Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The central theme of this article is the matter of church participants’ engagement in liturgy and how this could enhance their capacity for making moral decisions when it comes to life in the Anthropocene. First, one should acknowledge that liturgists in faith communities have to deal with the notion of people enclaved in the idea of homeless minds. They are exposed to contradictory views on reality. The concept of cognitive dissonance needs to be addressed, and without constructive homiletical-liturgical address of this matter, it will lead to people looking for answers elsewhere. Liturgy inevitably enables participants to see things they do not or may not want to. People want to make sense of life and experiences in daily life, a process well-known as cognition. It should also be acknowledged that without reflection on the functioning of attitudes within Weltanschauung's framework, numerous challenges for any debate on life in the Anthropocene will be experienced. First, this article offers a description of the currently concerning aspects to be found under this rubric. Second, systemizing perspectives based on the philosophy of religion, anthropology, bioethics, and cognitive psychology are examined as centered on the intimate interplay with ethical conduct in viewing the world and liturgy. Finally, the following research question is formulated and briefly discussed: How could a homiletical-liturgical praxeology dealing with the homeless mind enable its participants to cultivate a Weltanschauung committed to a focused interest in the Anthropocene? The methodological approach of Browning has been carefully identified to arrange the research into coherent phases and reflect on the research question.

Keywords

Anthropocene attitudes cognition homeless minds

1. Introduction

Within the current research acknowledging the importance of the Anthropocene, words like creation and cosmos are emerging. The terminology of creation and cosmos is not strange to the liturgical tradition itself.¹ It is, however, significant to note that Peter Berger, Brigitte Berger, and Hansfried Kellner have identified a troublesome obstacle to people's respect for creation.² The abovementioned authors have embarked on a harmful attitude caused by modernization that leads to the functioning of homeless minds.³ As a result of the functioning of homeless minds, people's cognition and reasoning in dealing with life in the Anthropocene could offer challenges to a homiletical-liturgical praxeology interested in people's outlook on being responsible stewards in this world. In approaching humans’ unique responsibility in the Anthropocene,⁴ the prominence of attitudes formed by a continuous learning process and selectively utilizing facts in daily life is central. Attitudes on creation and cosmology are vital in the current discussion. Put differently, people tend to confirm their attitudes in selecting aspects from their frame of reference dealing with factuality. People also tend to protect their attitudes by rationalizing facts that conflict with their existing attitudes. Applied to the topic, people in their relationship with the environment prefer to be active role players, to traverse, maneuver, hegemonize, create, and attain things.⁵ Eventually, people try to find justified answers to help them make moral decisions.

A closer outlook on life in the Anthropocene should consider that technological production and bureaucracy within the workplace inevitably influence people's feelings, contributing to deep-seated attitudes. Strategic interests within the workplace involve a process in which people are continually introduced to new ways of thinking or technological paradigms for everyday reasoning.⁶ This exposure could result in tension between the values in the workplace and the formative functioning of participation in the liturgy. Consequently, people try to lower the cognitive dissonance⁷ caused by this exposure. They undeniably adopt separate thought processes for public and private life, a process called homeless minds⁸ or psychological homelessness.⁹ This leads to the current research question of how faith communities could become involved in a thoughtful process of rethinking vital aspects of life and distortions in people's thinking processes in the Anthropocene.¹⁰

Nearly forty-five years ago, Karl Rahner¹¹ garnished the potential of liturgy as compelling energy and stated that one should speak about the liturgy of the world rather than of a liturgy in the world. In this idea, the liturgy's connectedness with everyday life emerges.¹² On the footprint of this idea, Christians continually engage in a performative event where the sacred becomes present and hence they express what they believe through their weekly liturgy.¹³ Izunna Okonkwo¹⁴ furthermore points the finger at liturgy that refuses to keep silent on concerns about creation. If water, air, and the environment could be described as God-given gifts, human responsibility for the gifts should be seen as the other side. Consequently, the persuasive essence of liturgy deals with participants seeing daily life in the light of the Gospel concretely and practically.¹⁵ The author presupposes that everyday life, including a life vision of living in the Anthropocene, should not be untouched by the persuasiveness of participation in the liturgy. Involvement in this central aspect allows the Gospel to illuminate the world around us and say familiar things creatively.¹⁶

On the footprint of this idea, Howard Snyder¹⁷ warns against endangering the formative functioning of the liturgy by indicating the prevalence of intrinsic worldviews, such as the exploitation of nature for economic development and the inevitable result of ecological destruction. The interplay between humans and the environment within the expression of the Anthropocene is, after all, a complex phenomenon accompanied by numerous avenues that could be utilized to engage with this matter.¹⁸ For example, Hannah Gibson and Sita Vanketswar¹⁹ embroider the idea from an anthropological viewpoint and connect well-being with life in evaluating the notion of the Anthropocene. The authors mentioned above further refer to the imminent danger of an attitude they call the “self-appointed dominant place humans hold above all other life on earth.”²⁰

A further avenue in debating the matter of the Anthropocene is related to the cognizance of the sociology of knowledge. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann,²¹ interested in people's understanding of reality, emphasize that it is concerning to realize that although all people live in the world, not all are interested in a theoretical or theological understanding of their world. According to the idea of Weltanschauung, people are, after all, not mere viewers or spectators of reality. Blindness of, or ignoring, our assumptions about creation should be avoided.²² This process is intimately related to what Susan Fiske²³ describes as cognition²⁴ as someone's deliberate attempt to make sense of life.

The following research problem could be stated: How could a homiletical-liturgical praxeology dealing with the homeless mind enable its participants to cultivate a Weltanschauung committed to a focused interest in the Anthropocene? This problem will be addressed in a qualitative literature review in which the descriptive, interpretative, normative, and strategical aspects are considered important research phases. In this regard, Don Browning²⁵ is interested in practical wisdom's (phronesis) purpose of understanding human action and defines a research activity as a process that starts with a description and then moves to systemize. Eventually, strategizing perspectives will be used here to arrange and reflect on the materials included in this article.

2. Descriptive Perspectives on Understanding the Anthropos in the Anthropocene

This section is interested in providing perspectives surrounding life in the Anthropocene. The perspectives will be arranged according to three aspects related to the topic of this article, namely, life in the Anthropocene, Weltanschauung, and the homeless mind of people.

2.1. Descriptive Perspectives on the Appeal of Humans’ Attitude as Global Agents in the Anthropocene to Start Acting Responsibly

Human involvement or agency refers to someone's ability to decide and impose options on their environment.²⁶ Michael Goller and Christian Harteis further stress that human agency denotes people's ability to control their cognition and behavior through the influence of existing self-beliefs or attitudes.²⁷ Consequently, Jan Zalasiewicz et al.²⁸ explained the need for a better understanding of life in the Anthropocene and reflected on the interplay between humans as agents and the environment.²⁹ Although the idea of agency is mentioned in the research described above, the emphasis on people who should purposefully make meaning of their involvement in their environment through a continuous process of conscious reflection is underplayed. It should be acknowledged that dealing with human agency is not unproblematic when we discernibly refer to the cognition of the effects of climate change on local landscapes. People's influence in the Anthropocene could mean different things to different people and cultures.³⁰ Hence, a considerable problem among scientists is that despite previous understandings of the Anthropocene, human activities have indeed begun to alter the earth's climate and biogeochemistry.³¹ Aspects that should urgently receive attention include reduced consumption of resources, sustainable energy generation, conservation of the natural world, and better management of all human activities. These actions are essential to maintain human welfare on a less predictable planet.³² The interdependence between human decision-making, economic interests, and the environment always should be taken seriously as a starting point in changing people's thoughts.³³

The literature in the previous paragraph suggests that human responsibility is at stake, especially when the success of humans in terms of technology is evident but at the expense of the quality of life and the environment. The necessity of a deeper pondering is interwoven with the realization that economies, societies, the welfare of humans and civilizations are, after all, embedded in the biosphere, the thin layer of life on planet earth.³⁴ Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac³⁵ underscore the long-term consequences of not taking life in the Anthropocene seriously and emphasize that climate change could become irreversible and out of control. The environmental impact could not be denied because of threats to our oceans, forests, plants, trees, and soil. Hence, a deep-rooted attitude of commitment towards a sustainable continuation of life in the Anthropocene should emerge in which people realize the importance of acting as agents in which the reciprocity between humans and the environment stands central. The responsibility to act as an agent in the Anthropocene necessitates their understanding or view of the world.

2.2. People's Weltanschauung Underpinned by their Cognition (Understanding)

Based on the previous section, the emphasis on increasing an attitude of awareness and willingness to address essential aspects of life in the Anthropocene should, among other elements, also deal with the unique way people see the world. Someone's cognition or attempt to make sense of what is happening in their lives is a pivotal building block in the forming of attitudes. Mark Koltko-Rivera³⁶ indicates that people see or understand the world uniquely and personally. They mostly see the world not for what it is but for what they need. Koltko-Rivera prefers to speak of worldviews as beliefs or assumptions describing the reality that could be seen as fundamental building blocks in someone's attitude. This aspect should be taken seriously in the current reflection of life in the Anthropocene. Melvin Miller and Alan West³⁷ define a worldview as an interpretative or hermeneutic lens people use to understand their reality. Ernst Conradie³⁸ emphasizes the importance of seeing things in the Anthropocene in a particular light, for better or worse. In my understanding of the concept of Weltanschauung³⁹ lies the idea of a unique understanding of reality that also resonates with a deeper vision of the world's reality. B. J. Van der Walt⁴⁰ enables us to realize that no human being is looking at reality in the world in a neutral manner since humans see things differently. Van der Walt appreciates Conradie's⁴¹ description of the numerous reasons the notion of worldview is contestable. Conradie, however, as mentioned earlier, formulates that “there is only one thing that is worse than adopting a particular worldview—and that is pretending not to have adopted one at all, to be blind to the assumptions that we make about the world in which we are embedded.”⁴²

Van der Walt⁴³ defines the concept of Weltanschauung as one’s understanding of the world, which allows him to prove that someone's life view operates in a formative manner. A life vision is an integrated, interpretative, and normative view of reality that provides the foundation of actions, motivation, and meaning to people living in this world. Someone's life view or Weltanschauung determines how people interpret, understand, and experience reality. The challenge for a homiletical-liturgical praxeology in addressing the concerns related to the concept of the Anthropocene is incorporated in the cognizance that people, even Christians, have different life views or approaches towards Weltanschauung.⁴⁴ Some people have an anthropocentric worldview meaning it is human-centered, concentrated on thinking about what humans need. A biocentric life view could also be evident where everything is one-sided and interpreted only in terms of life or the earth.⁴⁵ The most concerning life views addressed in this article are encapsulated in a deep-rooted attitude that humans are the earth's most important and dominant species. Different kinds of centeredness could emerge in someone's Weltanschauung, namely self-centeredness, human-centeredness (anthropocentrism), biocentric or life-centered, eco-centered, or biosphere- or earth-centered.⁴⁶ People are looking at or distinctly perceiving the world, bringing us to the manifestation of their mindset, namely their homeless minds.

2.3. The Homeless Mind of the Anthropos in the Anthropocene

The previous sections have indicated that people's cognition, attitudes, and Weltanschauung are important aspects that should be considered in the current discussion on life in the Anthropocene. This section now explores why different views on the world could occur. Berger, Berger, and Kellner,⁴⁷ for example, remind us to understand the mindset of humans and provide in-depth research on the effects of modernization on people's cognition in a postmodern world. The concerns about what they describe as the institutional concomitants of technologically induced economic growth are at the core of their argument. In the previous section, I referred to cognition as a meaningful endeavor of people discerning or trying to make sense of life. Berger et al., as mentioned earlier, offer cognizance of a certain way of thinking caused by modernization that simultaneously influences everyday life experiences.⁴⁸ Modernity and technological developments have utilized carriers to convey the essence of an altered lifestyle offered by technological developments.⁴⁹ One example could be highlighted: the thought pattern of being part of a componential system.⁵⁰ Similar to the idea of an assembly line, life is regarded as an object consisting of various stages on an assembly line. Because of this process, dimensions of life and reality are interpreted as a collection of objects or components.⁵¹ Rika Preiser, Laura Pereira, and Reinette Biggs⁵² apply this idea of componential functioning to the African context and refer to the continent's richness in terms of minerals such as uranium and gold. The African mining industry is well known for the assembly of components and is characterized by people working in mine shafts and tunnels. As a result, the surrounding environment is not untouched by mining, and air pollution has become a serious problem. A further spiraling consequence for people living in local communities is dealing with the toxins that dissolve in drinking water supplies.

Physical and psychological dimensions should be considered when reflecting on Berger, Berger, and Kellner's⁵³ idea that the thought patterns adhered to in the workplace cannot be separated from everyday life. In the workplace, the emphasis falls on putting things together and not, in the first instance, on caring for the people putting the components together. The idea of anonymous social relations in the workplace comes to the fore.⁵⁴ The inevitable experience of people is that their lives are being controlled by something much bigger than any human. Exposure to other viewpoints is an integral part of daily life, and technology does not necessarily follow people's views and religious convictions. Garret Wilson⁵⁵ indicated that cognitive dissonance is evident and that separating professional life and private is one of the few options available to reduce this experience of cognitive dissonance. This results in people's views that religion should be reserved for personal life and that a new way of thinking for the workplace should be adopted. The end of this ongoing process could be encapsulated in Berger et al.’s⁵⁶ postulation that a profound feeling of homelessness results, or, formulated differently, an intangible loss of home.

Paul Heelas and Linda Woodhead⁵⁷ enable us to identify the homeless minds of people in a postmodern society and refer to two poignant images identified by Max Weber and Karl Marx. For Weber, modernity was like an iron cage where a new social and economic order had disenchanted religious significance. People were exposed to the thought patterns associated with a mechanistic outlook. Marx emphasized the melting of the solid into the air. In his view, social life has constantly been interrupted by constant exposure to the idea of productivity. According to Heelas and Woodhead,⁵⁸ these two images enable us to reflect on the bureaucracy of technology and rationalization, also described as consciousness. The biggest consequence of this existential feeling of homelessness in the cosmos deals with people's views on religion. On a critical note, Berger and Berger rightfully underline the idea of psychologically homeless minds but fall short in rejecting the impacts of modernity or denoting the concept of people dwelling with a responsible mind in the Anthropocene. It is a concerning that people live in the proximity of the experience of homeless minds and the meaningful frame of reference of religion is becoming less important; something should be done from a homiletical-liturgical viewpoint. If John Mbiti’s⁵⁹ remark is true that Africans, for example, are notoriously religious, then surely a homiletical-liturgical praxeology could offer dynamic opportunities to reshape people's worldviews and cognition. Based on this idea, the religion that once functioned as the mainstream for cognition and offered a home to people, has unfortunately been altered into a practice where people are looking in the direction of other sources of significance.⁶⁰ This brings Berger et al.⁶¹ to conclude that no human can indefinitely endure this uncertainty of psychological homelessness without meaningful life support (Lebenshilfe).

2.4. Descriptive Perspectives on the Mind of the Anthropos Living in the Anthropo-Cene (Human + new = Anthropocene)

Sections 2.1–2.3 have provided perspectives on the influence of technological inventions and the reality that cognitive dissonance occurs.⁶² People are exposed to what is happening in the workplace, but they are also aware of what their faith communities have proclaimed to them over the years. This phenomenon creates tension in their minds. Kai Chan⁶³ adamantly states that no place on earth is untouched by human activity. Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer⁶⁴ have investigated the era of the Anthropocene; interestingly, it coincides with the steam engine's invention and the textile industry's expansion, which have irrevocably changed the lives and cognition of humans.

Chap Clark⁶⁵ continues in this vein. He enables us to realize that reflection on the interplay between humans and the world should deal with a growing awareness that the harmful contribution of people in the Anthropocene should be recognized. For example, Calvin⁶⁶ defines his understanding of the role of Anthropos by referring to his interpretation of creation. In this dynamic view of creation, Calvin elucidates that the dwelling place of humans comes first and then follows the notion that God places humans on earth with a distinct calling. Wolfhart Pannenberg⁶⁷ connects with this idea and underlines the principle of imago Dei. The abovementioned concept expresses humans in a relational dimension, and this idea should determine the Anthropos’ functioning in the ecological environment. Jürgen Moltmann⁶⁸ presses the argument even further, clarifying the concept of imago Dei with an emphasis on the notion of stewardship or being an ambassador as a qualifier for the demand of humans to subdue the earth.⁶⁹

3. Systemizing Perspectives on Humanness in the Anthropocene

Section 2 has identified the importance of people's cognition in embarking on life in the Anthropocene. This section will now provide further illuminating perspectives on understanding life in the Anthropocene from an inter- and intra-disciplinary perspective⁷⁰ with anthropology, bioethics, and social psychology. This section is interested in determining deeper-lying reasons for the descriptive views described in sections 2.1–2.4. The interdisciplinary insights offered by three neighboring sciences in this section are indispensable because of the focus on humans, their morality, and thought patterns.

3.1. Systemizing Perspectives from Anthropology on Understanding the Ecological Anthropocentric Hubris

Anthropology is the comprehensive study of human development, culture, and change throughout the world, past and present.⁷¹ Zalasiewicz⁷² therefore raises the vital issue of global warming and many other human-driven changes to the environment. Washington⁷³ drives the argument further in discussing the influence of what could be called call “anthropocentric hubris.” The Greek word hubris indicates an outrage of actions that leads to violating the natural order. Consequently, the idea of pretension, where the person pretends to have greater knowledge or ability than one has, comes to the fore.⁷⁴ Arne Vetlesen⁷⁵ is adamant about the manifestation of destructive hubris if our way of enacting it in the world is not informed by the modesty that goes with a sense of awe toward the value of earth.

J. Baird Callicott⁷⁶ enables us to understand that the attitude of anthropocentrism is unfolding on at least three levels: the metaphysical, moral, and tautological or epistemic. In this triangular manifestation of attitudes, the process starts with the cognition that humans are special. This attitude has often been rationalized in reference to religious convictions and is a foundation for moral anthropocentrism in which humans stand central. Patrick Curry⁷⁷ reflects on something that has been touched on earlier in this article (the notion of homeless minds caused by modernism), namely the influence of modernism. Modernism, after all, took a strong anthropocentric view of the world as being just a resource for human use.⁷⁸ The intertwining with movements that have influenced the cognition of people such as the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the democratic, industrial, and scientific revolutions is also remarkable. Suppose anthropocentrism is regarded as a harmful attitude and a manifestation of a worldview (Weltanschauung). In that case, the danger of seeing the environment as one of the resources available to humans should be acknowledged as harmful.⁷⁹ It is untenable to have a view of humans separate from their physical address, namely the earth.⁸⁰

3.2. Systemizing Perspectives from Bioethics on Humanness

In the previous section, the idea of morality and a harmful attitude emerged. As a result, a closer outlook on perspectives from bioethics comes into play. The significance of ecology dealing with the relationship between living organisms and their environment in proximity to humans always exists within the ecology framework. Hans Küng⁸¹ further enables us to realize the importance of what could be described as a global ethic in which the voice of faith communities should be heard. Küng made an important statement by saying there is “no peace among nations without a global ethic,” “no peace without religions,” and “no peace among religions without dialogue among religions.” While discussing life in the Anthropocene, the notion of peace and justice offers many aspects to ponder further. The implication is that peace will elude humans if actions that allow harm to the ecosystem are realized. Emanating from this idea of a global ethic, Amelia Moore⁸² makes an interesting remark on what could be called an anthropological awareness of the Anthropocene in which the importance of life and the impact of changes on humans are emerging. Environmental ethics,⁸³ as an important branch within bioethics, is currently receiving increased attention and Cummins remarks that bioethics has been rather sluggish in its response to environmental challenges.⁸⁴ According to Van Rensselear Potter,⁸⁵ the departing point in bioethics was not to point in this direction, but rather to integrate all aspects related to life (bios) in symbiosis.

This brings us to the interplay between bios (life) and humans (Anthropoi) that have become essential to the functioning of UNESCO's activities. UNESCO's⁸⁶ declaration, released in 2005, states the important principles for bioethics to consider. The principles are arranged according to a gradual widening of the range of moral objects: the individual human being itself (human dignity; benefit and harm; autonomy), other human beings (consent; privacy; equality), human communities (respect for cultural diversity), humankind as a whole (solidarity; social responsibility; sharing of benefits), and all living beings and their environment (protecting future generations and protection of the environment, the biosphere and biodiversity).⁸⁷ Embarkment on the topic of the Anthropocene could enhance further research on a bios-ethos. The notion of widening and concentric circles, however, is remarkable in UNESCO's declaration and should be commended. Based on this declaration, the emphasis on autonomy and solidarity in making bioethical decisions in everyday life is central to identifying fifteen principles underlying moral conduct towards life.⁸⁸ Based on this contribution made by UNESCO, it seems that a mindful consideration of the ethical tenets is needed in moral decision-making. Although the fifteen principles refer to the idea of improving the environment, much more could still be done to indicate the ethical role of humans by mentioning the Anthropocene.

Conradie⁸⁹ makes a valuable contribution in asking questions about the identity of humans. Hence, realizing who the human is or should become could offer a significant departure. In the literature consulted for this research, it appears that respect for human dignity and people's personhood are prominent aspects of bioethics. Respect for other human beings is also emphasized in the literature. It is one thing to admit human dignity and respect for the environment. However, a different challenge, namely, to escape abstraction when applying these values in reflecting on life in the Anthropocene, should be considered. As indicated in Karen O’Brien's⁹⁰ statement, the relational aspect offers an intriguing angle in approaching this matter. Johan Brännmark and Roberto Andorno,⁹¹ on the other hand, share their concern about a bioethical lens, namely the emphasis on the dignity of humans and human rights almost at the expense of other crucial aspects related to daily life. David Resnik⁹² tries to rectify this shortcoming and underlines that the importance of humanness in bioethics should never lead to a practice that neglects the environment. He pleads for greater harmony between human health and environmental protection. That being said, it should not be ignored that ecological ethics, which stresses an environmental ethos, has received attention over time but needs further prominence when reflecting on an aspect such as bioethics.⁹³ Based on the above discussion, it seems that bioethics, with its emphasis on life and humanness, could still influence further engagements on life (bios) in the Anthropocene.

3.3. Systemizing Perspectives on Understanding Humanness from the Viewpoint of Social Psychology

Linda Steg and Robert Gifford adamantly assert that a healthy environment is crucial for humans’ thoughts, feelings, and behavior.⁹⁴ In environmental social psychology, a shift has occurred, namely, a shift from how the environment affects humans to an emphasis on how humans influence their environment.⁹⁵ Within research on environmental psychology, the mutual interdependence between how humans are constantly changing their environment for better or worse, and how the environment influences humans, is being scrutinized.⁹⁶ Emanating from research in this field is the allusion to environmental cognition and environmental attitudes. Songjun Xu et al.⁹⁷ indicate that ecological awareness consists of three important pillars, namely, the importance of environmental knowledge, including ecosystems; understanding of the problems underlying the interaction between humans and the environment; and dedication to making a difference in terms of concrete actions. The unique interdependence between a healthy environment and people's understanding has emerged in the abovementioned discussion.

Auesriwong et al.⁹⁸ elaborate the idea that individuals, especially public awareness or understanding of environmental problems, should be cultivated within the understanding of environmental cognition. Robert Gass and John Seiter⁹⁹ underline the power of images that could move and change people's attitudes more dynamically than words. They highlight the idea of persuasion underlying visual images, and refer to the reality of images being used in advertising.¹⁰⁰ Don Schultz and Heidi Schultz¹⁰¹ agree with this insight but advance the argument further by pinpointing the relevance of the functioning of an ecological attitude. Three layers in the functioning of an environmental attitude can be distinguished, namely, the cultivation of ecological sensitivity, the identification of beliefs concerning the interplay between humans and the environment, and the assessment of humans’ taxonomy of the value of the environment.¹⁰² In order to do this, one must get people's attention to listen and grasp the importance of living in the Anthropocene. Based on the literature search in this field, the importance of ethical conduct that deals with the understanding (cognition) and formation of constructive attitudes stands central. This article intends to offer insight into the enhancement of understanding and the forming of attitudes that should be regarded as important building blocks in a practical theological or homiletical-liturgical praxeology towards life in the Anthropocene.

3.4. Systemizing Perspectives on Seeking the Peace (Shalom) and Prosperity of the City (Jeremiah 29:7)

Jeremiah addresses the exiles in his sermon. In Jeremiah's sermon, as presented in chapter 29:1-14, the emphasis is not on the hopelessness stemming from exile but on God's dynamic act in doing something new and powerful. According to Martin Manser,¹⁰³ the people are encouraged to make the foreign land, Babel, their new home. They should live a livable life by building houses, establishing beautiful gardens, marrying, and bringing forth children (Jer 29:4-6). They should do the same as they should have done when still in Jerusalem. Judah is reminded that they are not prisoners of the experiences and circumstances they are facing.¹⁰⁴ I agree with J. A. Laubscher¹⁰⁵ that an existential dilemma was at the center of the exiles’ cognition (understanding of life). People were confronted with an adequate lifestyle amid strange customs and religious beliefs.¹⁰⁶ The exiles were homeless or landless. The importance of hope and purpose in life is central in the words of Jeremiah's sermon. In Jeremiah 29:7, the exiles are encouraged not to fall into the trap of an escapist or withdrawal attitude.¹⁰⁷

A familiar word in the exiles’ vocabulary draws or gets listeners’ attention, namely, shalom. Payne Barton¹⁰⁸ summarizes this concept as a normal and peaceful life that can be lived even in a foreign country. A passenger's mentality of sitting back and becoming observers who only perceive what is going on should be avoided. Timothy Keller¹⁰⁹ denotes that an active and constructive attitude should become evident to promote or advance the interest of society. Roger Greenway enables us to realize that the exiles, as humans, should not neglect the surrounding interest of the environment but become attentive to anything that endangers the wholeness of human life. The fullness and shalom of life are encapsulated in God's presence, even in a foreign country.¹¹⁰ Diligence to promote this wholeness and meaningfulness should become practiced. The exiles should request or urgently ask or long for this shalom.¹¹¹

In Jeremiah 29:7, the exiles are encouraged not to neglect their prayers for the city's well-being because they also determine a meaningful life and renewed understanding of the ecology. In the shalom of the city, the exiles will find peace. François Jacobus Pop¹¹² mentions that this shalom includes health and a healthy society based on sound relations, moral politics, and care for the ecosystem. It could be summarized in the idea of order in society. The attitude of respect and constructive actions to promote shalom should be the environment in which people live.¹¹³ As rational beings born with intellect, humans have a responsibility to care for the shalom of our home, the earth. The sustenance of the place of human existence should be regarded as the space God ordained for human lives.

4. Strategizing Perspectives on the Life of Homeless Minds in the Anthropocene

The following aspects emerge if sections 2 and 3 are arranged in a hermeneutical interaction within an interdisciplinary approach. First, in mentioning life in the Anthropocene, the notion of humans and agents comes to the fore. Second, emanating from this recognition, the cognition or thought patterns of humans is a golden thread manifesting itself in current research related to the current topic. In the third instance, the imperative of people being enabled to see things differently while understanding their responsibility for a liveable life in the Anthropocene has also emerged in previous sections. In a homiletical-liturgical praxeology, these matters should now be incorporated.

4.1. A Homiletical-Liturgical Praxeology Focused on Understanding the Importance of Human Agency

Benjamin Stewart¹¹⁴ reminds us that worship is intimately related to the idea of worth-ship. It is about ascribing worth to God and to creation itself which has its worth liturgically communicated by the notion that what God has made is very good. Teresa Berger,¹¹⁵ in her thinking of life in the Anthropocene, adamantly contends that the earth stands on the precipice of life-threatening changes. A rethinking of the formative influence of hymns, rituals, and lamenting within worship services should become more prominent if faith communities want to contribute toward responsible stewardship. Gordon Lathrop¹¹⁶ pleads for the liturgy to orient its participants’ cognition anew in their relationship with the universe. Paul Santmire¹¹⁷ contributes interestingly to this topic and refers to ritualizing nature. The underlying presumption in his mind deals with liturgy establishing awe and new habits closely connected to understanding the importance of cosmology. A reminder of liturgy's outlook on life, which includes a responsibility towards the environment, comes to the fore.

This article has addressed the importance of a person's cognition and unique Weltanschauung. Faith communities should become involved in what can be called eco-theology or care for the environment. The immediate implication thereof deals with a homiletical-liturgical persuasiveness towards an attitude of serving God, other people, and creation. The sermon's influence in addressing this responsibility and attitude of care in a focused interplay with other liturgical elements could contribute to increased awareness. David Warners et al.¹¹⁸ highlight one aspect of a homiletical-liturgical praxeology and highlight the importance of the familiar concept of reconciliation for the participants in the liturgy, meaning they are being put together in proper relationships, which includes an appropriate relationship with creation. De Wet, Kruger, and Stark¹¹⁹ underline the liturgy's foundation that should be preached and ministered. The authors define the concept of earnest expectation or sighing which is used three times in Romans 8:19-27. First, the creation eagerly looks forward to the coming glory (Rom 8:19-22). Second, believers are eagerly looking forward (sighing) (Rom 8:23-25), and third, the Holy Spirit is joining the creation and believers in this sighing (Rom 8:26-27). The three sighing movements in Romans 8:19-27 are structured in concentric circles to form a crescendo.¹²⁰ Creation sighs because of the imperfection of this age (cosmological aspect). Believers are moaning because of the longing for completion (anthropological aspect). Therefore, the “longing for” can also be called the pain of expectation or hope. A homiletical-liturgical praxeology could provide a framework in which lament for the destructiveness of humans involved in the Anthropocene and a deeper foundation for profound hope could be discovered.

Based on these perspectives, liturgy's connectedness to the powerful elements of lament and doxology could do even more to raise awareness of humans’ responsibility for life in the Anthropocene. In the sections debated above, it became clear that humans, enclaved by the notion of homeless minds, live in a broken world that mourns the devastating results of exploiting the environment.¹²¹ Cognizance of this reality, however, is only one side of the coin. The other side deals with the realization of the interplay between the beauty of this world and of God's new world breaking through based on the idea of reconciliation.¹²² Walter Brueggemann¹²³ is convinced that the beauty described above encapsulates the essence of liturgy in emphasizing that a meaningful liturgy is essential in criticizing and energizing what humans are doing in daily life. Singing and praying, criticizing, denouncing, and lamenting are at the fore but never at the expense of energizing its participants through hope and a revitalized vision of the present world and the new one to come. The attitude of pathos in criticizing and of amazement, as the response of energizing doxologically, should be cultivated. Brueggemann¹²⁴ staunchly claims that the elements in liturgical enactment should enhance the liturgical naming of all the infidelities that make life toxic. Participants in the liturgy should become active in weeping about humans’ involvement in life in the Anthropocene. Weeping or grieving in turn should lead to a profound confession and hope that serves as the foundation of resistance against all practices interested in harmful actions toward ecology.¹²⁵

Warners et al.¹²⁶ stress the attitude of humans serving only their interests. A homiletical-liturgical praxeology focused on hope for life in the Anthropocene cannot avoid the importance of emphasizing humans as agents that will destroy stability on earth that is already sighing due to human actions. It all boils down to preaching within the framework of the liturgy, indicating to its participants the importance of moral decisions that should exceed self-serving interests and focus on servanthood in daily life. With its vision of everyday life, liturgy should become more concrete for its participants to realize and see what they could do differently. A homiletical-liturgical praxeology could become a powerhouse of igniting people with dedication to take care of their home, the earth. Johan Cilliers¹²⁷ denotes a departing point in a praxeology focusing on liturgists and participants in the liturgy that should not lose the art of awe about the wonder of creation.

4.2. A Homiletical-Liturgical Praxeology That Cultivates a Deeper Understanding (Cognition) of Homeless Minds

In the previous sections, the idea has emerged that participants in the liturgy should have cognition (understanding) of life in its fullness that includes a closer look at our attitudes and view of reality. An outlook on life with other humans and with the ecosystems should cultivate new perspectives on our kinship with every strand of the web of life in the Anthropocene.¹²⁸ In the last section of this article, homiletical-liturgical perspectives on the interplay between people's cognition (understanding), Weltanschauung, and challenges offered by the notion of homeless minds in the Anthropocene will be provided. The three aspects always function in a triangular interplay. This means that the opposite sides and diagonals of the investigated phenomenon are equal, and all elements bisect each other in a unique interplay. The acknowledgement that a faith community or the church is being called to celebrate God's presence in creation and that participants in the liturgy should become concerned when livable life in creation is endangered has to stand central in a homiletical-liturgical praxeology. Cilliers, for one, underlines the challenge for liturgy in advocating that liturgy should do more to sensitize its participants to the interests of God, the creator of all things.

In the previous section, this article articulated that a homiletical-liturgical praxeology inevitably deals with the interplay between creation (environment) and the notion of reconciliation. In proclaiming the Gospel and the promise of reconciliation, preaching within the liturgy's framework should not become silent. Cilliers¹²⁹ meaningfully contributes to this argument by stressing that a hermeneutical engagement dealing with the idea of the cross and resurrection of Christ should provide a new perspective that implies that life already has been changed. The research offered in this article underlined an attempt by people enclaved in a homeless mind to find answers from secondary institutions rather than looking for meaningful answers within a homiletical-liturgical framework. Voicelessness or silence over a period from faith communities on a meaningful life in the Anthropocene may have increased the tendency of people to look for answers elsewhere. A possible departure point in a planned homiletical-liturgical praxeology could be to address its participants in the liturgy cognition (understanding) of the interplay between their home (creation) and their responsibility of being creaturae Dei. The primary plug-in point deals with people's Weltanschauung, acknowledging that people's thought patterns could have become distorted. In addition to persuasive preaching, becoming silent in order to listen to God's will and confess the importance of reconciliation could increase awareness of the participants’ responsibility and care for their environment. This article concludes that liturgy could become meaningless without a sharpened focus on the relational aspects, including a commitment to caring for creation.¹³⁰

5. Conclusion

This article has delineated the significance of a homiletical-liturgical praxeology in becoming involved and concerned with life in the Anthropocene. This article has tried to provide a window for further reflection on this matter and, therefore, I want to conclude with some ideas that could cultivate further pondering. If liturgy is also about celebrating being reconciled in Christ, the relationship between humans and creation should inevitably be communicated. The pleading offered in this research is that liturgists should discover the homeless minds of participants in the liturgy. The three aspects of attitudes, cognition, and Weltanschauung could offer a concrete and practical application. Participants in the liturgy, which also includes a participatory involvement in listening to the performative act of preaching, should be enabled to view life differently according to the new perspectives the Gospel offers. Preaching closely with other liturgical elements should allow its participants to experience a reframing or reshaping of their Weltanschauung. With a clear vision of caring for the city's shalom and responsible stewardship liturgy, participants should be challenged to take care of their home creation. Without addressing life in the Anthropocene and understanding people's homeless minds, liturgy could fall into a one-sided emphasis on people's needs rather than their responsibilities. Hence, in focusing on God's promises in the liturgy, no participant can leave the world behind.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ferdi Petrus Kruger

Notes

Author Biography

Ferdi Petrus Kruger has been a professor of Practical Theology (Homiletics and Liturgics) at the Faculty of Theology of the North-West University since 2014. He is lecturing at the Potchefstroom Campus and is the research director for the Unit for Reformational Theology and the Development of the South African Society. He is also the author of fifty scholarly articles and focuses on the forming and functioning attitudes within the research fields of Homiletics and Liturgics. The importance of cognition to make sense of experiences, the functioning of remembrance and attitudes are in his area of interest. He is also the co-author of one monograph published in 2020 at Summum Academic Publishers titled Preaching in Arduous Times-Outlines of Perspectives from the Hebrews Sermon.

References

Andorno

2009. “Human Dignity and Human Rights as a Common Ground for Global Bioethics.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34 (3): 223–240.

Auesriwong

Nilnoppakun

Parawech

. 2015. “Integrative Participatory Community-based Ecotourism at Sangkhom District, NongKhai Province, Thailand.” Procedia Economics and Finance 23: 778–782.

Bakke

1997. A Theology as Big as the City. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Bandura

1996. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barker

Angelopulo

. 2010. Integrated Organizational Communication. Cape Town: Juta.

Berger

P. L.

Berger

Kellner

. 1974. The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness. New York: Vintage Books.

Berger

Peter L.

Luckmann

Thomas

. 1991. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Berger

2019. Full of Your Glory: Liturgy, Cosmos, Creation. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press Academic.

Biermann

2012. “Planetary Boundaries and Earth System Governance: Exploring the Links.” Ecological Economics 81: 4–9.

10.

Brännmark

2017. “Respect for Persons in Bioethics: Towards a Human Rights-based Account.” Human Rights Review 18: 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-017-0450-x

11.

Brown

2017. Happy: Why More or Less Everything is Absolutely Fine. London: Penguin Random House UK.

12.

Browning

D. S.

1996. Fundamental Practical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

13.

Brueggemann

2001. Prophetic Imagination. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

14.

Brueggemann

2011. The Practice of Prophetic Imagination: Preaching an Emancipating Word. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.

15.

Callicott

J. B.

2013. Thinking Like a Planet: The Land Ethic and the Earth Ethic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

16.

Calvyn

1956. Institutie of onderwijsing in de Christelijke godsdienst, translated into Dutch by A. Sizoo. Delft: Meinema.

17.

Chan

2021. Good Ethics Cannot Stop Me from Exploiting: The Good and Bad of Anthropocentric Attitudes in a Game Environment. Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

18.

Cilliers

2011. “Liturgy as Space for Anticipation.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 67 (2): Art. #1020, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v67i2.1020.

19.

Clark

, ed. 2015. Adoptive Youth Ministry: Integrating Emerging Generations into the Family of Faith. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

20.

Conradie

E. M.

2015. The Earth in God’s Economy: Creation, Salvation and Consummation in Ecological Perspective. Berlin: LIT Verlag.

21.

Conradie

E. M.

2018. “Ways of Viewing an Evolving World amidst Ecological Destruction.” Scriptura 117 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7833/117-1-1390.

22.

Crutzen

P. J.

Stoermer

. 2000. “The ‘Anthropocene’.” IGBP News 41: 17–18.

23.

Cummins

P. J.

2018. “The Anthropocene: A Challenge to Humanism in Bioethics?” Ethics, Medicine and Public Health 6 (2): 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2018.07.001.

24.

Curry

2011. Ecological Ethics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.

25.

De Klerk

B. J.

2014. “Enhancing Ecological Consciousness through Liturgical Acts of Doxology and Lament.” Verbum et Ecclesia 35 (2): Art. #859, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v35i2.859.

26.

Wet

Kruger

F. F.

Stark

. 2018. “Around Capes of Good Hope: God’s Wind Never Subsides. Preaching Promise as Hope Against Hope.” In Preaching Promise within the Paradoxes of Life, ed. Cilliers

Johan

Hansen

Len

, 243–55. Western Cape: African Sun Media.

27.

Fiske

S. T.

2004. Social Beings: Core Motives Approach to Social Psychology. Princeton: John Wiley.

28.

Floyd

2019. “A Critical and Comparative Analysis of Jürgen Moltmann’s and Gordon Kaufman’s Environmental Theologies.” PhD dissertation, University of Manchester.

29.

Folke

2021. “Our Future in the Anthropocene Biosphere.” Ambio 50: 834–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01544-8.

30.

Gass

R. H.

Seiter

J. S.

. 2003. Persuasion: Social Influence and Compliance Gaining. New York: Pearson Education.

31.

Gibson

Venkateswar

. 2015. “Anthropological Engagement with the Anthropocene.” Environment and Society 6: 5–27.

32.

Gillings

M. R.

Hagan-Lawson

E. L.

. 2014. “The Cost of Living in the Anthropocene.” Earth Perspectives 1 (2): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-6434-1-2.

33.

Godelier, M. 2007. Au fondement des societes humaines. Paris: Albin Michel.

34.

Goller

Harteis

. 2017. “Human Agency at Work: Towards a Clarification and Operationalization of the Concept.” In Agency at Work: An Agentic Perspective on Professional Learning and Development, edited by Goller

Paloniemi

, 85–103. Cham: Springer.

35.

Gornik

M. R.

2010. To Live in Peace: Biblical Faith and the Changing Inner City. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

36.

Grant

Borcherds.

2009. Communicating at Work. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

37.

Grauman

C. F.

Kruse

. 1990. “The Environment: Social Construction and Psychological Problems.” In Societal Psychology, edited by Himmelweit and G. Gaskell

H. T.

, 212–229. London: Sage.

38.

Greenway

R. G.

2007. An Eye That Sees: Vision for Urban Missions. Potchefstroom: Thistshi.

39.

Gribben

Fagan

J. M.

. 2020. Anthropocentric Attitudes in Modern Society: Halting Climate Change Will Require a Cultural Shift toward Eco-centrism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

40.

Heelas

Woodhead

. 2001. Peter Berger and the Study of Religion. New York: Routledge.

41.

Immink

F. G.

2014. The Touch of the Sacred: The Practice, Theology and Tradition of Christian Worship. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

42.

Jenni

Westermann

. 1984. Theologisches handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Sjalom. München: Kaiser Verlag.

43.

Kaminski

1989. “The Enigma of Ecological Psychology. (Book review).” Journal of Environmental Psychology 3: 85–94.

44.

Keller

2012. “A New Kind of Urban Preacher.” In Prophetic Preaching, edited by Larson, 80–89

C. B.

. Peabody, MA: Hendrikson.

45.

Küng

Hans

. 1999. “Explanatory Remarks Concerning a ‘Declaration of the Religions for a Global Ethic’.” In For All Life, edited by Swidler, 1–16

Leonard

. Ashland: White Cloud Press.

46.

Küng, H. 2000. “Global Ethic: A Response to My Critics.” International Journal of Politics and Society 14 (2): 421–428.

47.

Landova

2021. “Liturgy as a Place for Shaping the Vision of the Church: Reflections on the Church from the Perspective of Liturgical Theology.” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 2 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/1474225X.2021.1997031.

48.

Lathrop

G. W

. 2003. Holy Ground: A Liturgical Cosmology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

49.

Laubscher

J. A.

1991. Mens en omgewing, edited by Vos

C. J. A.

Müller

J. C.

. Doornfontein: Perskor.

50.

Lősel

2005. “What Sacred Symbols Say about Strangers and Strawberries: Gordon W. Lathrop’s Liturgical Theology in Review.” Journal of Religion 85 (4): 634–648.

51.

Louw

D, J.

2015. Wholeness in Hope Care: On Nurturing the Beauty of the Human Soul in Spiritual Healing. Berlin: Lit Verlag,

52.

Louw

. 2007. Die ontwikkeling van die kind en die adolossent. Bloemfontein: ABC Drukkers.

53.

Luciano

2021. The Anthropocene: A Practical Reader and Introduction for Students. Munich: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.

54.

Manser

M. H.

2010. The New Matthew Henry Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

55.

Mbiti

1992. Introduction to African Religion. 2nd ed. Nairobi: EAEP.

56.

Miller

M. E.

West

A. N.

. 1993. “Influences of World View on Personality, Epistemology, and Choice of Profession.” In Development in the Workplace, edited by Demick

Miller

P. M.

, 3–19. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

57.

Moltmann

1993. God in Creation. Minneapolis: Fortress.

58.

Montaux

2022. “The Poesis of the Ordinary Being; a Cosmic Liturgy.” Studia Liturgica 52 (1): 52–62.

59.

Moore

2016. “Anthropocene Anthropology: Reconceptualizing Contemporary Global Change.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 22: 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.12332.

60.

O’Brien

2021. “Reflecting on the Anthropocene: The Call for Deeper Transformations.” Ambio 50: 1793–1797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01468-9.

61.

Okonkwo

2011. “Ecological Crises: From the Perspective of Christianity and African Traditional Religion.” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 141: 32–44.

62.

Pannenberg

1985. Anthropology in Theological Perspective. London: Clark.

63.

Plumwood

2001. “Towards a Progressive Naturalism.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 12: 3–32.

64.

Pop

F. J.

1964. In Bybelse woorde en hun geheim. S’Gravenhage: Sjalom Boekencentrum.

65.

Preiser

Pereira

L. M.

Biggs

R. O.

. 2017. “Navigating Alternative Framings of Human-Environment Interactions: Variations on the Theme of ‘Finding Nemo’.” Anthropocene 20: 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2017.10.003.

66.

Rahner

1978. Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity. New York: Seabury.

67.

Resnik

D. B.

2009. “Human Health and the Environment: In Harmony or in Conflict?” Health Care Analysis 17 (3): 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-008-0104-x.

68.

Ritchie

2020. “Sustainability and Bioethics: Where we have been, where we are, where we are going.” The New Bioethics 26 (2): 82–90. 10.1080/20502877.2020.1767920.

69.

Santmire

H. P.

2008. Ritualizing Nature: Renewing Christian Liturgy in a Time of Crisis . Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

70.

Schmemann

2003. Introduction to Liturgical Theology, trans. A. Moorhouse. Crestwood, NY: Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

71.

Schultz

D. E.

Schultz

. 2016. IMC: The Next Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

72.

Smith

E. R.

Mackie

D. M.

. 2007. Social Psychology, 3rd ed. New York: Psychology Press.

73.

Snodgrass

2013. “Health of Indigenous Circumpolar Populations.” Annual Review of Anthropology 42: 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155517.

74.

Snyder

H. A.

2011. Salvation Means Creation Healed: The Ecology of Sin and Grace. Overcoming the Divorce between Earth and Heaven. Eugene, OR: Cascade.

75.

Staiti

2013. “Philosophy: Wissenschaft or Weltanschauung? Towards a Prehistory of the Analytic/Continental Rift.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 39 (8): 793–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453713494972.

76.

Stewart

B. M.

2012. “Liturgy and Ecology: Introduction.” Liturgy 7 (2): 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/0458063X.2012.638785.

77.

Stosur

D. A.

2019. “Rahner’s ‘Liturgy of the World’ as Hermeneutics of Another World That Is Possible.” Philosophy and Theology 31 (2): 199–222.

78.

Strauss

D. F. M.

2006. “Filosofiese tendense in die wordinggeskiedenis van ons verstaan van die fisiese natuur.” Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie 25 (2): 93–110.

79.

Tickell

2011. “Societal Responses to the Anthropocene.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 369: 926–932. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0302.

80.

Tubbs

Moss

. 2008. Human Communication: Principles and Contexts. New York: McGraw-Hill.

81.

Van der Walt

B. J.

1999. Visie op die werklikheid. Die bevrydende krag van ˈn Christelike lewensbeskouing en filosofie. Potchefstroom: Instituut vir Reformatoriese Studies.

82.

Van Doorn

2010. “Perceptions of Time and Space of (Formerly) Homeless People.” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 20 (2): 218–238.

83.

Vetlesen

2017. “Ethics and Value in Naess’ Ecophilosophy: A Realist Perspective.” Worldviews 21: 251–261.

84.

Von Rad

1961. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. London: SCM.

85.

Wang

W. C.

2015. “Visitor Perception, Interpretation Needs, and Satisfaction of Ecotourism: The Case of Taijiang National Park, Taiwan.” Enlightening Tourism: A Pathmaking Journal 5 (2): 180–200.

86.

Warners

Ryskamp

Van Draagt

. 2014. “Reconciliation Ecology: A New Paradigm for Advancing Creation Care.” Science and Christian Faith 66 (4): 221–240.

87.

Washington

H. A.

2019. Sense of Wonder Towards Nature: Healing the World through Belonging. London: Routledge.

88.

Wickman

Sherman

. 2020. Faith after the Anthropocene. Basel: MDPI Press.

89.

Wilson

1996. “Review: The Homeless Mind.” New York: Vintage Books.

90.

Mingzhu

Pan

. 2017. “Regulatory Frameworks for Ecotourism: An Application of Total Relationship Flow Management Theorems.” Tourism Management 61: 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.02.012.

91.

Zalasiewicz, J. et al., eds. 2019. The Anthropocene as a Geological Time Unit. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

92.

Zalasiewicz

Williams

Steffen

Crutzen

. 2010. “The New World of the Anthropocene.” Environmental Science and Technology 44 (7): 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1021/es903118j.

Homiletical-liturgical Perspectives on Life in the Anthropocene: The Preeminence of People's Cognition,Weltanschauung,and Homeless Minds

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Descriptive Perspectives on Understanding the Anthropos in the Anthropocene

2.1. Descriptive Perspectives on the Appeal of Humans’ Attitude as Global Agents in the Anthropocene to Start Acting Responsibly

2.2. People's Weltanschauung Underpinned by their Cognition (Understanding)

2.3. The Homeless Mind of the Anthropos in the Anthropocene

2.4. Descriptive Perspectives on the Mind of the Anthropos Living in the Anthropo-Cene (Human + new = Anthropocene)

3. Systemizing Perspectives on Humanness in the Anthropocene

3.1. Systemizing Perspectives from Anthropology on Understanding the Ecological Anthropocentric Hubris

3.2. Systemizing Perspectives from Bioethics on Humanness

3.3. Systemizing Perspectives on Understanding Humanness from the Viewpoint of Social Psychology

3.4. Systemizing Perspectives on Seeking the Peace (Shalom) and Prosperity of the City (Jeremiah 29:7)

4. Strategizing Perspectives on the Life of Homeless Minds in the Anthropocene

4.1. A Homiletical-Liturgical Praxeology Focused on Understanding the Importance of Human Agency

4.2. A Homiletical-Liturgical Praxeology That Cultivates a Deeper Understanding (Cognition) of Homeless Minds

5. Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author Biography

References