enlarged concept of salvation that takes seriously ecological concerns. In his analysis, he sees the embeddedness of God‟s work of salvation within the larger narrative of God‟s work, traditionally captured under the rubric of God‟s economy. He argued that at least seven chapters of God‟s work may be identified namely creation, evolution, history, the emergence of humanity, human culture and sin, God‟s work on earth, as it is in heaven.
Conradie stresses that the Christian message of salvation may be relevant with respect to activists attempts to save the planate and calls for further contemplation on how the Christian notion of salvation is to be understood within the framework of environmental threats.
Conradie (2010:112-113) observes that theologians tend to fall back on the categories of their own confessional tradition or their theological school to articulate a notion of salvation that may be relevant to ecological concerns. He wonders whether Christian ecotheologies can draw inspiration from any or all the soteriological concepts or whether theologians should merely retrieve and reinterpret those concepts articulated in their own confessional tradition or whether the quest for ecologically appropriate concepts should be recommenced. According to Conradie, the task of mapping the use of such concepts requires articulating the various concepts that are employed to test whether the use of such concepts can be
recognized as relatively adequate expressions of the Christian faith and to analyze the relationships between these concepts. Conradie (2010:132) continues to argue that every theory helps to understand a little more of what salvation means. Conradie argues that the variety of soteriological concepts employed in the Christian tradition would allow people to use whatever concepts are deemed to be appropriate in their own context (2010:132). He goes on to argue that:
One may also seek to integrate these concepts with each other. Accordingly one may suggest that the gospel addresses the evil consequences of human sin (God‟s victory over evil, based on the message of resurrection), the roots of such evil in human sin (sinners are forgiven by God through grace, manifested in the cross of Jesus Christ) and a way of life for the present in order to ensure a sustainable future (epitomised in the incarnation, life and ministry of Jesus Christ who demonstrated the full intent of God‟s law solidarity in suffering) (2010:132).
Conradie is right that the subject of salvation is vast and deep. There is nothing quite like it, and concepts must be understood in their own light. The plight of sinful humanity is disastrous, for the New Testament sees the sinner as lost, as suffering hell, as perishing, as cast into outer darkness, and many more. Salvation concept that rectifies all this must necessarily be complex. Therefore all the vivid concepts are needed: redemption, propitiation, justification, and all the rest. Also all the theories are needed. Each draws attention to an important aspect of salvation.
Conradie offers a conceptual map for soteriological discourse. In doing so he considers Christological debates on theories of atonement in order to make the debates fruitful for pneumatological discourse on salvation (2010:113-114). Unlike Aulén, Conradie is fair in dealing with the core insights of all three types of atonement (the classic type drawing especially on Irenaeus in which Christ victory over the powers of evil is emphasized, the Latin or Anselmian type in which Christ
satisfaction for the guilt incurred by humanity is emphasized and the modern type which draws on Abelard and emphasizes the subjective appropriation of Christ‟s atonement) and emphasizes the abiding validity of discourse on reconciliation, also amidst environmental threats. He argues that soteriological metaphors give expression to experiences in response to human predicaments in which humanity as since longed for salvation. This dilemma is “typically more serious than daily human needs for food, health, shelter, security and courage to do one‟s daily task”. He goes on to argue that in such a situation what is really needed is salvation and not merely God‟s providence.
Christian discourse on salvation emerges in situations where current suffering and anxieties over potential suffering are not only acute, but where there seems to be no other available way of addressing such suffering. Then the prayers of the faithful are for God‟s salvation and not only for God‟s providence (Conradie 2010:115).
He explains that the predicaments may be the result of a number of different sources of suffering, and this sometimes can be referred to as natural suffering and gives examples of earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes. These sources and those others which may be classified as contingency that is those like accidents for which no person can be held directly accountable are embedded in God‟s creation. Conradie seems to agree with Estoborn (1958:70) who argued that it is wrong explanation that those who are hit by the calamities and miseries of life are more sinful than others, rather than a cheap, erroneous and harmful explanation of evil, people would certainly prefer a plan confession of their inability to account logically for that which is not revealed to them. In fact James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (2006:35) have observed that the New Testament concept of salvation is catered on our participation in Christ‟s cosmic victory over the powers of evil forces. They go on to quote James Kallas who commented that:
Since the cosmos itself is in bondage, depressed under evil forces, the essential content of the word salvation is that the world itself will be rescued, or renewed, or set free. Salvation is a cosmic event affecting the whole of creation. Salvation is not simply the overcoming of my rebellion and the forgiveness of my guilt, but salvation is the liberation of the whole world process of which I am only a small part (2006:35).
This is precisely Conradie‟s concern; salvation is a cosmic reality, before it is an anthropological reality.
On the other hand, connected to this, Jesus himself rejected the idea that suffering is a direct and individually meted out retribution for sin. He hinted that sometimes it serves other purposes in the gracious economy of God. And he warned those who believed that the calamities were indications of sins, to consider that they were no better than others (Matthew 11:5; Luke 13:1-5; John 9:1ff). Consequently, it is imperative to emphasize both human responsibility for sin and human victimization by sin (2010:117). In each of these cases the predicament is intolerable and has to be overcome. The situation demands an immediate remedy where the consequences of the problem are alleviated. It may be helpful but not sufficient to experience solidarity and companionship amidst suffering. A victory of some sort is required. The symbol of the cross is not enough. The victory has to be more than a moral victory or a new vision.
Conradie stresses that:
The most important Christian symbol which may be used here is the resurrection of Christ. It symbolizes the power of God to address any situation and to conquer even death; it is a triumphal manifestation of God‟s decisive victory over the powers of evil (2010:120).
Both James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (2006:33) and Conradie (2010:138) have noted that we can only accurately understand and appreciate salvation if we understand it in the context of the cosmic significance of Christ‟s victory. They further testify that
it is for this reason that Paul discusses the cosmic significance of Christ‟s work, how he has in principle brought an end to the war with the principalities and powers (Col 1:15-200). According to Paul, we are reconciled because the cosmos has been reconciled. Because the rebel powers have been put in their place, we can be presented holy and blameless before God.
Speaking on reconciliation amidst alienation, Conradie argues that probably the only lasting solution would be a word of unconditional forgiveness which is crucial way of addressing evil at its human origins. Other than going into details of probing who did what? And to who? “Forgiveness is the only way in which a vicious spiral of violence may be broken” (2010:124). This is so as Conradie (2013:17) may say “in order to allow the relationship to flourish again”. However, it is clear that there are instances where problems need to be addressed. That is, the very roots of the predicament should be identified and addressed. Here the roots are typically traced back to broken relationships. It is necessary to address the roots of the evil in order to eradicate it. In the Christian tradition, the very roots of human and other forms of suffering have been traced back at a more ultimate level to alienation from God, a broken relationship between God and humanity. In such a situation, Conradie (2010:125) argues that not only the consequences of sin need to be overcome, but also there is need to address the roots of evil (sin). Accordingly, human sin is the root cause of many contemporary manifestations of evil. On this basis, salvation is understood at the ultimate level as reconciliation between God and humanity. As for the case of evils brought as a result of climate change, Conradie (2010:129) stresses that this can only be addressed on the basis of some form of reconciliation which facilitate cooperation between people from different continents, cultures and religions.
The message of salvation cannot be reduced to the forgiveness of sins; the gospel also speaks about liberation from the social consequences of sin as manifested in the many evils that thrive in society (2010:134).
Conradie sees the need to …
Work together with social scientists (especially economists) to analyze the forms of structural violence that play a role in this regard the task of soteriological discourse is to reflect on the Christian message and witness to salvation in Jesus Christ and through the power of the Holy Spirit in this very context (2010:137).