications, pointing towards the crucial role of hermeneutics (the approach to interpretation) in the consideration of the ecological implications of biblical texts (Horrell 2010a; Horrell, Hunt, Southgate & Stavrakopoulou 2010; Conradie 2010a).

The answer to the question on what basis Christians behave ethically in the midst of ecological crises is thus not as straightforward as one might have hoped for, notwithstanding a long tradition affirming the role of Christians in creation care and emphasising an eschatology of renewal rather than destruction (see Horrell 2010a; Horrell et al. 2010). Therefore, before attempting to address the question how Christ-centred ethical behaviour needs to look in a time of ecological crisis, more critical reflection is needed on the validity of the resources we use in constructing such an argument.

In the discussion on sources of Christ-centred ethical behaviour we start with a discussion on the idea of creation order, and as a consequence cosmology, as well as views on eschatology and hope. The reason to focus on these two concepts is that it is in these areas that Christianity’s contribution to the ecological crisis was most severely critiqued, and it is in these areas where the most work has been done so far in formulating a Christian response. We limit our evaluation to perspectives given in Reformational philosophy and in eco-theology. These positions are critically discussed and tensions identified that may serve as an input to further reflection and research on Christ-centred environmental or eco-ethics.

Following the introduction of the article, Christ-centred ethics is introduced in general terms. Thirdly, fourthly and fithly, creation order, the cosmos and views on the eschaton are respectively discussed as sources of Christ-centred ethics from Reformational philosophical and eco-theological points of view. Sixthly, critical tensions in Christ-centred eco-ethics are highlighted, followed by the conclusion.

Placing the work and person of Jesus Christ central in ethical reflection is common to many Christian thinkers on the topic. O’Donovan (2001:11), for example, states that the foundations of Christian ethics lie in what ‘God has done in Christ’. Similarly, Bonnhoefer (2009) takes as a departing point that the:

source of a Christian ethic is not the reality of one’s own self, not the reality of the world, nor is it the reality of norms and values. It is the reality of God that is revealed in Jesus Christ. (p. 49)

Kuiper, Van Putten and Vogelaar (2012:75), in an introductory text on faith, science and culture from a Christian philosophical point of view, agree that ‘Jesus Christus is het hart van een christelijke levensorientatie’ [Jesus Christ is the heart of a Christian life orientation]. The point is that all seek to find ethical guidance from God’s revelation to us in Jesus Christ.

Christian ethics, however, is not one final, accepted idea. After an extensive review of various forms of Christian ethics, Gustafson (1995) concludes that:

There will continue to be various patterns of Christian ethics … [t]he surplus of meaning in the Bible, the continuing effect of different historic traditions, and the emergence of new and different contexts for writing have this effect. (p. 713)

Much lies in the enormous diversity of what is contained in Christ. Earlier attempts to include a whole range of Christological events, such as creation, advent, cross, resurrection and ascension, into one scheme have been undertaken by theologian Karl Barth, amongst others, with his creation–reconciliation–redemption triad. However, O’Donovan (2001:xvii) calls this an arbitrary choice, one that can only be treated as convention and one that leaves a limited ‘truncated’ view of the gospel, not ‘a self-evident principle for arranging specific subject areas that ethics interests itself in.’ O’Donovan (2001) goes on to focus on the event of resurrection in order to speak about liberated human action specifically (p. xviii). Hauerwas and Wells (2004) also start with Christ-centred ethics, but specifically plead for a reintegration of ethics with theology, ecclesiology and sacrament, pointing towards a reflection on the practices of the church and how that shapes the character of Christians. What this short discussion illustrates is that there are various Christ-centred ethical approaches that may guide behaviour amidst the ecological crisis. The approach taken in this article is to take one step back and critically discuss two central concepts in ethical discourse, namely creation order and eschatological hope, and in the process reveal the main possibilities and tensions for further reflection on an integrated Christ-centred approach to environmental or eco-ethics.

Building on the insights of John Calvin, Van Woudenberg (2004), in his introduction to Christian philosophy, a publication of the earlier Association of Reformational Philosophy, argues that God calls on people and gives each the specific duty to work against disorder in the world. In this view, order is created through God’s laws for people and nature. God’s sovereignty is seen as his action with regard to the world, which carries the character of a law that provides order and structure to the world. There are natural laws and cultural laws and both are manifestations of God’s ordinances to the world.

According to Reformational philosophy everyone on earth conforms to universal creational norms, but to really come closer to God we need the direction and teachings of Scripture (Van Woudenberg 2004:33). Universal revelation is directed to God, explaining the universal pistic [a deep-seated kind of faith] modality in Reformational philosophy. Douma (1976) pointed out that in such a view, the function of faith is seen as a created function of all people. Van Woudenberg argues that the revelation of God in creation can teach us something about God, but does not tell us anything about sin and grace, an area reserved for particular revelation in Scripture. The important implication of such an interpretation of the Reformational viewpoint is that to understand God’s ordinances one cannot rely on Scripture alone, but one has to include empirical observation and practical experience to obtain insights into particular norms where Scripture does not provide explicit guidance (Van Woudenberg 2004:34). Such a position cannot go unnoticed as it does open up a debate on Scriptural hermeneutics that may have important implications for any Christian environmental ethics.

How the idea of creation order plays an explicit role in ethical conduct is the next question. In the tradition of Reformational philosophy, ethical responsibilities require an acceptance of what Stoker (2006:132) refers to as a ‘transcendental revealed principle of creation’, but acknowledging that such an endeavour cannot be independent from the Word of God. According to Stoker (2006), the source of theoretical ethics is empirical study on different appearances of good desire whilst the ‘source of practical Christian ethics is … the Holy Scripture and in particular God’s commandments’ (p. 134). In his reflection on the ethics of technology Schuurman (2006), like Stoker, points to a cosmology of the reality as God’s creation (as opposed to objects of manipulation) and the commandments of love (as opposed to power) as sources to redirect the ethics of technology. Schuurman (2006) further argues that the responsibility of humans is to be keepers and minders of earth as a garden, not as lords and masters, recognising an intrinsic value of God’s creation:

In the Christian religion, the command of love for God and the neighbour contains the essence of all motives, commands, values and norms. Also, in technological development, this dual love must unify. This means that from the start everything must be appreciated according to its nature. [italics added] (p. 164)

The insight is that love is seen to appreciate all things as they are by nature in God’s creation, a task, Schuurman argues, of humans that is aided by science and responsible deployment of technology. Cultural activities are directed away from humans themselves in love of God and the neighbour. According to Schuurman, the prime objective for science is the growth in wisdom in the ‘full experiential reality’ (2006:167) and for technology a focus on ‘building and conserving’ (2006:166). Normative principles are to be derived from the cosmology of Reformational philosophy, forming a guide for responsible technological development. Such an ethic of responsibility is rooted in the good nature of God’s creation, a nature that is meant to be better understood by science and applied by technology. Love is to seek what is natural. Both Stoker and Schuurman argue that ethical conduct in Reformational philosophical thinking is based on what is perceived to be natural in created order, culminating in ethics of law, love and responsibility.

In a Christ-centred view, creation order is not the ultimate source of ethics. The living and personal God is not hidden either behind a facade of natural laws, principles, structures and order, nor behind history, process and change. The question of how to view creation order as a source of Christian ethics can thus only be entertained when contextualised in knowledge of God as revealed in the work of and person of Jesus Christ.

Creation order and cosmology have been intrinsically linked in the Protestant Reformational and Catholic traditions. One example will suffice for the purposes of this article. Arpels-Josiah (2004), in a discussion on the resources John Calvin’s theology provides for environmental ethics, points out that:

[t]he danger of disorder, chaos, and collapse, so vivid in Calvin’s view of cosmology and history, shaped his view of providence into one in which God powerfully restrains and stabilizes the created order. (p. 149)

A discussion on creation order as a source of ethics needs to be complemented with a further discussion on how Christian versions of cosmology have developed, which is the field of eco-theology, the focus of the next section.

soteriological vision is literally all-encompassing, whether this is put in the theocentric terms of Rom. 11 and 1 Cor. 15 or the more Christological terms of Col. 1. Just as God, through Christ, is creator of all things so, in Christ, God is the redeemer of all things. (p. 20)

Conradie (2010c:111) points out that the question of how the ‘Christian notion of “salvation” is to be understood in the context of environmental threats’ needs further reflection, pointing towards the Dutch reformed theology of God’s cosmic history of creation, fall and redemption as a possible unifying theme on the Christian doctrines of creation and salvation. (It cannot escape attention that such a unifying theme was worked out by Reformational philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd in a philosophy with a strong cosmological focus, but also by theologian Karl Barth in a strong Christological focus.) Attempts to unify the all-inclusive Christian narratives have at best led to a ‘pluralism of Christian environmental ethics’, providing ‘heuristic models that can inform social ethics’ (Jenkins 2008:228). In an overview on the ecological significance of the synoptic gospels, Bauckham (2010:81), for example, concluded that a ‘Christian theological understanding, rooted in the whole canon of Scripture, of what it means for God’s human creatures to be part of God’s whole creation … has barely begun’.

To inform practical Christ-centred environmental ethics, the ‘soteriological blind spot,’ or what Jenkins (2008) refers to as the need to ‘renovate grace’, in most of eco-theological thinking needs a correction. Jenkins pleads for the rediscovery of Christianity’s own ‘ecologies of grace’; the healing it entails ‘might teach citizens what to make of the wounds of memory and the healing efforts of ecological restoration.’ Such an approach taps into the vast Christian pool of resources on why ‘we need not live alone or silently with those wounds’ (Jenkins 2008:232) in a world with massive ecological suffering and loss. When Christians allow environmental distress to ‘pierce hearts and darken souls’, a transforming practical hope becomes possible (Jenkins 2008:233). The idea of suffering brings insights with possibly valuable ethical implications: ‘God uses suffering in pursuance of his purpose to make us holy’ and ‘God intends suffering to be a “means of grace”’ (Stott 2006:365–366).

as a consequence of this, there is a tendency to verticalize the eschaton; to lose sight of the abiding significance and eternal validity of the creation ordinances on the new earth beyond the judgment; to block off the future, linear character of cosmic time so that ‘structure comes to an end’. (p. 203)

This ‘verticalised eschatology’ is not shared by all Reformational philosophers though. It seems as if later scholars in this tradition had a more ‘horizontal eschatology’ in which their idea of creation order continued into a new creation. Wolters (1987) reviewed translations on 2 Peter 3:10 and suggests that a process of smelting and refining characterises the final days. Creation is expected to be radically purged by fire. According to Wolters, this does not mean a cosmic annihilation, a complete destruction or abolition of the created order. Future cataclysm is not a ‘burn up’ but rather a ‘meltdown’. Wolters concludes that there is a permanence in the created earth and, despite the coming judgement, maintains a belief in the continuity of creation order.

The debate of Reformational philosophy on eschatology tends to focus on the continuity or discontinuity of created orders, not very different from the more cosmologically focused eco-theology, the topic of the next section.

• to see the world as being destroyed in future, leaving little motivation to care for or preserve (see e.g. Van Beek 2006)
• to see the world as being renewed, already now providing a basis for environmental ethics (see Valerio 2008)
• to acknowledge that there are very different eschatological perspectives in the Bible itself (see Adams 2010).

The first position – the final destruction of the world, a radical transformation, with no motivation for an environmental ethic – is a position not taken in eco-theology and is not seriously further discussed here.

A strong eco-theological focus is on the second position – the renewal of creation. Valerio (2008:209), as an example, influenced by Jurgen Moltmann’s (1997) ‘theology of hope’, argues that we are challenged to ‘live our lives in such a way that we enable the rest of creation to fulfil its eschatological goal’. Moltmann (1997:122) argues that God’s Kingdom is realised in this current reality, through a new creation with cosmic dimensions following the resurrection of Christ. According to Valerio, salvation in Christ extends beyond people, including the whole of creation (citing Col 1:15−20) and therefore broader action is required, a life of ‘realised anticipation’. In this view, new creation is already here within the old, urging for radical involvement in the world through gospel proclamation, social concern and care for the environment. Creation is viewed as continuing, a dynamic process, and the last days are interpreted as a refining process: the earth and everything in it ‘will be found’ rather than ‘burnt up’. There is an expectation that creation is and will be ‘our home, now and always’ (Valerio 2008:207).

In the third position, mostly with reference to Romans 8, it is argued that ‘this passage seems to indicate a non-destructive (yet radical) transformation of existing creation’ (Adams 2007, as quoted in Horrell 2010a:113). Adams (2010:168), with reference to 2 Peter 3:5−13, Revelation 21:1−22:5 and Isaiah 65:17−25, argues that ‘[w]aiting for the new heaven/s and earth does not mean abdicating moral responsibility and is not incompaible [sic] with pro-environmental action’¹. Based on 2 Peter 3:5−13 and Revelation 21:1−22:5, a new heaven and new earth only ‘follow the dissolution of the present created order’ (Adams 2010:173), rather thinking about an ‘image of the creator “recycling” the old into the new, preserving and re-using matter in the process’ (Adams 2010:174). Adams finds a primary biblical motivation for environmental consciousness in the ‘inherent goodness of creation’ (Gn 1:4, 10, 12) and the ‘creation mandate’ (Gn 1:26−28), bringing a responsibility to act as stewards of God’s earth, which, for him, trumps visions of a transformative or dissolutive future.

Some commentators in eco-theology such as Valerio (2008) point towards a continuity of creation already in the here and now. Those who emphasise the importance of a cautious hermeneutic, like Adams (2010), point towards a radical transformation of existing creation in the last days with some form of continuity for the righteous. Hendricks (2005) moves in the same direction, but cautions against speculation on what such a continuity will look like, rather pointing towards God’s loyalty and promise of a new heaven and new earth.

Wright (2007) provides essential inputs in dissecting the idea to be hopeful Christians from an interpretation of the eschaton being discontinuous and continuous at the same time. In contrast to a piety that sees death as a moment of ‘going home at last’ or the time we are ‘called to God’s eternal place’, Wright (2007:38) emphasises the transformative power of a belief in resurrection: ‘[r]esurrection … has always gone with a strong view of God’s justice, and of God as the good creator’. For Wright, the resurrection of Jesus is a matter of rediscovering hope (Wright 2007:87). Wright maintains that the ultimate future hope remains a surprise, but there is a powerful intermediate hope: ‘the things which happen in the present time which implement Easter and anticipate the final day’ (2007:41).

In a discussion on Wright’s argument, Burger (2010) contrasts the theologians Wright (2007) and Van Beek (2006) on their vision of Christian hope. Burger (2010:76−78) observes that Wright emphasises that hope makes one build in his kingdom, a ‘participatory eschatology’. In Wright’s view the space-time universum as we know it will not be destroyed. Efforts of people towards saving the earth therefore do have meaning. Burger observes that Wright writes mainly against those who are either overly spiritualised or materialised. In contrast, Van Beek (2006) emphasises that this world is so full of sin that we have to give up any ideal of betterment in the world. The universe will come to an end and it makes no sense to put effort into environment, justice or to change structures. Love for and solidarity with the weak already asks enough of us. Burger observes that Van Beek writes mainly against the cultural optimism that humans, with God, are on our way in an evolutionary process towards reaching a beautiful future on this earth. Burger also argues on the basis of 1 Corinthians 15 that our works in the Lord will not be in vain. He further argues that the Holy Spirit is already blessing efforts for justice and peace on earth. In general, there is continuity and discontinuity, but we do know that ‘when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is’ (1 Jn 3:2). This theme of continuity and discontinuity is also the conclusion reached by Hendriks (2005), who cautions against the urge to explain what the end will look like and rather points toward God’s faithfulness and his promises of salvation as God will not abandon the works of his hands. Hendriks points out that there is a mystery and a surprise in the last days, one that we may not understand, an outcome that we may leave in complete faith to God who has everything in his hands.

A Christian environmental ethic remains possible in the expectation of a renewal and recreation of the entire cosmos, and in accepting that the continuity of the cosmos is not in contrast to visions of judgement and discontinuity. The radical and practical implication of a new creation that has already started in Christ, creating the space for real Christian hope, is a topic that needs far more attention in Christ-centred eco-ethics.

In conclusion, it is only through God’s faithfulness and his promises that the perceived tensions between a renewed creation and a world full of crises and eminent final judgement hold together in a sense of mystery and surprise. Following O’Donovan (2001), transformation means that:

God … is doing something new, keeping with creation but in no way dictated by it. This is what is meant by describing the Christian view of history as ‘eschatological’ and not merely as ‘teleological’ (p. 64)

The Christian faith leaves the end of things wide open, a future far greater than we can remotely comprehend, and far greater than any naturally deterministic or teleological worldview would suppose.

Firstly, within Christian ethics there is a different focus on the ultimate source of ethics. In this article we particularly highlighted the limitations of accepting creation order, cosmology and/or eschatology as fragmented or absolutised sources of environmental ethics without a clear attempt to root these in the person and all-encompassing work of Jesus Christ. This does not imply a particular view of Christ limited to salvation, but one that sees Christ as being in, through and towards all of history, all of the future and all of created reality.

Secondly, the idea of accepting the idea of creation order as a source of ethics invokes tension between the universal and particular revelation of God, between the cosmos and the Word of God as resources of revelation and between the perceived importance of reason and science in relation to faith and the workings of the Holy Spirit. Here lies a tension on perceptions of how the person and work of Christ relate to creation, one that has occupied theologians – such as Barth, Berkouwer, Kuyper and Bavinck to name a few – and continues to be a fertile theological debate (see e.g. Neal 2010; Schaeffer 2006). Following Calvin (2008), Berkouwer (1951), Douma (1976) and Van Bruggen (2006), the position is taken that hearing God’s Word leads to a better understanding of his actions throughout history in Christ – the real origin of God’s revelation.

Thirdly, there is a tension between the cosmological focus of eco-theology and soteriology as ultimate sources of Christian ethics. Such polarisation is unhelpful in guiding Christian behaviour and is not Scriptural. Serious attempts to unify approaches to cosmos and salvation need further critical reflection, opening up vital Christian resources, such as suffering, as a means of grace.

Fourthly, the tension between an expected continuity and discontinuity of creation in the last days remains. Those positions that focus on creation order and cosmology as a source of ethics tend to accept a position of continuity of creation whilst positions that accept an absolutised soteriology, at the expense of the all-encompassing work of Jesus Christ, tend to accept positions of discontinuity. Such polarisation is also not very helpful in guiding Christian behaviour. The implications of rather emphasising God’s faithfulness, whilst being open to mystery and surprise of how God will make all things new for Christian eco-ethics, need to be further explored. Tanner (2010) started to provide important insights by emphasising that Christian hope is unchanged, whether outcomes turn out well or not, paving the way to include less optimistic worldviews within Christian eschatology.

With such deep tensions invoked by polarised ideas on the nature of the work of Christ, the sources of God’s revelation to us and the nature of eschatological hope, the development of Christian eco-ethics faces severe challenges. One option is to work in fragmentary ways with a focus on only parts of knowing God through Christ’s works, such as his presence at creation, the fall and redemption, resurrection and consummation. Another option, implied in an encompassing Christ-centred approach, is to depart from classical reflection on ethics as based on a translation of revealed order only into a framework of ethical doing, or one of good living in a Biblical sense. The choice between right and wrong is still relevant, but now within the context of the all-encompassing work of Christ. De Bruijne (2006), inspired amongst others by Hauerwas (see Hauerwas & Wells 2004), in a discussion of ethics and spirituality in Reformed theology, offered some suggestions in this regard. Christian living is about knowing God, to reflect his glory (De Bruijne 2006:97). Human beings are asked to be nothing less than holy as Christ is holy, a clear ideal situation, in contrast to a reality that continues to demand ethical choices that are complex and often in conflict with different ideal ethical and moral objectives. De Bruijne (2006:99) argues that a good life is much more than a choice between right and wrong, moving beyond a classical conception of ethics and finding meaning in the destination and vocation that God gave to life. The meaning of such an approach to Christ-centred eco-ethics is worth investigating, but will (as De Bruijne himself points out) also have to account for several questions, such as the acceptance of process-based growth towards spiritual individuals or ‘morally self-justified church communities’ (O’Donovan 2001:xix in reaction to Hauerwas 1977) and the normative status of Scriptural revelation.

Adams, E., 2010, ‘Does Awaiting “New Heavens and a New Earth” (2 Pet. 3.13) Mean Abandoning the Environment?’, The Expository Times 121, 168−175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0014524609354742

Arpels-Josiah, A., 2004, ‘Nature and Human Nature in Calvin’s Theology: A Prophetic Voice for Environmental Ethics’, Koinonia XVI, 140−60.

Bauckham, R., 2010, ‘Reading the synoptic gospels ecologically’, in D.G. Horrell, C. Hunt, C. Southgate & F. Stavrakopoulou (eds.), Ecological Hermeneutics. Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives, pp. 70−82, T&T Clark, London/New York.

Bauckham, R. & Hart, T., 1999, Hope against Hope. Christian Eschatology at the Turn of the Millennium, W.B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Berkouwer, G.C., 1951, De Algemene Openbaring, J.H. Kok, Kampen.

Blosser, P., 1993, ‘Reconnoitering Dooyeweerd’s Theory of Man’, Philosophia Reformata 58, 192−209.

Bonnhoefer, D., 2009, Ethics, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Bouma-Prediger, S., 2001, For the Beauty of the Earth. A Christian Vision of Creation Care, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

Burger, H., 2010, ‘Blijde hoop voor de toekomst’, De Reformatie, December, 76−78.

Calvin, J., 2008, ‘Kommentaar Romeine’, transl. S. Postma, UV Theological Studies, Classical Texts 1, IKRS Publishers, Bloemfontein/CJBF, Potchefstroom.

Conradie, E., 2010a, ‘What on earth is an ecological hermeneutics? Some broad parameters’, in D.G. Horrell, C. Hunt, C. Southgate & F. Stavrakopoulou (eds.), Ecological Hermeneutics. Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives, pp. 295−313, T&T Clark, London/New York.

Conradie, E., 2010b, ‘Book Review: Ecologies of Grace: Environmental ethics and Christian theology’, Theology 113, 153−154.

Conradie, E., 2010c, ‘The Salvation of the Earth from Anthropogenic Destruction’, Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 2(3), 111−140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853510X507257

De Bruijne, A.L., 2006, Gereformeerde theologie vandag: orientatie en vera ntwoording, De Vuurbaak, Barneveld.

Douma, J., 1976, Kritische aantekeningen bij de Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee, De Vuurbaak, Groningen.

Goudzwaard, B., Vander Vennen, M. & Van Heemst, D., 2007, Hope in Troubled Times. A New Vision for Confronting Global Crises, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. PMid:18075109

Gustafson, J.M., 1995, ‘The idea of Christian ethics’, in P. Byrne & L. Houlden (eds.), Companion Encyclopaedia of Theology, pp. 691−715, Routledge, London/ New York.

Hauerwas, S., 1977, Truthfulness and Tragedy, University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana.

Hauerwas, S. & Wells, S. (eds.), 2004, The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics, Blackwell, Malden.

Hendriks, A.N., 2005, ‘Continuïteit en discontinuïteit in Gods toekomst [Continuity and discontinuity in God’s future]’, De Reformatie 81(6), 1−4.

Horrell, D.G., 2010a, The Bible and the Environment. Toward a Critical Ecological Biblical Theology, Equinox, London/Oakville.

Horrell, D.G., 2010b, ‘The Green Bible: A Timely Idea Deeply Flawed’, The Expository Times 121(4), 180−186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0014524609354743

Horrell, D.G., 2010c, ‘A New Perspective on Paul? Rereading Paul in a Time of Ecological Crisis’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33(1), 3−29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0142064X10365114

Horrell, D.G., Hunt, C., Southgate, C. & Stavrakopoulou, F., 2010, Ecological Hermeneutics. Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives, T&T Clark, London/New York.

Jenkins, W., 2008, Ecologies of Grace. Environmental Ethics and Christian Theology, Oxford University Press, Oxford. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195328516.001.0001

Kearns, L., 1996, ‘Saving the Creation: Christian Environmentalism in the United States’, Sociology of Religion 57(1), 55−70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3712004

Kuiper, R., Van Putten, R. & Vogelaar, M., 2012, Durf te Denken. Orientatie in Geloof, Wetenschap en Cultuur’, ForumC, Amersfoort.

Moltmann, J., 1997, The Source of Life. The Holy Spirit and the Theology of Life, Fortress Press, London.

Neal, D.D., 2010, ‘Be Who You Are: Karl Barth’s Ethics of Creation’, PhD dissertation, Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, Indiana.

O’Donovan, O., 2001, Resurrection and Moral Order. An Outline of Evangelical Ethics, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester.

Oelschlaeger, M., 1994, Caring for Creation. An Ecumenical Approach to the Environmental Crises, Yale University Press, New Haven/London.

Santmire, P., 2000, Nature Reborn. The Ecological and Cosmic Promise of Christian Theology, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Schaeffer, J.H.F., 2006, Createdness and Ethics. The Doctrine of Creation and Theological Ethics in the Theology of Colin E. Gunton and Oswald Bayer, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110916874

Schaeffer, F.A. & Middelmann, U., 1993, Pollution and the Death of Man, Crossway Books, Wheaton.

Scharper, S.B., 1997, Redeeming the Time. A Political Theology of the Environment, Continuum Publishing Company, New York.

Schrader-Frechette, K., 2005, ‘Environmental Ethics’, in H. LaFollette (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics, pp. 188−218, Oxford University Press, Oxford. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199284238.003.0009

Schuurman, E., 2006, ‘Struggle in the ethics of technology’, Koers 71(1), 155−173. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/koers.v71i1.235

Stoker, P., 2006, ‘Christian ethics and the concept of creation’, Philosophia Reformata 71, 132−144.

Stott, J., 2006, The Cross of Christ, 20th anniversary edn., Inter-Varsity Press, Nottingham.

Tanner, K., 2010, ‘Eschatology and Ethics’, in G. Meilaender & W. Werpehowski (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Theological Ethics, pp. 41−56, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Valerio, R., 2008, ‘Eschatology and the Environment’, in S. Holmes & R. Rook (eds.), What are we waiting for? Christian Hope and Contemporary Culture, pp. 200−210, Paternoster, Milton Keynes.

Van Beek, A., 2006, Hier beneden is het niet. Christelijke toekomstverwachting, 2nd edn., Meinema, Zoetermeer.

Van Bruggen, J., 2006, Romeinen. Christenen tussen stad en synagoge, J.H. Kok, Kampen.

Van Woudenberg, R., 2004, Gelovend Denken, 2nd edn., Buijten & Schipperheijn, Amsterdam.

White, L. Jr, 1967, ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis’, Science 155(3767), 1203−1207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.155.3767.1203

Wolters, A.L., 1987, ‘Worldview And Textual Criticism In 2 Peter 3:10’, Westminster Theological Journal 49, 405−413.

Wright, T., 2007, Surprised by Hope, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), London.