theologies and cultures

Transcription

theologies and cultures
Vol. IV. No. 1, June 2007
Earth in Jeopardy?
Editor
M. P. Joseph
Associate Editors
Yatang CHUANG
Po Ho HUANG
Augustine MUSOPOLE
Fuya WU
Consulting Editors
Tissa BALASURIYA, Sri Lanka
Mark BURROWS, USA
Enrique DUSSEL, Mexico
Virginia FABELLA, Philippines
Dwight N. HOPKINS, USA
Abraham, K.C, India
Yong-Bock KIM, Korea
Jessi MUGAMBI, Kenya
Michael NORTHCOTT, Britain
Teresa OKURE, Nigeria
Choan-Seng SONG, Taiwan/USA
Elsa TAMEZ, Costa Rica
Lieve TROCH, Netherlands
WONG Wai Ching Angela, Hong Kong
THEOLOGIES AND CULTURES is an academic journal dedicated
to inter-disciplinary research and scholarly exploration in the
field of theology and its interplay with the social, economic,
political and cultural dimensions of people. The journal is
committed to promoting engaged dialogue of different faith
traditions and theological formulations in view of creating
communities of justice and mutual understanding.
Views expressed in this journal are those of the authors, and do
not necessarily reflect, those held by the editorial board of
THEOLOGIES AND CULTURES or of FCCRC or its sponsors.
Copy right @ Chang Jung Christian University & Tainan Theological
College and Seminary
All rights reserved.
Reproduction of articles is allowed with an
acknowledgement of the source.
ISSN no. 1813-7024
Editorial correspondence, submission of articles, book reviews, and
books for review should be send to THEOLOGIES AND CULTURES, Shoki
Coe House, TTCS, 360-1 Youth Road, Tainan, Taiwan; e-mail:
[email protected]
Business correspondence should be addressed to THEOLOGIES AND
CULTURES, Shoki Coe House, TTCS, 360-1 Youth Road, Tainan, Taiwan; email: [email protected]
Contents
Editorial
Let God Be God
5
1. The Crisis- a Case Study
Where are you God? The Impact of Global
Warming on Tuvalu
T Molu. Lusama
8
II. How do we respond?
Is Global Community Possible for a
Planet in Jeopardy?
Larry L. Rasmussen
25
Communities, Theology
and Climate Change
Paula Clifford
48
III. Towards a theological Enquiry
Anthropogenic Climate Change: The Moral
and Theological Case for
Environmental Rights
Michael S Northcott
59
Towards a Theology of Life: Ecological
Perspectives in Latin American Liberation
Theology with Special Reference to the
Theology of Leonardo Boff
George K. Zachariah
Towards a Biblical Understanding of
Ecology: Re-reading the Agricultural
Parables of Jesus
V. J. John
87
119
IV. Local Initiatives
Environmental Challenges and
Earth-keeping activities in Myanmar
Samuel Ngun Ling
147
V. Towards a perspective
Religion, Culture and Environment:
an African Feminist Perspective
Eunice K. Kamaara, Gilbert N. Mbaka
and Naomi L. Shitemi
A People’s Charter on Peace for Life
Kim Yong Bock
169
195
theologies and cultures,Vol.4, No1
June 2007, pp. 5~7
Editorial
Let God be Your God
Ecological crisis has led humanity to a defining moment
in our civilization. The prevailing ideas of economic growth and
modernity have offered a perverted concept of the being and that
facilitated our alienation from nature and other human being.
This issue of Theologies and Cultures encourages a
conversation to understand the deepening crisis of ecology and
to locate a faith response to the present impasse.
Neo-liberalism reinforced the idea that the “other” is
only an object for the satisfaction of the “subject”. This view
regulates the nature of our inter-personal as well as humannature relationship. Slavery offered an empirical lesson by
reminding the benefits of this concept of ‘otherness’. Later
systems gladly accepted this value and considered that ‘mastery
over’ the other is the key towards success. When the concept of
civilization emerged, the values of the slave masters were
constructed as universal normatives and were defined as
civilized values. Objectification of the ‘other’ thus appeared as
an imperative to be counted as civilized. People, nature and
even the concept of divine were re-constructed as objects.
Ability and speed of the conversation of social realities into
commodities for consumption determined the victory in market
led societies. Logics of development and modernity only
reiterated the wisdom of the slave masters; however, these
concepts intensified this process of objectification of all social
6 theologies and cultures
realities. Moreover, by proposing modernity as the opposite pole
of traditional or primitiveness, this logic hold that the relative
distance from nature signifies what is modern. Nature is
conceived only as a lifeless object to be raped for satisfaction.
Theological definition of god as “wholly other” is used
to rationalize the treatment of nature as an undesirable object.
In this dualistic construct of theology, earth epitomizes darkness;
the abode of the evil, and therefore the distance from nature
ensures salvation for the righteous. According to this theological
understanding God reveals in history through demonstrating
power over nature, and the total alienation from `natureness’ is
the primary characteristic of divine.
Reconstruction of
domination over nature therefore is a theological imperative.
However, the God-consciousness devoid of nature goaded the
creation of an environment alienated from God.
This theological concept was cohabited with the
understanding of freedom. Freedom, is understood as one’s right
to function as a lone individual seeking salvation. Modernity
reconstructed it an translated salvation as success in a
manipulative market society. As the market consciousness
increasingly dominates each individual, the ability of
manipulation of the ‘other’ determines the level of freedom.
This also means that, a culture informed by the wisdom of
relations, interconnectedness and interdependencies with nature
and other human beings is unacceptable or is considered as
primitive. The need to objectify the other imposes an aggressive
approach to all objects including nature and humans.
Modernity also proposes new methods for realizing
‘happiness’. Commodities as social subjects offer satisfaction
for life. Implying that, consumption of these social subjects
alone offers satisfaction in life. It is often said that the concept
of being is re-written to read as “I am because I shop”. The
need for a human is no more another human, but commodities.
Commodities have become a self-totalizing, self-divinizing
entity. By cultivating an insatiable thirst for consumption, a
person seeks “happiness” in life. Buddha’s advise to overcome
Editorial 7
desire as the only means to find an amicable solution for
“suffering” is a ‘primitive’ wisdom for the proponents of
modernity. The result is the call to plunder the nature to the
maximum for consumption in search of achieving satisfaction in
life.
Materiality assumed itself as the foundation for our
moral values. The objective of economic activities is not to
sustain life, but to create wealth or capital. Primacy of capital as
the presiding deity of the present time offered it the possibility
to consume ‘life’ to enable its auto centric growth process.
People and nature are consumed by the Capital.
In a letter to Theologies and Cultures, Rev. Joy Rewii
from Kiribati writes: “We as pastors living in the Pacific are
going through serious theological and faith crisis. People come
and tell us ‘you preach to us about a God who placed a rainbow
as a mark of covenant with humanity promising that humanity
will never be destroyed. How shall we believe in this God? Why
God is not seeing that we are sinking. Water is rising to devour
our people and nature.” Ecological crisis is not about planting
trees or recycling plastic; these are indeed important. But the
fundamental need is to create a new rationality to organize our
individual and collective life. Ecological consciousness is an
invitation to radically re-orient the concept of being by negating
the ‘ungod’ that offers a false concept of being.
theologies and cultures,Vol.4, No.1
June 2007, pp. 8~24
Where are you God?
The Impact of Global Warming on Tuvalu
Tafue Molu Lusama1
Tuvalu, a small but beautiful island nation in the pacific,
which indeed is our home, is sinking. Our days appeared to be
numbered. And we are not sure what we have done for our land
to submerge.
Is global warming a cause for the land to disappear? We
still need to delve into the reasons for the impending destruction
that our people are feared off. However, the objective of this
brief paper is not to engage in an informed discussion regarding
the differing ideological discourses on the reality or non-reality
of global warming, but to plead for action to save the life of the
people in Tuvalu and other pacific islands. When our land is
submerging, slowly but visibly, any ideological debate on
1
Rev, Tafue M Lusama, is an ordained minister of Pacific Ekalesia Kelisiano
Tuvalu. He represented his country at the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change held in Nairobi, Kenya and presented the
case of Tuvalu to a panel of judges organized by Pacific Council of Churches
and the World Council of Churches. Lusama is actively involved in the
Tuvalu National Climate team that formulates and checks on the
implementation of climate policies in the country.
Where are you God? 9
ecological issues are only a luxury of the privileged
communities.
Tuvalu – the nation
Tuvalu is an island country in the western Pacific Ocean
north of Fiji. Organized as a British protectorate in 1892, the
islands became part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony in
1915 and achieved independence in 1978. A chain of nine
inhabited islands, from south to north it is 580 kilometers in
length. Its location is between 5 and 11 degrees south of the
equator, just to the west of the Date Line. The country is
peopled predominantly by Polynesians and a minority of
Melanesians who are believed to be part of the Australasian
family.
The name Tuvalu literally means a group of eight, which
refers to the eight inhabited islands that constitutes the country.
They consist of four atolls, three table-reefs and one composite
island. The population of the island is roughly 12,000 within a
land space of 26 sq. km
Greenhouse effect
Although the greenhouse effect is considered to be a
natural process and is beneficial to people and nature and has
been a reality that shapes the earth’s climate for billions of years,
the recent changes through increased burning of the fossil fuel
has endangered the very sustainability of life in the earth surface.
Accountability to earth has lost while creating primacy for
economic growth and luxury. The uncontrolled growth in
production and consumption is leading us towards:
a. The sea level may rise from 25 to 90 centimeter. Low-laying
countries are threatened and more than hundred million people
will have to be moved.
b. Extreme weather patterns with flooding, hurricanes and
droughts have become a common phenomenon.
c. Higher temperature results in the spread of tropical diseases.
Malaria might increase with up to 80 million a year.
d. Food-production will decrease in many parts of the world,
and as a result people’s ability to maintain food security is in
peril. This will also lead them into greater dependency on other
nations and people.
e. Desertification is an immediate threat of which signs are
already visible in many countries. The vegetation may change in
1/3 of the world’s forests
f. The mean-temperature on the earth will rise with between 1 to
4 degrees Celsius the next century.
People in Tuvalu and other Pacific nations are at the
receiving end of all these destructive impact of climate changes.
The number of extremely hot days has increased and it causes
severe health stress on the people and especially on the elderly.
As a result the living cost has increased to an unprecedented
level. But what is more alarming is the severe shortage of
potable water, due to the drought conditions. Not only people
but animals and plants suffer from the non-availability of nonsalinated water. The serious threat, however, is the increased
possibility of Tuvalu disappearing totally, inundated by the
rising sea level.
Water, the source of life:
There are three main sources of water: rain water (main
source), underground water (supplementary) and desalinated
water (recently introduced for emergency use only). Typical of a
low-lying tropical island, the country has limited fresh water
resources. Due to the fact that the country does not have rivers
or creeks, the vast majority of the population derives their
potable water from rainwater 2 by using rooftop water
catchments system. According to Seluka Seluka, head of
2
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0703.html
Dependence on rain for the daily supply of water has become a problem,
because long draughts are becoming more frequent in the country.
Tuvalu's environment unit, Tuvalu is laying stress on the
insurance of its water supply.3 In the long run, this approach to
this very basic need of the people will become very expensive
due to the costs of materials that are needed to implement such
water catchments. Therefore, Seluka suggested another option to
this dilemma, by saying that “Tuvaluans can keep a place for
themselves on home territory by adapting traditional systems
because they are cheap and the technical expertise is within the
community."4 The question we should ask here is whether the
traditional systems Seluka is referring to can still cater for the
welfare of the people under the impacts of global warming?
Even though the message is clear that traditional systems have
been, so far, the best option for the livelihood of the Tuvaluans,
it actually means that their lives depend totally on the land for
food, and underground water for drink. Those on the outer
islands especially depend on underground water 5 , not only in
times of long droughts, but also for their food supply. Now
drought has become a common phenomenon. People are only
able to pray loud for rain clouds to form. As the rains are
disappearing and the sea level is increasing groundwater
salinization threaten the very possibility of this island to sustain
life. At the present time 60% of groundwater is already salinated.
And the rate of salination is in an alarming level because
drought has become more frequent.
Food Security:
The nine inhabited islands of Tuvalu have sandy soils
with limited plant nutrients. Because the soil is not clay but sand,
3
http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/archives/2000/2000-06-16.htm
http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/archives/2000/2000-06-16.htm. This in
meaning refers to the traditional social settings and the cultural ways of life
of the Tuvaluans, which is a fact to be upheld, yet under the impact of global
warming it seems just impossible to achieve that.
5
Well-water turns bad when the sea surges across the land.
4
which does not trap rainwater, and is so poor in terms of plant
nutrients, crops do not grow well. The people used a traditional
method of planting crops. They dug to where the underground
water is, and planted. That method has been used throughout the
ages and it has long supplied their well-being. Today it has
become very hard to do that because the underground water is
salinated.6 Crops can no longer grow well, so the people have to
rely more on other means of survival. The only means available
to them is the market, and this brings about another question
concerning the affordability of the people to live such a life style.
The fact is that majority of the people do not earn money on a
regular basis. Life becomes difficult, and dependency is
increasing. In order to survive they have no choice but to
abandon traditional ways of living, and adopt western life style.
They are becoming more dependent on the market to support
them daily7. Living on the market is the symbol, which proves
that the people are losing their identity as Tuvaluans. Not only
are they separated from the land, but also the concept of
communal living and sharing8 is fading due to the cash- reliant
kind of life-style they are forced to adopt.
Increased damage in coastal areas
All Tuvalu Islands are Coastal – therefore any damage in
the coastal area affects 50% of the land. Majority of the
population of Tuvalu lives close to the coastal belt and thus are
extremely vulnerable to changes in the sea level. Moreover, the
inundation of low lying areas resulted in the migration of the
people to the inland, crowding inland and severely impacting the
6
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1249549.stm
“Preliminary Assessment of Capacity Building Needs for Sustainable
development/Vulnerability Reduction in Tuvalu” Prepared by Dr. Al Binger.
8
Like all Pacific Island countries, Tuvaluan culture has this concept of
openness to anyone, everyone is a family, and ones goods and wealth
belongs to the whole community. Everybody belongs to everyone in the
community. Sharing is a strong part of the culture.
7
land. Even in small land space like Tuvalu, ecological refugees
are increasing in an alarming rate.
Coastal erosion: The significance of this lies in the fact that the
country is one of the most densely populated in relation to land
area in the world9, and a significant loss in land surface area will
put the people in a worse position. Increasing coastal erosion
coupled with stronger winds and higher tides in recent years
have taken their toll. Already one island has disappeared, and
others look set to follow.
For some systems, such as coral reefs, the combined
effects of climate change and other stresses are very likely to
exceed a critical threshold, bringing large, possibly irreversible
impacts. Temperature increases of 1- 2 degrees Celsius would
cause serious coral bleaching, substantially affecting the rich
diversity of marine life that is the basis of the society. This
effect comes down to the hard life the people must cope with.
Erosion is also having an effect. During one windy night
last July, a gust of wind dropped a thick bandanas tree into the
ocean. Sunrise revealed erosion on the lagoon side had exposed
the roots, leaving it ready to topple. Now where a proud 40-foot
tree once stood, a gaping hole is ripped in the ground, dripping
soil into the waves. This is only one example of the many that
people experience daily.
It's also happening on a much more dramatic scale across
the lagoon. In 1997 Hurricane Keli blew through, taking the
entire island of Tepuka Vilivili out to sea, leaving nothing but a
bare stump of jagged coral. With an average height just six feet
above the water line, Tuvalu can ill afford more of the same.
Most of our people rely on fisheries as a source of food
and income from coral reef and mangrove habitats. Due to
global warming, these habitats are threatened, and the direct
impact of this will be severely felt by the people.
9
Tuvalu’s total land surface area is 26 sq kilometers, which accommodates a
population of 13,000 people. This will make it around 700 people per sq.
kilometer.
Further, if Tuvalu’s coral reef collapses, the main protein
source for Tuvaluans diminishes. Coral bleaching in Tuvalu has
become an everyday sight. Coral bleaching occurs when
increased sea temperatures leads to the loss of zooxanthellae, the
organism that lives within the corals, this results in the coral
losing their colors and turning white, thus stopping the vital
functions offered by these organisms to the corals, which will
eventually die.
Surprisingly, storm surges rather than erosion or average
tidal heights that are the greatest concern in recent days. "Now
during high tides, the water comes right across the ground,
where the houses are, and it never happened before, and a
couple years ago it began," In August (2003) the island flooded
again, and increased salinity is forcing families to grow their
root crops in metal buckets instead of in the ground. Few have a
longer memory than Hosea Kaitu, whose bright eyes belie his 79
years. "The tide is getting higher and higher each year," he says
firmly. "It's gone up almost a fathom, six feet, inland."
We are warned
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or
IPCC, predicts a 50-cm to 1-meter rise in sea levels over the
next century. A rise of 1 meter would place 17.5 percent of
Bangladesh, 6 percent of the Netherlands, and 80 percent of
Atoll Majuro of the Marshall Islands under water, according to
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
or UNFCC. Low-lying coastal zones of developed countries and
small islands could also be seriously affected. While some
holdouts challenge the IPCC, it represents a comprehensive and
authoritative group of more than 1,000 experts and the
overwhelming majority opinion.
Rising sea levels are only part of the problems that are
caused by climate change. The 1.4- to 5.8-degree (centigrade)
rise over the next century will also increase flooding, the
intensity of storms, and droughts in Tuvalu. It will also change
the distribution of rainfall. This is only the tip of the rapidly
melting iceberg.
The disappearance of Tuvalu introduces a host of other
questions that need to be dealt with and fast. What happens
when more of these island nations disappear, potentially
displacing 7 million people? What are the economic and security
implications of disappearing exclusive economic zones? Can
there be compensation for the loss of a country, its history, its
culture, its way of life? How do we put a price on that? Who
will pay it?
While developed nations quibble over the details of the
Kyoto Protocol, Tuvalu islanders are literally losing their
homeland. To the United State and other developed nations, it is
a question of fairness. They are focused on how to apportion the
burden of responding to the threat. Developed nations argue that
developing nations like India and China will be the leading
creators of greenhouse gases in a decade or two. Besides, for
U.S. negotiators, any framework that leads to a slow down of
the economy is unacceptable.
For the Pacific Islanders, these debates on fairness and
economic growth are not only irrelevant but are a gamble on
their very own life. Climate change is not a future concern; it is
an immediate regional, and for Tuvalu, a national security threat.
Unfortunately, if it comes to the extreme, and relocation comes
as the only option for the people, the Tuvaluan people need to
build new lives in a new land. New Zealand has begun to take in
environmental refugees, but they will have to adjust to the
cultures that will surround them. After having lived in relative
isolation, difficulties are inevitable. Tuvalu is a small, largely
homogeneous nation. Its population is 96 percent Polynesian,
and 97 percent belong to the Ekalesia Kelisiano Tuvalu. There
are no mobile phones (only recently introduced) most
remarkably, there are no regular military forces for the island
nation. This country is so secure and so small that it did not
anticipate a need to defend its territory.
The problems are acute. On one hand, Tuvaluan people
have to think about their future. They will enter into a world that
is not their own. The burden of maintaining their culture and
religion without a geographic center will be set upon them.
On the other hand, the Tuvaluans will need to preserve
their past. The collective memory of a small society will be
cleaved as its people are forced to take refuge in separate lands.
And memory is all that the Tuvaluans will have left of their
homeland. Their burial grounds, their schools, their homes, their
churches will be enveloped by the ocean. The Tuvaluans can
never go home again.
Why do we suffer God?
Why do we suffer? Is it a punishment of our guilt? Is it
God’s will that we suffer?
The Christian world has been operating under the strong
influence of retribution theory, which states that sinners face
punishment for their sins, and the righteous will be awarded
with peace and prosperity. This theory is the strong force behind
the fall narrative in the creation story and throughout the
teachings of the bible. We find in the flood narrative the same
theory. Noah was the righteous, and therefore specially favored
in the face of destruction and submersion of the whole world
under the flood. Noah’s innocence earned him and his family
salvation on the ark. Traditional reading of the flood narrative
[Genesis 6-9] reiterates this theory that the wicked will be
punished while the righteous will be saved.
(i) The Sin of the Generation of the Flood. (Genesis 6-9.)
The Genesis narrative gives the reason of the flood as sin.
But what precisely was the sin for which the flood was sent?
Several phrases are used: First is the sin of 'violence' (6.11, 13),
which is a technical term for the oppression of the weak by the
powerful. It is 'the violent violation of a just order'. When used
of heartlessness to others it usually has religious overtones. It is
the violation of an order lay down or assured by God. Secondly
the sin of Noah's generation is said to be that 'all flesh has
corrupted its way upon earth' (6.12). The 'way' is not God's way
but the way of flesh, the natural order of existence of living
creatures, the 'manner of life and conduct prescribed' to them.
What is invoked here is not essentially a deformation of original
purity but the transgression of natural bounds. These are sins
'against nature.' Furthermore, this transgression of limits is not
confined to humanity; as is usual, the phrase 'all flesh' includes
the animals.10 This is a clear indication that the sin of humanity
leads to the suffering not only of humans but also nature as a
whole. Although of course the emphasis lies primarily upon
human sin, it is worth observing that 6:12 depicts a world where
natural laws are broken by all levels of created beings, and
where consequently the ordering work of creation or cosmos has
been dissolved.
In this respect the sin of the generation of the Flood
climaxes the history of human sin. The first sin (that of Adam
and Eve), was essentially a revolt against the order of creation, a
rejection of the life of obedience natural to a created being. The
sin of Adam and Eve was not some descent to the bestial, but an
attempt at self-divinization ('You shall be as gods', 3.5), an
assumption of autonomous existence, which belongs to God
alone. As such it is an unnatural crime; it is humanity in
rebellion against itself; it is a refusal to live within the God10
“The Theology of the Flood Narrative Published in On the Way to the
Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998.” Vol. 2(JSOTSup, 292;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 508-23. The article explains
the fact that the flood was sent as a punishment for the sins of humanity. It is
presumed in the interpretation that the sins of humanity are the cause of the
destruction of all things created by God. Therefore, indirectly, creation was
punished for the sins of humanity. The punishment, that of the flood, is a
reverse of the creative act of God, when God created the world out of the
chaotic state, God was virtually surfacing an ordered creation out of the water.
In the flood, the ‘chaotic world’ in Noah’s time is submerged into the water.
But is this what is happening today with global warming and sea level rise?
given order. In Noah's time also, what happened according to
Genesis 6.12 is that people removed all limits in an attempt to
achieve autonomous existence'.
(ii) Noah, the symbol of righteousness.
Standing in contrast to that picture was Noah, the
righteous human who survived the flood through divine
intervention. There have been a number of interpretations on the
role of Noah.11 To compare him to Christ is ridiculous, because
the salvation that Noah attained was individual and did not lend
a hand to those suffering outside the ark. Neither did he attempt
to mediate on their behalf with God. The fact that he survived
with his family is our concern here because the contrast between
him and those outside the ark was so vividly portrayed by the
narrative that it makes us conclude that to be righteous is the
ticket to salvation. In other words, to be innocent is to have the
affirmation of a continuing life, and to be guilty is to face
punishment and death. But in the face of the current situation in
the world, where the poor and the marginalized suffer
11
The Institute for Christians and Jewish studies “The Old and the New
Challenges of Reading Noah in the Christian Tradition (Dr. Christopher M.
Leighton) http://www.icjs.org/clergy/noah.html accessed 7 April 2004.
Some of the reflections of the New Testament teachings, as suggested by
early church fathers are quoted here. One which gained considerable currency
envisions Noah as the "type" for Christ. Noah's survival and his emergence
from the ark were viewed as anticipations of the resurrection of Christ and his
emergence from the tomb. Origen extended this image: was not Noah like
Christ the head of a new, regenerated people? Another church father, Justin
Martyr unearthed hidden allusions in the Noah story and concluded that the
whole mystery of salvation through Christ resides just beneath the surface of
the text. "The wood of the ark prefigured the cross...The fact that the Flood
covered the whole earth indicated that God's message was intended for all
humankind and not merely the Jews." (Cohn, p. 26) Another reading
popularized by Augustine, Jerome, and John Chrysostom equated the ark by
which God had saved a remnant of humankind with the church. The harsh
fact that there was only one ark demonstrated that there was only one valid
church, and all those who stood outside of it were doomed to tread water.
inconsequently under the manipulating powers of the powerful,
how does the Bible account for that?
Job challenges the philosophy of suffering.
This is the situation, which the author of the book Job
was trying to address.12 Why do the poor and the marginalized
suffer undeservingly while the rich who gain their wealth
through wicket ways of manipulation and exploitation, enjoys
life abundantly. The author of the book of Job puts the question
directly before God through the character of Job. This is the
same cry that people voice out today. The absence of justice
suggests that God is not present or that the suffering of people
under the impacts of globalization is a punishment from God.
This is exactly the kind of assumption that Job challenged.
Through suffering Job came to realize that his situation is not
unique, but universal. He came to understand and see that his
sufferings were identical to those of other innocent people.13 He
saw his suffering in the light of a chaotic world, where God was
absent. Job felt that he has been abandoned by God in a chaotic
world, without order or justice. Only in such a world do the
12
Biblical Personalities :http://www.emanuelnyc.org/bulletin/archive/
100.html ; accessed 5 April 2004. When speaking about Job, states that: “ this
test of Job’s faith was the fiercest in the Bible; the punishments are
unmitigating. Property, family, health -- Job loses them all. And suddenly, as
forlorn and lonely as he had once been happy and popular, he becomes the
subject of life’s greatest philosophical quest: ‘Why do we suffer?’ Indeed,
this struggle is implicit in the deconstruction of his name: ay plus av –
‘Where is Father? ’That this question overflows into the New Testament,
which centralizes the abandonment and suffering of mankind through the
crucifixion, is patent. That it suffuses every strand of human existence,
raising the existential problem, is even more pertinent. The need to
understand why there is injustice in the world – ‘why the good seems evil and
the evil good’ - is the age-old conundrum.”
13
Gustavo Gutierrez. On Job: God- Talk and the suffering of the Innocent.
(New York: Obis Books, 1988), p. 9- 10.
innocent suffer injustice and chaos. 14 As a result of that
universal view of suffering Job started to curse his existence.15
We may perceive the depth of this suffering when we compare
Job’s cry of pain to that of Jeremiah [Jeremiah 20: 14- 18] Both
cries were from within a context of torment and cruelty. These
are the same cries we still hear today, cries of the poor, the sick,
the homeless, those without a hope of life or continuity. 16
According to Gutierrez, the author of the book of Job did not
rationalize the cause of the problem, but put his experiences into
the person of Job with his conviction that the suffering of the
innocent is the ‘most inhuman of all possible situations.’17
Jesus stands with the least.
The answer to that quest leads us to consider the role
played by Jesus. Throughout the ministry and the teachings of
Jesus he made it clear that he came with a special message; the
salvation of the people. But who are these people Jesus came to
save? Save from whom? Save from what? If Jesus is actually
what he was believed to be, a sinless character, then why was he
14
Merrill Proudfoot. Suffering: A Christian Understanding. (Pennsylvania:
Westminster Press) p. 10.
15
Job 3: 11, 20 – 23. This does not mean that Job is putting blame on God for
his sufferings, but it has to be seen in light of what we have stated above that
he sees the world in which he exist as a world without God, so his existence
in such a world is unimaginable. He cannot stand living in the absence of
God
16
Proudfoot p. 87. He referred to Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat’s illustration and
reasoning behind the suffering of the innocent righteous. He stated that
someone (God) has two donkeys, one is weak (the wicked, in this context, the
rich and the wealthy) and the other strong (the righteous, in this case, the
poor and the suffering). The owner (God) will never put a heavy burden
(suffering) on the weak (wicked), because he knows that the weak donkey
cannot stand under the load. In this case, the implication therefore is that it is
better to be wicked and not face suffering and poverty, rather than being
righteous and suffer a hard life under God. This thus places God as an unjust
God, directly responsible for the undeserved suffering of the poor.
17
Gutierrez. p. 15
baptized by John, since the baptism of John was one that dealt
with the guilt of the sinful? [Mathew 3: 2]. There have been
many reasons given as answers to this question, but we can
safely conclude that the popular accepted view was that Jesus’
baptism was an establishment of his solidarity with the very
people he came to save. He chose a side and decided to stand
with the outcasts and the ignored. 18 Jesus came to save those
who have been marginalized, the poor and the suffering. To do
that, he took sides with the people he came to save. But there are
always problems and questions that arise out the stand he took.
It is very hard to comprehend Jesus as the Son of God
undergoing suffering at the hands of mere humans. This has
given rise to misinterpretations of the mission of Jesus. 19 The
suffering of Jesus also is contrary to the expectation of the
18
William Barclay. The Daily Study Bible: The Gospel of Mathew (revised
Edition: Edinburgh: The Saint Andrews Press, 1982), Expounding on
Mathew 3: 13- 17, He states that the main reason behind Jesus’ acceptance of
John’s baptism, was that, even though the Jews believed and practiced
baptism, but in history, no Jew has ever come to think of baptism as a
relevance for the Jews, it was only intended for the proselytes, who are
regarded as sinners coming into the saved family of God. A Jew is a person
within the blessed family of God, a descendent of Abraham, therefore is
among those ensured with Gods salvation. In that case, a Jew does not need
repentance, and neither does he have any need for baptism. John’s baptism
was the time when that mentality was challenged, and people (especially
Jews) came in numbers to be baptized. They became aware of their sinful
state and their position in the light of God’s salvation. This dawn of
realization was the “kickoff” whistles for Jesus’ ministry, and he started off
by coming to be identified with the people to whom he was to save.
19
The Lord Jesus Christ, the suffering Servant.” http://www.grebeweb.com/
linden/suffer.html; accessed 7 April 2004. Israel once thought of the suffering
of Christ as stricken by God, as they interpret Isaiah 53:4. And the great irony
of it is that, they saw it as proof that He was not God's Servant. But He was
sent to be God's Servant to go under the smiting rod of God. The stanza does
not switch from smiting to no smiting, but from confusion over the reason He
was smitten. They saw the blow, assumed it was from God, and read it wrong.
The blow received was not evidence of God's rejection but of His provision.
The smiting, piercing, crushing, bruising strikes against Him were the divine
requirement that the Lamb of God take away sin so we could be saved. In this
stanza, that smiting of God is now understood in its saving purpose.
Jewish Messianic hope. Israel hoped for a political messiah, a
messiah who would come with military power and might to slay
and defeat their enemies. Jesus’ suffering and death are just not
what was expected.20 But Jesus made the scope of his mission
clear when he said: “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for
one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it for
me.”(Mathew 25:40). He went around in the company of the socalled ‘sinners’ and outcasts of society, healing the sick and
associating with lepers. The way he lived his life and the
execution of his mission leads inevitably to his death. The death
of Jesus therefore represents the sufferings of the poor and the
marginalized. His whole life to his death signified his solidarity
with the people whom he came to save. This forms the core of
his mission, for if his sufferings and his death were undeserved
then the answer to the suffering of the poor and those who are
forced to live on the peripheries of society are also undeserved.
He was crucified under the system that he was challenging, the
system that put people in their miseries. As a commission to
whoever believes in the cause of justice, he said: “Therefore go
and make disciples of all nations……teaching them everything
that I have commanded you.”(Mathew 28:19). It is the task of
every Christian, of the church, of every living soul to take up the
fight for the course of the least in the world, for the
establishment of a just and a loving world where the love of God
reigns forever.
Where are you, God?
20
“Was Jesus the suffering servant of Isaiah 53?”Christian Courier.com. The
Jews of the first century were expecting a Messiah who would slay their foes
and lift them up into a magnificent new political regime. The concept of a
crucified Savior was wholly foreign to the general expectation of the firstcentury Hebrew (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23). It would require overwhelming evidence to
persuade a Jew, such as Peter (particularly with his resistant temperament),
that Jesus of Nazareth was the “servant” of Isaiah 53. And yet, he was
convinced of that reality – so convinced, in fact, that he was willing to die for
that conviction (Lk. 22:33; cf. Jn. 21:18-19).
It is critical for us to ask such a question at this point of
time. Injustices rule the world and as a result the innocent
around the world suffer; and Tuvalu is no exception to that. The
same challenge that Job issued is a realistic challenge that
Tuvalu poses to the wider world community. We simply come
down to the root question as we ponder further on this issue.
Tuvalu, like all the other low lying countries sought after the
reasons of their sufferings, and to explore all avenues of possible
and realistic solutions to their plights.
Why are we suffering? Where is God in all our
sufferings? How can we justify what is happening to us in light
of our belief that our God is a God of love and justice? To all
these questions, it must be stated that there is no simple answer
to them all, unless a combined effort by everyone based on love
be realized. Tuvalu, though small in size and population, has the
obligation to stand for justice, this is the lesson we learned from
the Cross. It is important to realize that Tuvalu is not alone in
this, even though Tuvalu is probably the most vulnerable
country to the devastating impacts of global warming and sea
level rise, salvation from such scenario is a collective salvation,
and should be sought as such. As such, Tuvalu and the
sufferings stand together for justice. Life continuity and
maintaining their identity as a distinct people should be
recognized. The problem here is that the people of Tuvalu have
no part at all in the sin that brought about global warming and its
negative impacts. They are so innocent that to believe that they
have been punished for being innocent is impossible to
comprehend. The link between the difficulties that they face
with climate change and sea level rise is hard to be understood
by the people. The insignificant contribution by Tuvalu in the
emission of poisonous gases into the atmosphere is significant in
their cry for justice.
God therefore, as portrayed by the life and works of
Jesus, affiliates and stands firm with those who are unjustly
afflicted by others. It is the very same concepts that crucified
Jesus that are still operating in the world today, but just in
different forms. Jesus died for the salvation of the afflicted, and
therefore, it is our call to stand up and fight for the cause of
justice in the world, especially for Tuvalu.
June 2007, pp. 25-47
Is Global Community Possible for a Planet in
Jeopardy?
Larry L. Rasmussen1
The dream of the unity of humankind is a hoary one. At
least as old as prophetic monotheism, it is the way of the
Hebrew prophets and Jesus. All nations stream in praise to the
mountain of the Lord, all peoples feast in mixed company at the
messianic banquet. It is the Buddha’s path as well, Plato’s, the
Stoics’, and the umma of Islam. In Judaism, it’s tikkun olam,
the healing of a broken world intoned in the Rosh Hashanah
liturgy: “In the face of the many, to stand for the one; in the
presence of fragments, to make them whole.”2
These dreams of universal belonging and a good life
together should surprise no one since religions themselves,
1
Prof. Larry L. Rasmussen is Reinhold Niebuhr Professor Emeritus of Social
Ethics, Union Theological Seminary. He is the author of Moral Fragments
and Moral Community; Reinhold Niebuhr: Theologian of Public Life;
Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Reality and Resistance; Earth Community, Earth Ethics;
and Earth Habitat: Eco-Injustice and the Church’s Response. Prof.
Rasmussen's book Earth Community, Earth Ethics received the 1997
Louisville Grawemeyer Award in Religion. Prof. Rasmussen is active in the
ecumenical movements and served in the Commission on Justice, Peace, and
the Integrity of Creation of the World Council of Churches as its comoderator.
2
Evening Service I, Rosh Hashanah, The Gates of Remembrance New York:
Central Conference of American Rabbis, 1978), p. 27.
together with aged philosophies and the primordial visions of
first peoples, have consistently staked out an audacious claim
for “community.” It is community sufficiently generous to
include not only the neighbors (at least those we like!) but Earth
as a whole, indeed the cosmos in toto. Even more than that,
creation as a community has not only been the enduring dream,
it has been a basic religious, moral, even metaphysical, claim.
Now it is the extraordinary claim of science as well.
That the material universe—“nature”—is literally a cosmic
community is the grand theme across recent science, from
theoretical physics and astrophysics to ecology, genetics and
evolutionary biology. Sages have long observed that humans
dream dreams of community on a grand scale because of some
restive, irrepressible stirrings deep within our wee little souls.
We have always wanted to belong to the same order that hurled
the planets into orbit and sent the stars singing on their way. We
have always wanted to align our mortal lives with a community
that outstrips and outlives them. We have, in fact, built empires
and enslaved peoples and ruined lands in the wayward quest to
do so, just as we have composed music and crafted masterpieces
and birthed and raised children in our striving to belong and be
remembered. Now it turns out we have belonged to the cosmos
all along, not only by virtue of our longing and desire, or our
dreams of empire, but because, literally we are stardust, a late
version of early supernova explosions. The scale of Darwin’s
fabled Tree of Life, it turns out, is not only from molecules and
cells to purpoises and apes, but ecosystems and beyond, to the
heavens themselves. The yearning in our solar plexis—yes,
solar plexis—that tells us the universe itself is “home” is
physically correct, we discover. We belong to creation in every
transient cell of our bodies, to the community of all life knit in
DNA, and to mitochondria millennia deep. That favored image
of early Christian theologians, that we are microcosms of the
macrocosm, is now underwritten by a science they did not have.
What they did not know is that, in many and varied quirky ways,
all else is microcosm, too. The relatives are everywhere, and
Global Community Possible? 27
everything. Or, to cite the Hindu Upanishads—“tat tvam asi”:
“all that is you,” “you are all that.” All things great and small,
from atoms to galaxies, share a common history and a common,
if unfinished, story. All that exists, co-exists. All that is, belongs.
Wildly diverse creation is one.
In our time this weather-beaten dream of a planetary
community has gained new traction, bolstered by science’s gift
of a common creation story, yet beyond it. Some of that gain is
an emerging global ethic. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, for example, is posited on the notion of universal human
dignity and has been endorsed as a common moral standard and
instrument for uplifting and protecting all peoples everywhere.
By all counts, it has been a powerful means for effecting and
institutionalizing universal moral claims, moral claims that
reflect—I now use Jewish and Christian terms—the image of
God as “the value, equality, and uniqueness”3 of every human
being as a child of God.
But there is more. The Earth Charter, too, belongs to the
irrepressible dream of earth as a comprehensive community.
And here there are some noteworthy new twists. The most
remarkable one, at least for the modern world, is to render the
ethics of homo sapiens derivative of Earth’s requirements and to
consider the whole community of life the bearer of compelling
moral claims. “Respect Earth and life in all its diversity” is the
fundamental principle of the Earth Charter. It is in fact the
parallel of respect for every human life as the baseline of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, except now that respect
and reverence is extended to life, period.
This parallel of the Earth Charter and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is deceptive, however, since it
hides a moral revolution at the heart of the charter. While the
Charter’s language is never truly confrontational, the Charter is
a quiet assault on the institutionalized human-centeredness of
3
Irving Greenberg, For the Sake of Heaven and Earth: The New Encounter
between Judaism and Christianity (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society, 2004), p. 11.
reigning practices and their morality, especially global patterns
of production, distribution and consumption. To say, as the
Charter does, that “humanity is part of a vast evolving universe”
and to view Earth as a remarkable niche in that universe, and
alive, because it is the bearer and sustainer of a unique
community of life, is to invert the orientation of prevailing
ethics. The Earth Charter de-centers the sovereign human self
(historically a male, largely white and Western self) who is the
moral legislator and whose very notion of freedom rests in
giving ourselves the laws we live by. The Charter wants to
locate the ecology of all human action within the economy of
Earth itself and temper the sovereign swagger of idolatrous
human powers parading mastery on a grand scale. While it
underscores human responsibility for the planet, it rejects the
grandiose notion that we can have a world of our making and it
can be good. That kind of species pride wed to the arrogance of
addictive affluence has in fact now set us on a course of
uncreation.
Another, related, theme also puts the ethic of the Charter
far from the reigning moral universe of present institutions and
habits. The cosmologies in science mentioned earlier have little
place in our daily sensibilities and conventions. They are mostly
the stuff of “ooh/aah” planetarium visits for unruly 6th-graders.
The reason these stunning pictures of reality don’t penetrate and
shape our lives may be our anorexic imaginations. Even the
free-range vision of psalmists and prophets was not ready for the
detail, the dynamism, and the utter strangeness of a universe
infinite in all directions on a scale we cannot fathom (or at least
we could not until the Hubble telescope). Poets and mystics, or
a humble cell biologist or astrophysicist, may have broken
through on occasion, but only in wonder and Einsteinian awe.
The charming arguments of Gregory of Nazianzus and St.
Augustine that not all species of plants and animals could have
initially been created by God but must have evolved from other
of God’s creatures, since a boat the size of Noah’s could not
have possibly borne the full load, are utterly quaint now, the
stuff of children’s stories. And yet most dominant ways of life
still act as though we are an ecologically segregated and
privileged species, with nature our last and best slave. This
abolition and liberation we do not support. So we moved more
rocks and soil and water in the 20th century than did volcanoes
and glaciers and tectonic plates, and we altered the thin envelope
of the atmosphere more in that time than all humans together in
far, far longer stretches of time, with the result that now things
that normally happen [to the planet] in geologic time are
happening during the span of a human lifetime. Mind-boggling
though it be, none of this has registered as a profoundly moral
matter or a badly misshapen identity, much less a moral crisis or
an identity crisis. Even bringing death to birth itself—extinction,
uncreation—fails to move us. It may sadden us, even depress us
at some level, but it does not change our ways.
In sum, the Earth Charter lines out what Earth as Earth
community means for how all of us live life together; and this
communitarian understanding of nature and society together,
with the economy of Earth basic to all is the new foray that
extends the scope of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
well beyond its anthropocentrism.
Yet the point I don’t want us to lose is this—both of
these recent efforts (the Universal Declaration and the Charter)
are new expressions of the most irrepressible human dream of
all; namely, a planetary common good that is truly held in
common. And both belong to an emerging global ethic.
I hasten to add that the Charter is not a closed ethic.
While it provides substantive shared content, it does not endorse
any particular worldview or universalize any single set of
parochial norms. It functions more like a moral “dome” or as
moral “habitat,” sheltering and nurturing the practices of plural
peoples and plural values in the same moment that it challenges
all of them in bracing ways to be Earth-honoring ways of life.
The degree to which the Charter has worked from difference to a
commonality that still respects and draws on difference is
extraordinary. It is a lesson we all have to learn; namely, how
to get from the curse of “we/they” to the blessing of “we/us.”
“They” don’t live here anymore.
But of course “they” do, and takes us back to the initial
question: is global community possible. On one deep and
profound level, we have already given the answer. The answer
is “yes,” not because we can imagine global community and
desire it, but because we are literally born to belonging amidst
the fierce ontology of a communion that binds all things
together in heaven and on earth.
Still, on another profound level, that is no answer at all.
We may be joined at the hip to all that is, but we are still left
with the degraded world and its jealously guarded, warring
fragments. And since no one can be whole in a broken world,
we must ask the question again, this time in order to confront the
socio-economic and religious obstacles. To do that, I call on
Reinhold Niebuhr and his remarkable chapter on “The World
Community” published in 1944 in The Children of Light and the
Children of Darkness. The necessary introduction, however, is
from Niebuhr’s 1959 volume, The Structures of Nations and
Empires. He begins there by saying that “the communities of
mankind, like every human achievement and contrivance, are
subject to endless variety and progression.”4 Family, clan, tribe,
city-state, nation, empires ancient and modern—all these are
diverse forms in the ongoing human quest for community. This
quest itself issues from our basic nature as bio-social creatures.
We thus seek meaning and fulfillment in varied, changing
communities. In the course of this quest, persistent and
perennial patterns recur—thus the repeating “structure” of
families, nations and empires. But there are novel elements as
well—thus the “indeterminate possibilities” of history.
This interplay of structure and novelty means, for
Niebuhr, that new political, economic, social and cultural forms
of community will arise and others will die. Endless levels of
technical, social, legal, and political economic organization are
4
Niebuhr, The Structure of Nations and Empires, 1.
possible, though all are only provisional. There is no final
resting point or final form of society. Human freedom triumphs
over structure in an endlessly dynamic history. Invariably, the
results are both creative and destructive.
Such restless human creativity means there can be
genuine progress. Yet history is not redemptive. Any progress
achieved is insecure and imperfect. Good and evil tend to grow
apace and together, with the virtues and achievements of one era
the source of vices and malperformance for the next. Let me
again cite the Rosh Hashanah liturgy, since it so accurately
reflects Niebuhr’s own view of human nature: “There is evil
enough to break the heart, enough good to exalt the soul.” 5 A
moral qualification thus intersects all human efforts, with
tempered pride the proper response, even to genuine
achievement. “[N]o society, not even a democratic one,”
Niebuhr writes, “is great enough or good enough to make itself
the final end of human existence.”6
So is world community possible? If urgency and
historical momentum be the measure, it is already palpable, at
least for Niebuhr.
“The problem of overcoming this
[international] chaos and of extending the principle of
community to worldwide terms has become the most urgent of
all the issues which face our epoch,”7 he writes in the mid 1940s.
The conclusion of The Children of Light and the Children of
Darkness even speaks of “[t]he world community, toward which
all historical forces seem to be driving us,” as “mankind’s final
possibility and impossibility.”8
The pressing new condition is advancing constraints on
nation-state sovereignty in the face of a contracting world of
interlocking dependence and interdependence. Or, to put it in
terms Niebuhr already foresaw in 1930, the techniques of
democratic rule have not been developed in and for international
5
6
7
8
Morning Rosh Hashanah service, The Gates of Remembrance, p. 102.
Niebuhr, The Chjildren of Light and the Children of Darkness, p. 133.
Niebuhr, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, p. 153.
Niebuhr, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, pp. 189.
relations9 while at the same time “the instruments of production,
transport and communication reduced the space-time
dimensions of the world to a fraction of their previous size and
led to a phenomenal increase in the interdependence of all
national communities.” 10 “The development of technics thus
confronted our epoch with a novel situation.” 11 Interlocking
destinies have outrun nation-state sovereignty and nation-state
capacity.
Niebuhr names “the new technical-natural fact of a
global economy” as one of the forces driving toward world
community.
It is “natural” because it is the grand
transformation of nature. It is “technical” because it is the
transformation of nature at human hands with technologies that
leave little, if any, planetary nature unchanged. The global
economy is, in fact, a technical-natural “force of universality,”12
a force that presents new historical perils and opportunities on a
planetary scale.
Niebuhr underscores the novelty of this development.
He notes, as we have, that global community as a dream is
anything but new. But while, as he says, in principle nothing set
a “final limit to the size which communities might achieve,”
there has been a practical limit in the past, the limit “that [the
efforts of previous generations] could not embody the entire
community of mankind.” 13 That is, they could not do so until
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Now, however, a new
“technical interdependence [has] created a potential world
community because it established complex interrelations which
could be ordered only by a wider community than now exists.”14
A “wider community” thus becomes not only hypothetically
9
Niebuhr, “Awkward Imperialists,” pp. 670-675.
Niebuhr, TheChildren of Light and the Children of Darkness, p. 158.
11
12
13
14
Emphasis added.
10
possible for the first time; it becomes imperative. We will come
back to this after we turn, as Niebuhr does, to a second universal
force pressing for world community.
We have already discussed it, so we need only tie into
Niebuhr’s pages. Unlike the newly contracting world powered
by a global economy, the second force is the enduring one of
moral universalism. For Niebuhr, moral obligation is universal,
so universal that it challenges all ethical particularism—familial,
tribal, nationalistic, imperial or otherwise. The reach of moral
obligation is, as his brother put it, towards “all that participates
in being.”15 Any conception of the moral universe that falls short
of that “all” fails the test. Double standards, where some “alls”
count much more than others and actually exclude in the name
of “all,” are morally unacceptable and, in the end, morally
unstable, even if they are the common bent of our “we/they”
mentality. We talk big circles, then draw them small, with
moral hypocrisy the difference.
Yet even that hypocrisy is, for Niebuhr, testimony to the
universalism embedded in human hearts. In a hypothetical
exchange with Hans Morgenthau, Niebuhr puts the critical
question: “Are nations capable of being loyal to interests and
values other than their own ‘national interest’?”16 Can nations
transcend their own interests, or incorporate them into the
interests of a more encompassing community? After agreeing
wholeheartedly with Morgenthau that pretense and hypocrisy
typically mark the idealistic claims of spokespersons for
national interests, Niebuhr says his friend may be overlooking
an important factor. Why is this ‘rational’ and ‘moral’ creature
so embarrassed by the consistent self-regard of his or her
parochial loyalties and communities? Why the consequent
15
This is not the language of Reinhold Niebuhr, but that of his brother, H.
Richard Niebuhr, et al. in The Purpose of the Church and its Ministry:
Reflection on the Aims of Theological Education (San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1956), p. 38. The point, however, is the same: the reach of universal
moral obligation.
16
Niebuhr, Man’s Nature and His Communities, p. 71.
hypocrisy of claiming a higher motive and wider interest that the
obvious one?17 Niebuhr’s conclusion is that such embarrassment
and hypocrisy “may be an index to a residual creative capacity
of [human] freedom, neither equal to nor effaced by their
stronger impulse of self-regard.”18 Human nature, then, wants
to push beyond its achievements to date, and that often means
pushing beyond the communities and moralities that have borne
even our strongest loyalties to date.
Niebuhr’s conclusion is clear: the convergence of these
two forces of universality, “one moral and the other technical,”
create “a powerful impetus toward the establishment of a world
community,” so powerful that “the children of light regard it as
a practically inevitable achievement.” 19
(In Niebuhr’s
discussion, “the children of light” refer to the idealists and “the
children of darkness,” or “the children of this world,” to the hard
realists. Niebuhr lifts these types from the word of Jesus in
Luke 16:8: “The children of this world are in their generation
wiser than the children of light.”) But to pick up the discussion
again: achieving world community is not inevitable at all and
“the children of this world” are again wiser in their generation
than the idealists because they understand the power of
particularity in history and the moral corruption that casts
collective self-interest in positive universal terms and makes the
worse case sound the better.
The errant idealists are not of one stripe, however.
Niebuhr dismisses some as “naïve idealists” because they
imagine that a powerful vision of world community, coupled
with education and devoted work, will eventually achieve global
citizenship. Such voluntarism, even when coupled to moral
rearmament, rarely prevails. It is necessary, as we shall see
when we discuss the role of religion, but it is never sufficient.
What Niebuhr calls “sophisticated idealists” are not so
easily dismissed, however, since, like “the children of this
17
18
19
Niebuhr, Man’s Nature and His Communities, p. 73.
Niebuhr, Man’s nature and His Communities, p. 75.
world,” they recognize that power and the force of institutions is
a standing necessity. Thus the need is for an international police
force and international courts, together with an array of
organizations of governance that draw from widely diverse
communities. Here constitutions, institutions and the law are
utterly necessary elements. But they are not sufficient either and
these wiser idealists err, Niebuhr says, in their confidence that
such international institutions and executive powers of coercion
are largely the outcome of constitutional processes that can be
crafted by lawyers, diplomats, politicians, and CEOs. This
exaggerates the degree to which community can be created by
plotted, artifactual means.
Institution-building and
constitutional processes themselves are only “instruments and
symbols” of the “vital social processes” that underlie them,
Niebuhr writes. 20 Just as “a head” cannot “create a body,” 21
government, global or parochial, cannot of itself create
collective character and communal self-consciousness. What
some call a strong “civil society” factor and others call a “social
forum” factor is critical to effecting any new community, an
expanded collective consciousness and identity rooted in the
moralities of everyday exchange. Effective government has to
find a way to represent these traditional loyalties and shared
values so as to draw upon this existing core of community, a
core that government and constitutions cannot, of themselves,
generate ex nihilo. Nor—and this always disappoints U. S.
Americans—can commerce and the stock market.
To say it differently. We need, but we do not yet have,
institutions adequately matched to reigning global forces.
Moreover, the kind of long-term moral, communal, and spiritual
formation that is also required for genuine global citizenship has
not yet taken place on a scale and with the depth and breadth
that effectively challenges—I use Niebuhr’s terms now—“the
persistence and power of the pride of nations” and “the inertial
20
21
force of traditional loyalties,” 22 conditions that obstruct the
creation of the global institutions and citizenship that is needed.
Two examples Niebuhr could not know come to mind: Bush
administration policies amply demonstrate the persistence and
power of the pride of nations and empires, while the rise of
Islamic radicalism exemplifies the force of traditional loyalties.
Each is, on balance, not only obstructive, but destructive, of
genuine world community. In short, neither the “technical”
requirements for world community, nor the “moral” ones, have
been met.
They may still be met. That possibility is genuine for
Niebuhr. “No bounds can be finally placed upon man’s
responsibility to his fellows or upon his need for their help,” he
writes.23 But his provisional judgment is that it will take a long
time to create global community since international community
at present has “few elements of inner cohesion” and does not
“benefit from the unity of a common culture or tradition.” That
leaves only two forces of cohesion, and they are minimal: “a
common overtone of universality in its moral ideals, and the fear
of anarchy.”24 A third force, namely a common foe, could create
real cohesion, Niebuhr goes on to say, and it could do so rather
quickly. But his expectation overall is that endemic conflict and
threats of anarchy will rule the day as global community
stumbles toward the horizon. He even offers an axiom: “the less
a community is held together by cohesive forces in the texture of
its life the more must it be held together by power.”25 This in
turn leads to his “dismal conclusion” that “the international
community lacking these inner cohesive forces, must find its
first unity through coercive force to a larger degree than is
compatible with the necessities of justice. Order will have to be
purchased at the price of justice; though it is quite obvious that
if too much justice is sacrificed to the necessities of order, the
22
23
24
25
Niebuhr, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, p. 168-169.
order will prove too vexatious to last.”26 Or, in another equally
dismal speculation: “We may live for quite a long time in a
period of history in which a potential world community, failing
to become actual, will give rise to global, rather then limited,
conditions of international anarchy and in which the technics of
civilization will be used to aggravate the fury of conflict.”27
To the question, now reversed, whether world
community is thus impossible, his answer is “no,” despite the
odds. On the contrary, powerful historical forces push for the
realization of global citizenship. But if it comes about, it will
only be because “desperate necessity makes it so,” and, in all
likelihood, only via “ages of tragic history” along the way.28
At this juncture, the question arises as to whether other
forces of universality now exist which were not apparent at the
time of Niebuhr’s writing. The answer is “yes,” and one of
them is hinted at in his comment about “the technical-natural
fact of a global economy” and his passing mention of “a
common foe” as a force for changing perspectives and collective
cooperation. That force of universality is the one we have
visited—the planet in jeopardy at human hands. Its cause is not
only the existence of weapons of mass destruction—well-known
to Niebuhr and much commented upon by him—but the
mounting assault on life systems themselves as the consequence
of humanly-induced changes in both the biosphere and
atmosphere.
Any attempt to capture this planetary jeopardy in a few
sentences will fail, but an attempt must be made. The global
economy is, as noted, “technical-natural” as a universal force.
Humans are transforming nature to such a degree that no
princincts of non-human nature, from genes to grasslands to
glaciers, are exempt from impact and change. This of itself
might not pose a threat, since such transformations could be
benign, even beneficial and sustainable. But in this case—a
26
27
28
case building since the Industrial Revolution—the metabolism
of “the big economy” (the global human economy) is not
matched to the metabolism of “the great economy” (the
economy of nature) upon which it is utterly dependent and of
which it is inextricably a part. This mismatch of massive
metabolisms is the basic cause of unsustainability and the source
of forces destructive of much of the community of life and its
indispensable abiotic envelope. The metabolism of what is now
supercapitalism on a global scale, with its outsize appetite, its
focus on short-haul gains, its hyper-active product innovation
and turnover, its ever-renewing, growth-seeking markets, and its
Midas lust, works in ways that consistently outstrip the
metabolism of nature’s economy, a metabolism which is
enormously intricate, without beginning, middle or end,
interlaced, slow, and long-haul. Fossil fuels let the present
economy, and industrial socialism and capitalism before it,
simplify and amplify human powers while not even bothering to
ask about nature’s limits and its demands for regeneration and
renewal on its own leisurely but non-negotiable terms. Exactly
this mismatch of metabolisms, following from the unconstrained
use of fossil fuels, is the cause of the accelerated and extreme
climate change now gaining traction everywhere. And yet no
one other than indigenous peoples warned that modern progress
cannot be genuine progress if it is progress borrowed against the
health of the Earth and the well-being of future generations.
Are, then, common earth issues on a planet in jeopardy
an additional “force of universality” which, when combined
with the others, might tip us to global community? Is the threat
to life as we know it broad enough and strong enough to be the
equivalent of a common threat? Will what some fear as the
perfect storm of global resource depletion, the end of cheap
energy, and climate chaos, shake us from our complacency? Is
there in our growing awareness of a shared condition and a
common destiny, as well as a common threat, the creation of a
collective “we” stronger than the “they” of parochial
counterforces? We do not know the answer, and will not know
it for some time. If Niebuhr is right, the intervening years will
no doubt be a time filled with the irony, pathos, and tragedy he
saw laced across human history as a whole.
What of the role of religion in this protracted struggle for
world community? A contribution from Niebuhr suggests that:
“both the foundation and pinnacle of any cultural structure are
religious; for any scheme of values is finally determined by the
ultimate answer which is given to the ultimate question about
the meaning of life.”29
Let’s parse that sentence. The latter clause—“any
scheme of values is finally determined by the ultimate
answer…given to the ultimate question about the meaning of
life” means that religion frequently rachets up communal
discord and conflict, since the meaning of life and the ways to
live it are high stakes. Religion, then, is not ipso facto a good
thing. The holy destroys as well as saves. Lucifer dresses as an
angel of light and what Goethe’s Mephitopheles calls “the cruel
thirst for worship” can wreak unspeakable horror. If Jerusalem
were simply a matter of market-driven real estate, it’s status
would have been settled long ago. Because it’s a holy city for
three great religions, it’s a perpetual battleground for believers
misbehaving. Yet religion, always beckoning the very worst
and the very best from us, also—this is my point and
Niebuhr’s—proves a potent source for effecting wider, more
inclusive communities of belonging, loyalty and obligation.
Jonathan Haidt [height], a psychologist working in the field of
evolutionary biology on the origins of morality, explains
religion as an adaptive power for group cohesion and says that if
we hadn’t developed religious minds, “we would not have
stepped through the transition to groupishness. We’d still be
just small bands roving around.”30 Aware of these possibilities
of both greater unity and more vicious fragmentation, Niebuhr
29
“Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written Into Our Genes?”, The New York Times, 18
September, 2007: D6.
30
confronts “the problem of religious and cultural diversity.” 31
Such diversity is a stark fact of the contracting globe. But what
approach to it enhances rather than diminishes the chances for
world community? Niebuhr outlines three possibilities. The
first clause of his sentence is that “both the foundation and the
pinnacle of any culture are religious.” This means that you
cannot, in the end, separate culture and politics from religion.
So how do you, in the manner of, say, the Earth Charter, address
religious and cultural diversity in ways that contribute to, rather
than undercut, global community?
Niebuhr’s options follow. The first is a self-conscious
religious approach in which the effort is to overcome religious
diversity itself and restore the original unity of culture by
subscribing to one religion as essential to a shared civilization.
This has often been utilized, not least by nation-states and
empires. It has been the dominant approach in Christianity,
from Constantine through 19th century colonization. But it need
not be imperial or even national. It can be democratic and
confederal. A current example is Pope Benedict’s efforts to
restore Christianity to democratic Europe for the sake of
European integration as a spiritual-moral entity. Another
current example are the efforts to establish Islamic states and
confederations of states. Religion in both these schemes is a
cohesive source of cultural unity and values. Just to add that to
this day, “America” founded as a “Christian nation” has its
zealous subscribers, even though the word “God,” much less
“Christianity”, appears nowhere in the nation’s Constitution.
Option two is self-consciously secular. Here the effort is
to achieve cultural unity through the disavowal of the traditional
historical religions of a state or region. A state is created that is
secular by confession. It may promote, even demand, a selfconsciously secularized culture. The socialists and communists
did that. But it may also promote religious tolerance and work
to safeguard the practices of diverse religious communities.
31
Many present democratic capitalist societies do so. The point is
that the common faith of, say, a socialist credo or a democratic
capitalist one, does not depend upon religious loyalties; it relies
upon shared values, shared citizenship, shared reason, and the
disavowal of religious monopolies.
The third possibility for religion and global community
is Niebuhr’s own preference, in part because he does not think
the secular option viable, given human nature, and in part
because he thinks religion’s contributions can be positive. So
option three is a religious approach that seeks to maintain
religious vitality within the conditions of religious and cultural
diversity. Consistent secularism cannot provide the ultimate
answers to the ultimate question of the meaning of life that
humans seem to insist upon. Or, if it does claim these answers,
this secularism soon becomes a religion itself, sometimes with
deadly results. (Niebuhr read Stalinist communism and German
and Italian fascism as secular religions.) So he offers “a
religious solution” with certain conditions.
One is the
commitment to a free society. The other is a “very high form of
religious commitment” itself, coupled with humility. 32 The
opposite of a dumbing down of religious content or a numbing
of religious commitment, this option means that “each religion,
or each version of a single faith” seeks “to proclaim its highest
insights while yet preserving an humble and contrite recognition
of the fact that all actual expressions of religious faith are
subject to historical contingency and relativity.” This creates,
on religious grounds, a spirit of tolerance and a refusal to grant
official validity or monopoly to any one version of faith.33
What, concretely, does this mean—the highest religious
insights married to a humble recognition of historical and
epistemological contingency? Niebuhr’s discussion includes the
following paragraph. The context, I must add, is not his remarks
to world community, but his defense of democracy and he
32
33
Niebuhr, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, p. 134-135.
wishes to speak, in general terms, to what he calls “profound
religion” and to Christian faith in particular.
Religious humility is in perfect accord with the
presuppositions of a democratic society. Profound
religion must recognize the difference between divine
majesty and human creatureliness; between the
unconditioned character of the divine and the
conditioned character of all human enterprise.
According to the Christian faith the pride, which seeks to
hide the conditioned and finite character of all human
endeavor, is the very quintessence of sin. Religious faith
ought therefore to be a constant fount of humility; for it
ought to encourage men to moderate their national pride
and to achieve some decent consciousness of the
relativity of their own statement of even the most
ultimate truth. It ought to teach them that their religion
is most certainly true if it recognizes the element of error
and sin, of finiteness and contingency which creeps into
the statement of even the sublimest truth.34
Religion is endemic because we are, by nature, religious
creatures striving to be at home in the cosmos. In the efforts to
achieve global community that squares with the facts of a
shrinking and endangered planet, we rightly draw, then, on
religion’s innate capacity to draw the circle larger, expand our
loyalties and make friends of present outsiders, even enemies.
The great leaders of our time, together with millions of
followers, have done so—Gandhi, King, Mandela and Tutu,
Dorothy Day. All were utterly immersed in their religious
traditions and were, at the same time, global citizens dreaming
the ancient dream of a common community and a shared good.
At the same time, they drew upon Niebuhr’s second requisite—
the wisdom of religious humility. We know neither the will of
34
God nor the truth with certainty. We do know a shared and
fragile humanity at a precarious moment on an endangered
planet.
This leads to the task to bring together the elements of
our subject, empire and global community, as these converge on
Niebuhr’s own subject—the global responsibility of the US.
US global responsibility is, in fact, a centerpiece of the
imperial impulses and temptations that Niebuhr feared might
mark the new superpower whose “legions are dollars.” So it is
worth recalling that the dream of world community has been,
time and again, precisely the dream of empire. Civilization
under a single patronage is both the impulse and temptation of
empire, and both are reinforced now by the achievements of the
“technical” forces of universality; i.e., the reach of those
“instruments of production, transport and communication” that
“reduced the space-time dimensions of the world to a fraction of
their previous size” 35 enhance the possibility of global
hegemony, benevolent or otherwise. At least it appears so in the
eyes of those lured by it and intent upon it.
So how would US American global responsibility appear
and be construed if empire is rejected yet global community is
desired?
It might be regarded as another kind of American
exceptionalism, but it is far from the moral vanity and idealist
moral fantasy that has only made American power more
dangerous in the Bush years. It is, in Peter Beinart’s words,
“our recognition that we are not angels that makes us
exceptional. Because we recognize that we can be corrupted by
unlimited power, we accept the restraints that empires refuse.”36
The Marshall Plan and post WWII rebuilding of defeated enemy
nations, rendering them friends and allies, is a noteworthy
35
This is the passage cited earlier, from The Children of Light and the
Children of Darkness, p. 158.
36
Peter Beinart, as cited by Joe Klein in “The Truman Show, The New York
Times Book Review (June 11, 2006): 12. Klein is reviewing Peter Beinart,
The Good Fight (San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006).
sample and example. The exceptionalism of greatness, then, is
humility and the sober realism that attends the morally
hazardous decisions of wielding great power on the part of those
who know they are not virtuous and whose way of life is always
up for re-negotiation. Reciprocity, with freedom and equality
the regulative principles of justice, is the proper stance, rather
than the righteousness of overweening power. Exactly this was
Niebuhr’s message throughout the years he watched American
empire, from within and with a wary eye, as a prophet in the
king’s court. It is a wise and sober stance reinforced with the
highest religious insights of Christian faith.
We finish with a coda on the roles of religion and the
law in the service of global citizenship. Two axioms from the
social sciences guide us. They appear contradictory but are, in
fact, complementary. The first is: “What people define as real is
real in its consequences” (Thomas’s Law). The second is:
“Behavioral changes often precede attitudinal ones.”
The first says that people act in accord with their
perceptions. What they consider possible and appropriate link
to their understandings of what is happening and what it means.
Construing is deciding.
Both law and religion are vitally concerned with this
pan-human habit. Both law want to know how people see things,
how they understand what they see, and what they do in
response. For religion, this interest can be on a grand scale,
since religious “cosmologies” orient human lives to the cosmos
and help people locate their place in it. To do this religion uses
stories of origin and destiny, symbol systems, ritual practices,
teachings and instruction. A whole way of life is entailed, at
least for serious devotees.
How our lives are ordered, and how we perceive that in
the frameworks of meaning we live by, can sometimes be as
critical to change as the technologies we employ. A recent
lecture on climate change that by the Harvard scientist Daniel
Schrag concluded that any adequate address of climate change
required four elements, none of which substituted for the other.
The four are: technological innovation, different economic
policies and regulations, leadership, and a shift in social
norms.37 Perhaps all four of, but especially the shift in social
norms and economic policies, leads to the conclusion that
neither people’s “cosmologies” nor their concrete habits, much
less the overarching institutional arrangements that belong to
these, can be ignored when addressing the eco-crisis. In
different words, spiritual-moral dimensions are critical to
successful policies and regulations enacted in law and perhaps
even to effective technological innovation.
This underscores the role of religion as that follows from
our axiom that “what people define as real is real in its
consequences.”
But let’s turn to the role of law. Its role stems from our
second axiom: “Behavioral changes often precede attitudinal
ones.” If people are forced to alter their behavior by way of the
structures, systems, and laws that channel behavior, their
outlook eventually changes as well, together with many of their
values. Moral and conceptual formation, and re-formation,
happens not only “voluntarily,” as conscious acts of will, but
almost unnoticed in consequence of altered institutions and
contexts, together with their opportunities, rewards and
constraints. (Our axiom arose from a close study of changes in
the attitudes of white and Black soldiers in the U. S. Army when
army units were integrated by President Truman in 1948,
attitudes that didn’t change until Black and white were forced to
live together.) In short, changed outlooks follow, rather than
precede, changed behaviors. The strong role of law here is
obvious.
Law effectively legislates much morality by
sanctioning some behaviors and forbidding others. “Rights” and
“wrongs” come pre-packaged by way of statutes and regulations
and their enforcement. Ways of life are, in effect, “channeled”
by a complex layering of laws and customs. At first blush, it
would seem that religion is closer to changing hearts and minds
37
Lecture by Daniel Schrag, September 13, 2007, James Little Theater,
Santa Fe, NM.
as the strategic means of changing behavior than it is to
channeling prescribed behavior and backing it with various
powers of enforcement. Yet just as the law is vitally concerned
with how people see things and how they understand what they
see and feel and give their allegiance, most religions are also
keenly interested in the institutional arrangements by which
peoples’ lives are given shape, and in the place and substance of
law as a part of this. “Law,” in fact, is a key category internal to
religious traditions. The monotheistic faiths of the Peoples of
the Book (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) make a great deal of it,
to cite but one cluster of traditions. My conclusion is this: in
addressing a planet in jeopardy and the task of generations we
might call “sustainable global community,” religion and law
share a large patch of common ground. That common ground
includes both “defining what is real and the consequences of
that” and pursuing structural arrangements by which some
essential behavior is changed even in advance of changed
attitudes and outlook. (This is Niebuhr’s point about the priority
of order and the necessary, though precarious, play of power.)
Granted, the emphasis and role of each, religion and law, is not
identical. Religion is typically more interested in a
transformation of the self that links “inner” change to “outer.”
The law is typically more interested in direct outcome and is
readier to use the coercive powers of enforcement to achieve it.
But there is overlap and shared concern, and the differences of
emphasis and role are relative, not absolute. In any event, both
“inner” and “outer” change is mandatory and neither substitutes
for the other. Alliances of religion and law are thus both vitally
needed in edging toward global community and a sustainable
planet.
In the final paragraph of Niebuhr’s The Children of Light
and the Children of Darkness he answers our question, “is
global community possible.” That answer, both religious and
practical, is a sober, patient, qualified “yes.”
The world community, toward which all historical forces
seem to be driving us, is mankind’s final possibility and
impossibility.
The task of achieving it must be
interpreted from the standpoint of a faith which
understands the fragmentary and broken character of all
historic achievements and yet has confidence in their
meaning because it knows their completion to be in the
hands of a Divine Power, whose resources are greater
than [ours]…, and whose suffering love can overcome
the corruptions of [our]…achievements, without
negating the significance of our striving.38
38
Niebuhr, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, pp. 189-190.
June 2007, pp. 48-58
Communities, Theology
And Climate Change
Paula Clifford1
‘Hurricane Katrina gave us a glimpse of how quickly a
meteorological event can destroy a city in the richest country in
the world. We may be moving towards a future in which events
like that come to seem commonplace. Anything in the paper
today, darling? Not much – oh, all the Dutch drowned.’ – John
Lanchester2
The bleak future that many scientists now predict for the
human race has in large part to do with the destruction of human
communities as a result of global warming. At one extreme there
are small, easily defined, self-contained communities. One
example might be fishing communities in Bangladesh, already
forced by rising sea levels to abandon their homes and
1
Dr Paula Clifford is the Head of Community Communications, Christian
Aid, London, UK. At the time of writing the author is also Consultant on
Climate Security to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
2
‘Warmer, Warmer’, London Review of Books, 22 March 2007.
Communities, Theology 49
livelihoods. Too poor to be able to afford new homes further
inland, these people are likely to disperse, with families
breaking up, as some choose to live in illegal makeshift camps
on sea walls, others chancing their luck at earning a living in the
slums of Dhaka. At the other extreme, there is the loosely held
together community of a city like New Orleans, or even, in
Lanchester’s scenario, a whole nation like the Netherlands. Here,
in the face of impending disaster, the rich may find a way out,
rebuilding their lives in a different city or in a new country. The
poor will have no option but to go where they are sent or simply
be left behind to be overwhelmed by a catastrophic weather
event. At both extremes the outcome is the same: communities
are destroyed, and with only the rich and the physically fit
surviving, they will never be rebuilt in the same form.
Communities of different kinds are both the root cause of
such destruction and, in the view of many, the key to averting it,
or at least to mitigating its effects. The activities of communities
in the global North have led to a huge increase in levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, causing temperature rises that
are already proving fatal to people in the global South, or at least
to people in the poorest communities in the most vulnerable
countries. The simplest answer, although by no means the only
one, is to halt this level of carbon emissions. And the people
best placed to do that are those in the rich communities in the
global North who may be persuaded to take action together to
avert the crisis and, at the same time, enable the development (in
a more environmentally friendly way) of the poorest countries to
continue.
This article will consider the nature and role of
community in the face of a global crisis. Drawing on Barthian
theology it will ask whether the usual understanding of
community is sufficient, or whether we need a new model of
community and community relationships if communities
themselves, particularly their poorest members, are to survive at
all.
What is community?
It is well established that contemporary lifestyles have
brought with them a major shift in how we understand
community and that the number of discrete communities that
most of us belong to continues to increase. I don’t have to go too
far back in my family history, say to my grandparents’
generation in the early years of the 20th century, to find an
example of a family whose community was easily described:
their home and family lives, their working and worshipping
communities all overlapped within a very small geographical
area, because these were working class people with few
opportunities and still less desire to move away from the English
south-coast town where they were all born and brought up.
A century later, I find myself part of a number of quite
separate communities. There is no overlap at all between the
village where I live, the church I attend ten miles away, and the
job I commute to in central London, not to mention my family,
most of whom live in a different part of the country altogether.
Even within the village there are various separate, though
overlapping, communities: the families who have always lived
there; the people who regularly attend the village church;
affluent people who have retired to the area and who busy
themselves with forming daytime clubs and other social
activities; regulars at the village pub; the allotment association;
and people like me whose participation in any of these
communities is confined to occasional attendance at church or
pub and bursts of activity on my allotment. If there is such a
thing as an overarching village community, I am a very marginal
member of it.
Against this background, which is not untypical of life in
the United Kingdom today, it makes little sense to talk simply of
a local community or a church community unless we
acknowledge that for most of us this is just one community
among many. Yet we cling to the concept, inventing new
communities for ourselves, which leads us to talk of such ill-
defined (and probably non-existent) entities as ‘the international
community’, ‘the business community’ and many more besides.
Yet this is not a wholly negative picture. Living as we do
in a time of climate change crisis, it is imperative for
communities, however they are defined, to get together with a
common purpose. And this is perhaps more easily done today,
with so many of us belonging to a range of different
communities, than would have been the case in my
grandparents’ day, although arguably they would have been
much more accepting of external intervention, say of
government control over their lives, than my generation is. In
the absence of such acceptance, we need to look to our
communities to be vehicles for change and to see the
relationships between communities, locally, nationally and
internationally, as our best hope for averting disaster.
The ‘church community’
I want to restrict my comments now to that area in
people’s lives that they define as ‘church’. And while for most
members of a church this is simply one community among many,
it is worth bearing in mind that church life itself is also
fragmented. The community that meets in a church building will
have its own sub-groups: the youth group that meets on a
Sunday evening; the committed activists (PCC members and the
like); the (mainly older) people who come along to weekday
services; mums and toddlers and similar church-based activities;
and people within the church who get together outside it in their
own interest groups – musicians, reading groups, football
teams – not to mention home-based Bible study groups and so
on. And then there are the inter-church structures that in turn
form separate communities: members of local or national synods
or other governing bodies; ecumenical networks that bring
together members of different denominations; and the structures
of related but external organisations such as mission or
development agencies that create groups of church people
sharing a passion for the church’s work overseas.
How, then, should we define the church community?
St Paul’s characterisation of the church as the body of
Christ in 1 Corinthians 12 is a splendid picture of oneness. In
particular, the insight that when one part of the body suffers all
suffer encourages church members to see themselves as integral
to a much greater structure, characterised by their
interdependence under Christ.
Yet the reality is far from this ideal. It is very hard to
persuade people affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa or losing their
homes to climate-change related disasters in Asia that the
worldwide body of Christ is suffering with them. And Christians
in the global North rarely suffer, even in a modest way,
alongside their brothers and sisters in the South, unless they
have themselves shared their experiences, at least temporarily.
While a close-knit congregation in a single church may find the
image of the body a helpful one in encouraging individuals’
acceptance of one another, the feeling of interdependent
community rapidly disappears once that community is extended
beyond its immediately perceived bounds. Furthermore, the
image of the church as Christ’s body is not likely to be taken on
board by its fringe members. And an essential part of defining a
community surely has to do with how people perceive
themselves.
In the past few years I have been engaged in developing
a theology of development that draws on the ideas of
relationships and community set out by the Swiss-born
theologian Karl Barth. And I have come to believe that Barth’s
theology has a unique relevance to life today, with all the
complex challenges to relationship and community that the 21st
century presents.
Barth’s theology depends on the well-attested biblical
notion of covenant relationships. But it is not limited to the well-
known cycle of covenant-breaking and covenant renewal that is
familiar to us from the stories of the Old Testament patriarchs.
Barth sees covenantal relationships as going back to the moment
of creation. At the very beginning God creates humankind and
establishes a special covenantal relationship with them and with
the created world. God identifies with humankind through his
Son (and for Barth it is important that all three persons – Father,
Son and Holy Spirit – were present at creation), although the
most profound expression of such relationships is, in my view,
that found in the Gospel of John: ‘I am in the Father and the
Father is in me …. I am in the Father and you in me and I in
you’ (John 14. 11, 20). In summary, in Barth’s writing, creation
and covenant – God’s eternal relationship with humankind – are
inextricably linked. Creation has prepared the covenant and
become the unique sign of it. So Barth brings together the Old
Testament teaching on creation and covenant and the New
Testament revelation of Jesus Christ and the church’s doctrine
of the Trinity.
This broad theological canvas is a particularly helpful
framework for the discussion of the major issues of our time, not
least climate change It places contemporary human relationships
with God in an eternally existing pattern that is rooted in
creation itself. So God is revealed as being always involved in
his world and eternally committed to his people, whatever
befalls them. And in turn it offers a model for the relationships
between human beings as well as our relationship with God and
with the created world.
Such relationships find their expression in community.
Barth’s view of the Christian community is presented in vol 1 of
Church Dogmatics. Barth understands human life as made up of
being (its inward aspects) and doing (its outward aspects in
fellowship with others). So ‘community’ is equated with action,
which unites believers. This is what it means to praise God, says
Barth: ‘No praise of God is serious, or can be taken seriously, if
it is apart from or in addition to the commandment: “Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself”. Praise of God must always
understood as obedience to this commandment.’ 3 Loving our
neighbour is not an optional extra: it is the basis for community
and the true expression of Christian unity.
So Barth defines a community by its commitment to take
action, and the Christian community by its willingness to
undertake a specific type of action rooted in the command to
love our neighbour. This is helpful in defining the characteristics
of our disparate communities today and in bringing them
together. For while all the mini communities that are somehow
included in the idea of church may not see themselves as the
deeply united whole that the Pauline idea of the body of Christ
demands, they are brought together in action. Admittedly the
members of a church youth group may have a conception of
loving their neighbour that is rather different from that of the
elderly mid-week congregation, which, in turn, differs from that
of the ecumenical enthusiasts or the church football team. But
they have in common a willingness to be active in their
respective groups that is based on a shared rationale of treating
their neighbour as themselves.
It is, I suggest, in this concept of community in action
that hope lies when we are confronted with a global crisis such
as climate change.
Communities and climate change
A community-based approach to climate change has both
advantages and disadvantages, depending, to some extent, on
whether or not a community feels itself to be already affected by
global warming.
For example, the small rural village community of San
Hilario in El Salvador, to the south-east of the capital San
Salvador, is typical of many others in making concerted efforts
to repair the damage done by the destruction of mangrove trees.
3
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I,2 The Doctrine of the Word of God (trans.
G.T. Thomson and Harold Knight, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1955, pages 401402.
Mangroves, described as ‘the lungs of El Salvador’ have been
illegally cut down for the luxury furniture market, and have also
been used by poor people for firewood. Yet the forests are a
vital in protecting people and land from the worst effects of
flooding.
In this instance there is a clearly defined local
community, its members well used to working together on
common problems. Actions taken by individuals alone would be
both ineffective and counter-cultural. And while this community
has no capacity at all for reducing carbon emissions (because it
is responsible for next to nothing in this respect) it is able to do
something to reduce the effects of flooding in the aftermath of
the increasing numbers of tropical storms and hurricanes.
But even when a community has a much greater capacity
to bring about change than does the average group of
Salvadorean farmers, it is wrong to assume that actions carried
out within that community are a satisfactory response to climate
change. And one fact that churches in particular in the
developed world need to acknowledge is that communitycentred action alone is not only largely ineffective; it all too
easily breeds complacency.
A number of recent campaigns aimed at individuals in
the UK have focused on the fact that people can make a
difference. People are urged, quite rightly, not to leave their
electrical equipment on standby, to use energy-saving light
bulbs, to travel by bus or cycle rather than by car and by train
rather than by air. Yet, as most people suspect, with the
exception of that last detail, these things make very little
difference to anything except one’s own electricity bill. The
same is true of most community action. However it is defined,
the church community (or a school or workplace community) is
pretty small, and changing the light bulbs is not going to halt the
pace of global warming. Recognising this, at the time of writing
a national newspaper in the UK is urging all its readers together
to take certain actions. Interestingly their initiative is couched in
terms of the readers’ ‘community’, with the ‘Tread lightly’
project described as ‘an attempt to counter the defeatist attitude
about tackling rising carbon emissions, by establishing an online
meeting place for the community of people who are keen to be
part of the solution, but who still seek motivation’.4 The actions
are small, but when the ‘community’ is measured in tens of
thousands, the effect is considerable.
For genuine communities, however, the danger in
encouraging small actions together is a sense of complacency.
People set themselves low targets and once these are achieved
they tend to feel that they have reached the limit of the action
that they individually and together can and should undertake.
The answer is twofold: encourage actions outside the
community and establish relationships between different forms
of community to bring them about.
Relationships between communities: looking into the face of
disaster
This is arguably one of the greatest challenges facing
climate change campaigners today: how to get people to set their
sights higher. In other words, how to encourage members of a
community (or communities) to look outside that community for
targets that will have greatest impact on the global warming
crisis. For many people this will mean undertaking tasks they
are not wholly comfortable with – for example becoming
political activists in order to lobby governments and key
decision-makers about emissions targets. Yet here the
community comes into its own, providing a base for action and
encouragement for the wider engagement of its members.
But it is in relationships between communities that real
hope is to be found. Which is stronger: a large impersonal online
‘community’ whose members have in common little more than
their choice of a daily newspaper and a vague desire to be more
‘green’? Or groups of communities who share something much
4
The Guardian, Saturday 27 October 2007.
more deep rooted. In the case of Christian communities this is a
belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ; if relationships are extended
further, to communities of people of other faiths, this becomes,
more generally, a basis of religious conviction, with shared
concerns for justice and for the wellbeing of their fellow human
beings. The wider the network of relationships, the more
powerful the communities become in pressing for change.
It is in relationships between communities that hope for
the future is to be found. And it is here as well that true
Christian hope lies. The Pauline image of the worldwide Body
of Christ may seem unrealistic to many, if not most, Christians.
But groups of communities, all defined in Karl Barth’s terms as
united in actions carried out in obedience to love one’s
neighbour, have both a conceptual and a very practical unity.
This means more than communities getting together to
create a formidable body of opinion in public life. It demands
that we keep the lawyer’s question ‘Who is my neighbour?’
constantly under review. My neighbour is not only a person in
need within my own community or someone in close proximity.
My neighbour – our neighbour – is also the whole of another
community that is quite outside my own experience. Today’s
crisis demands that the community that is united by its actions of
love shows that love to the communities of refugees in
Bangladesh, to communities of rickshaw drivers forced out into
the blazing sun of Delhi to scrape a living, to communities of
poor farmers in El Salvador, replanting their mangrove swamps
in the hope of staving off disaster. The survival of communities
like these depends directly on the will of other communities.
This means the will to bring about change through a dramatic
reduction in carbon emissions in the industrialised global North;
and the will to establish cross-community relationships and to
offer practical love, by offering places of refuge, safe housing,
renewable energy and so on.
However they are defined, Christian communities have a
unique contribution to make in the hope that they offer. There is
on the one hand the promise for the life to come that is set out in
Matthew 25.40: ‘as you did it to the least of these who are
members of my family, you did it to me …’. But there is also a
promise for this life of a new earth (Revelation 21) – an earth
that is scarred yet renewed through the life-saving actions of
human communities that came close to destroying it.
It is not appropriate that Christian communities should
respond to the threat of apocalypse with a pledge to change their
light bulbs. Rather, it is their role to offer resurrection hope in
the face of disaster – a hope that lies above all in their defining
characteristic of love in action, however demanding and
uncomfortable that love and that action might prove to be.
June 2007, pp. 59~86
Anthropogenic Climate Change:
The Moral and Theological Case for
Environmental Rights
Michael S Northcott1
There is a widespread assumption amongst scientists and
civil servants that science has `the answers’ to environmental
problems: first in firming up predictions about global
environmental change through published scientific research,
sometimes coordinated through international organs such as the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and second in
identifying scientific fixes and alternative technologies which
reduce the environmental impacts of human production and
consumption activities. The view that science will find the
answers to environmental problems reflects the `realist’ view of
science, which is the belief that science literally describes
1
Dr. Michael Northcott is a Reader in Christian Ethics at New College,
University of Edinburgh. Northcott is a leading authority in Environmental
Ethics and has written various books including Environmental and Christian
Ethics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996), Urban Theology: A
Reader (London: Cassell, 1988), Life After Debt: Christianity and Global
Justice (London: SPCK, 1999), An Angel Directs the Storm: Apocalyptic
Religion and American Empire (London: I.B. Tauris, 2004) and A Moral
Climate? The Ethics of Global Warming 2007
nature. 2 In this realist perspective, repeatable experiments on
particular and isolatable parts of natural systems including
particles, genes and cells provide the knowledge base on which
science is said to proceed. Hence most science research funding
is directed towards `pure’ science, and especially physics,
molecular biology and genetics. This kind of science is
essentially reductionist for it works on parts of the natural world
in isolation from other parts, the operative assumption being that
it is possible to build up a picture of the totality of nature by
isolating and working on particular instances of atomic, cellular
and genetic structure.
The study of climate change is a case in point. In the
1970s British meteorological science was exclusively focused
on the kind of climate research which was amenable to
ànalytical atomization, high precision and single variable
measurement and manipulation’. 3 A new centre of climate
research was established at the University of East Anglia to
study long-term climate change in history - for example by
correlating records of crop production with ice core samples
taken from the poles indicating mean temperatures and carbon
dioxide levels and extrapolating from such studies possible
climatic change patterns and cycles into the future. This
approach represented such a radical departure from conventional
climate science that the new centre was refused funding by
public science funding agencies. Eventually it attracted private
funding from an oil company.
Under pressure from environmentalists about changing
weather patterns and the possible contribution of human carbon
production, scientists have now adopted more systemic and
complex approaches to studying the earth’s climate. The IPCC
began to develop supercomputer climate models which included
a whole raft of factors in the endeavour to determine the
2
Brian Wynne, `Scientific knowledge and the global environment’ in
Michael Redclift and Ted Benton (eds.), Social Theory and the Global
Environment (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 169 - 189.
3
Ibid.
Environmental Rights 61
possible effects, both locally and globally, of climate heating.
But even these models excluded certain key processes and
elements such as the interaction between cloud formation and
solar radiation, or the carbon-absorbing potential of increasing
populations of oceanic algae.4 But the most important processes
which were excluded from the IPCC model were those social
processes which determine the quantities of carbon and other
greenhouse gases such as methane produced in different areas of
the globe. Physical processes such as methane or carbon
accumulation in the upper atmosphere are driven by the
outcomes of complex political and economic arrangements,
systems and relationships in human society as much as they are
by interactions in natural systems.5
Twenty years ago most climatologists discounted the
possibility of humanly generated climate change because it was
assumed human activity could not fundamentally affect weather
patterns. We now know different and so scientists have adopted
alternative models. Social pressure on scientists to use their
skills to explore climate change forced a change in the
metaphors and models through which scientists examined and
described climate and ultimately led to the adoption of a new
paradigm of climate change which admitted human activity as a
variable within the paradigm. As a consequence of this
paradigm shift, the IPCC devotes considerable attention in its
current modelling procedures to the socio-political factors which
influence climate change, and in its latest reports proposes
international mechanisms for trading carbon emission permits as
one approach to dealing with the socio-political dimensions of
global climate change.6 The socially generated motives for the
4
Ibid.
Ted Benton and Michael Redclift, ‘Introduction’ in Social Theory and the
Global Environment (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 13-14.
6
See further James P. Bruce, Hoesung Lee, Erik F. Haites (eds.), Climate
Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996)
5
adoption of a new paradigm is a good example of Thomas
Kuhn’s now classic account of the social processes which
influence scientific behaviour, The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions.7
What happened to the study of climate change is in many
ways a fitting metaphor for the role of science in the
environmental crisis. Natural science operates in a reductive
way on particular elements in natural systems, and elements
which are often isolated from their wider environment while
under study. This mode of operation excludes interactions
between different elements in the field with the consequence
that physics or molecular biology and ecology are often in
conflict. This method also of course excludes the human
observer with the consequence that human and social
interactions with physical processes are often excluded from the
procedures by which technologies - the outcomes of scientific
research - are constructed and exploited.
This reductive approach may be part of the reason why
scientific narratives of environmental crisis seem to lack motive
power to change human behaviour. Most politicians in the
European Union agree that global warming is at least partly a
consequence of human activity. Few politicians in the USA
though are prepared to accept this possibility and the public
dissemination of the science of climate change in the USA
involves the repeated claim that this conclusion is still open to
scientific disconfirmation. Hence at the most recent climate
conventions at Kyoto and Brazil, the USA preferred to enter into
agreements to trade its carbon production against reductions in
other nations’ carbon production rather than agree to real
reductions in its own consumption of fossil fuels, even though
the people of the USA, who represent 5 per cent of global
population produce 60 per cent of global carbon output.
We cannot avoid then an examination of the social
processes which underlie global environmental discourse,
7
T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, Chicago
University Press, 1962.
including scientific discourse. And as soon as we do this,
fundamental issues of ethics and international justice arise. If the
IPCC is to be believed, carbon consumption in the North equates
to increased hurricanes, rising sea levels, increasing
unpredictability of monsoons creating both extremes of drought
and flood in different regions, such as we saw in the wake of El
Nino the past two years - uncontrollable forest fires in some
regions including Amazon and Indonesia, and uncontrollable
and unprecedented flooding in others including Bangladesh.
The residents of the USA and the EU are so far not
seriously affected by growing climate unpredictability. Degrees
of industrialisation and consumer comfort in these Northern
regions rely upon high energy use, seventy or eighty times that
of energy use in the South, whereas the consequences of this
energy use are visited primarily on individuals and communities
in the South. The majority of individuals in the North may be
inconvenienced by climate change, they may even pay slightly
more for their buildings insurance because of the growing
frequency of floods and high winds. However few communities
in the North will collectively experience a declining quality of
life because of climate change. The exception may be residents
of the hurricane prone areas of the South Eastern states of the
USA. However the availability of publicly subsidised insurance
against hurricane damage for householders, farmers and
businesses in these states actually encourages settlement in
hurricane prone areas. Loss of life remains a risk but the Federal
government insures and subsidises settlement in hurricane areas
for social reasons.
Social processes in the North sustain profligate patterns
of energy use which reflect the interests of Northern
corporations, and to a lesser extent consumers, and which do not
factor into the price of energy the human and ecological impact
of excessive energy consumption in other parts of the world.
Space heating and transportation are the two most significant
forms of energy use. Social choices about technologies of space
heating and transport are outcomes of a range of factors
including market prices and taxes of fuel; levels of subsidy for
different energy production technologies; government regulation
of industrial, commercial and domestic building; the provision
and convenience of competing transport infrastructures; urban
and rural planning as it affects travel to work, and increasingly
travel to shop, patterns.
The two dominant forms of energy use - space heating
and transport - are closely interconnected. Choices about
proximity of workplace to the home have energy implications
for working life and leisure. Such choices are again the outcome
of planning and commercial decisions as well as individual
preference. Taxation has significant effects on both kinds of
energy use. Effective and safe public transportation requires
public investment which many cities in the UK and the USA are
unable to provide because of reductions in property and
corporation taxes, and the current policy bias towards taxes on
labour - income and national insurance taxes (or payroll) taxes rather than taxes on energy use, or taxes on machines such as
cars, lorries, planes, boilers or computers. Similarly the
profligate spread of air travel as the increasingly dominant mode
of business and tourist travel, and its growing use in food
transportation, is driven by the global zero tax regime on
kerosene - air fuel - as contrasted with fuel taxes on petrol and
diesel (though gasoline taxes in the USA remain very low), and
government subsidies to airport development and associated
infrastructure of airports, motorways, and train connections in
continental Europe and North America.
The social processes by which technologies are
developed, chosen and used are also driven by a combination of
government and corporate decision making which establishes
the framework in which consumers make rational choices. The
flow of research funds to some technologies - most notably
nuclear power and road transport infrastructure - and the lack of
funds for others including alternatives to carbon burning internal
combustion engines such as electric buses and taxis powered by
renewably sourced electricity; local heat and light production in
small-scale energy schemes; point of consumption utilisation of
photoelectric cell solar electricity production; insulation of
domestic homes and commercial space; integration of work and
domestic space; low energy light bulbs; wind, wave and solar
power.
Anti-environmentalists, and especially corporate and
consumer lobbies, tend to construct a shift in taxation and
planning decisions towards environmental sustainability as
involving the subversion of economic freedom and consumer
choice. In relation to economic freedom Robert Nozick argues
that this is the only human right which nations should seek to
enshrine in their constitutions as from it follow all the other
rights. 8 However climate change studies provide evidence that
the exercise by one political community of economic freedom in
relation to the production and consumption of energy has
impacts on the freedoms of other political communities because
the earth’s atmosphere presents a physical limit as a waste sink
to the waste products of energy consumption. In this context
political structures which in one country give absolute priority to
economic freedom may in other countries produce a situation
where freedom to life itself is increasingly scarce. In relation to
consumer choice, we may observe that consumer choice is
driven already by social as much as market mechanisms. For
example in relation to the freedom to drive a car, without
publicly subsidised roads, public subsidies to traffic police,
traffic wardens, to hospitals and ambulances to deal with
casualties and deaths, public subsidies in the form of tax breaks
for oil exploration, `private’ cars - a misnoma of course - would
not be viable. Similarly the large-scale corporate takeover of
railways and rolling stock by bus companies in the USA in the
1920s and 1930s, and public decisions to cut rail provision and
subsidy in the UK in the 1960s, and again in the 1990s, both had
outcomes of greatly increased private car use and road freight.
The EU is currently developing a trans-European motorway
8
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia¸ Oxford, Blackwell, 1974.
network from Northern Scotland to Southern and Eastern
Europe. The European Commission, like the UK government,
continues to deploy the great majority of its transport civil
servants on road planning and use.
Social processes - corporate, bureaucratic and consumer
decisions about technology deployment - are critical factors in
environmental change. But of course these local social processes
are connected with larger social processes, and in particular with
global economic and trading arrangements between nation states,
and between North and South. The majority of the
environmental costs of energy use, historic and current, are
borne by tropical and sub-tropical regions which are much more
climate sensitive than the former boreal forests of the temperate
zones and are at greater risk of serious disturbance from global
climate change, and climate heating. Europeans have settled
most of the temperate zones in the Southern as well as Northern
hemispheres including temperate zones in Southern Africa,
South America, and the Antipodes. Tropical zones are still
largely inhabited by peoples whose economic activities involve
low energy use and very limited industrialisation as compared
with the temperate zones. Peoples in most tropical and subtropical countries - Rwanda, Central African Republic,
Mozambique, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Jamaica, Haiti, Cuba experience widespread poverty. All of these countries are also
heavily indebted to Northern banks and governments and their
economies are subject to control by Northern bankers which are
designed to increase the proportion of land devoted to
commercial monocrop agriculture for export which subverts
local food security, and encourages more forest clearance, with
further impacts upon local climate change. Certain tropical
countries, such as Brazil, Malaysia and Indonesia have seen
more development but very unequal development which has
also been characterised by widespread environmental abuse and
especially deforestation. A second major feature of the
environmental crisis - tropical deforestation - is therefore not
unconnected to the first - energy consumption and global
warming.
The historic transfer of resources from tropical to
temperate regions continues until today in the guise of free trade
and capital deregulation. This means that the costs of climate
change are borne disproportionately by tropical zones and that
they are in effect subsidising the high levels of energy use in
temperate regions. The situation globally with respect of climate
change is analogous to the regional impact of acid rain which is
exported via the prevailing winds from the sulphur valley of
Southeast Yorkshire to the forests and fjords of Scandinavia.
In addition to the climate change effects of energy use in
the North, we should recall that much of the energy consumed in
the North is itself at the price of direct environmental and human
abuses in the South, as witness the deleterious impacts of oil
prospecting, extraction and refining on environments and
communities in countries such as Nigeria and Columbia, where
oil companies have employed private armies, or colluded with
government military, to defend their installations against local
communities who have been blighted by poor environmental
standards. The Northern appetite for oil also fuels continuing
geopolitical conflict in the Middle East where widespread
human rights abuses and antidemocratic government are
sustained by the flow of arms and capital investment from the
West as part of the bargain which keeps the oil flowing and
keeps the oil price down.
The global environment connects us all, but the global
economy is managed and sustained in ways which do not take
cognisance of the global or local environmental costs of
different kinds of economic activity and trade, nor of the
absorbative limits of natural sinks for waste products of
industrial processes.
Is there an answer? If it is to be found in the sciences, it
is not in the natural but the social sciences. Available
technologies are already capable of producing energy needs
from renewable sources, though perhaps not at current levels of
temperate country energy use. The problem is not a
technological but an economic and political one. Money values
attached to energy products in global markets do not reflect the
human or environmental costs of production or consumption of
energy, or of goods produced using different kinds of energy.
The dissociation of money from fixed assets and political
communities is an important and related part of this. Equally
trading and financial structures which engender the continuing
postcolonial coercion of natural resources including land,
minerals, forests or fisheries from subsistence farmers,
fisherfolk and tribal peoples, who still comprise more than 80
per cent of the world’s food producers, contribute to the unequal
environmental impacts of the èconomic freedoms’ exercised by
Northern producers and consumers.
Economics is the social science most implicated in
environmental decision-making, and in the unequal and unjust
exchange of poor peoples’ environments for rich nations
unsustainable consumption. But academic economists, and
practitioners alike, have adopted a neoclassical model of
economic activity which discounts human and environmental
factors and trusts to so-called `laws of supply and demand’ and
`rational choice theory’. The dominant theory of markets fails to
take account of the human social construction of money value
itself, and of public goods such as infrastructure without which
there would be far fewer rational choices to be made by
consumers and producers alike. Equally it fails to take account
of the constraints on economic or market activity represented by
the biophysical environment. This is a failing of ALL
neoclassical economists both capitalist and Marxist. They all
treat the economic system as a sphere of value creation which is
independent of natural systems. Even natural scarcity is said to
be a social construct, indeed the desired aim of market actors,
for scarcity - either symbolic or by cornering the market - raises
the price and hence the added value of a product.
Ecological economists argue that the human value
economy is a sub-system of the physical economy. 9 Money is
not independent of land but deeply intertwined with it. When
corporations and banks create money values through stock
markets, bank credits or hedge funds they create not just a
hyper-real electronic system of money value transfer but bank
deposits in search of production opportunities. Ultimately the
productive use of money requires physical factors including land
as well as labour and machinery. Most of the land which is
currently mobilised by exponentially accumulating money
values in Northern economies is in the South. Similarly waste
sinks increasingly impact on the South, both in respect of
climate change and warming, but also as the South becomes the
waste dump for Northern toxic production, either by direct
export of toxic waste or by export of dirty technologies to
countries with low labour costs and low environmental
regulation.
One obvious and rational solution to many environmental
problems in the North which utilises market mechanisms and is
beginning to be embraced by some neoclassical economists,
particularly in Europe, is environmental taxation. But the
increasingly global character of the economy makes ecological
taxation more problematic. Carbon taxes, or even petrol taxes,
are resisted by business and commercial interests, and the
politicians they frequently fund, because they reduce the
competitiveness of Northern producers relative to Southern
producers. The corporate lobby is resistant to the
environmentalist riposte that Southern competitiveness is
undermined by climate change generated by profligate energy
use in the North. The peoples and economies of Bangladesh,
Nicaragua and Honduras have all been recently devastated by
rare extremes of climate in 1998 which climatologists believe
are linked to global warming and hence to Northern energy
consumption. If the North will not compensate the South for
9
Herman Daly, Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development,
Boston, Beacon Press, 1996.
such effects, nor effectively reduce its profligate energy
consumption, what other mechanisms are there for the
realisation of global environmental justice?
I have argued elsewhere that the Hebrew Bible indicates
that divine commandments have cosmic and not just human and
social significance.10 A central principle of Hebrew law is that
of distributive justice. This principle is applied primarily within
the household of Israel. Where the rich accrue to themselves too
much of the land and its product they are said to contravene the
law of God because their greed denies the poor their due
participation in the abundance of the land (Isaiah 3. 13 - 15). In
Israelite society, law was the key mechanism for the balancing
of the interests of rich and poor. The Sabbath and Jubilee laws
provided for periodic redistribution of excess wealth, creating an
obligation on the rich and successful to bring back the poor,
indebted and unsuccessful into full membership, as landowners,
of the household of Israel (Leviticus 25). 11 In addition to
creating an obligation for the wealthy, the Hebrew Bible in
places indicates a correlative right of the poor to receive their
due. Thus Isaiah condemns those who in his day were writing
the needs of the poor out of the law because they thereby `turn
aside the needy from justice’ and `rob the poor of my people of
their right (mishpat)’ (Isaiah 10. 2) Jeremiah also speaks of
those scoundrels who `take over the goods of others’, who `have
become great and rich’: `they do not judge with justice the cause
of the orphan, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the
rights (mishpat) of the needy (Jeremiah 5. 28).
The balance of wealth and land between Israel and her
neighbours was also said to have been subject to divine will,
though not to specific provisions of the law. However when
through military prowess or economic success Israel succeeded
10
Michael S Northcott, The Environment and Christian Ethics, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 1996.
11
See further Christopher Wright’s account of these laws and their operation
in Christopher J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land and
Property in the Hebrew Bible, Exeter, Paternoster Press, 1990.
in outdoing her neighbours, the Prophets warned her rulers that
they were buying earthly security and power at the price of
spiritual probity and divine favour. Amos and Jeremiah, like the
historians of the book of Kings, regarded the military and
trading successes of some of Israel’s later rulers as a cause of
divine disapprobation and ultimately of conquest and exile. The
provisions of the law were in any case not limited to the people
of Israel. Aliens and animals also came within its purview.
Foreigners who dwelt in the land of Israel were said to have
certain economic claims upon Israelite farmers and similarly
farmers were not to farm so much of the land that wild animals
had no undomesticated land in which to live and roam. Similarly
the consequences of human disobedience of the laws of God are
not limited to the people of Israel. The fertility of the land, and
of animals, and even the climate, are said to be affected by
Israel’s abandonment of the just distribution of nature’s
wealth.12
Distributive justice and rights are both at issue in relation
to global climate change and the costs and benefits of the
mobilisation and use of particular energy sources and
technologies. Environmental economists argue that taxation and
public subsidy regimens should reflect international as well as
local and regional costs of technology, and energy, use. In
particular energy for space heating, industrial production and
transportation should be priced according to global as well as
local environmental impacts of its production and use, and not
just the economic costs of production. However the intractable
problem is how to factor in international costs. As we have seen,
the USA resists environmental controls on its own transportation
systems arising from the costs of climate change which, within
its own borders, the USA is capable of meeting.
Analogously the European Union resists ‘economic’ and
environmental migrants though it encourages the free movement
of natural resources and capital. Inward trade in cut flowers,
12
See further Michael S Northcott, The Environment and Christian Ethics.
exotic vegetables and fruits is linked with the increasing flow of
migrants from South to North because land which is used for
export crops was formerly used for subsistence farming. Poor
farmers are driven onto marginal lands and forests, or into urban
shanty towns. Marginal land erosion and desertification as well
as climate change are all major contributors to the growing
problem of environmental refugees.
Since the publication in 1991 of the Bruntland
Commission Report, Our Common Future, a growing body of
international environmental treaty advances the case for the
creation of global mechanisms which give expression to
international distributive justice with regard to the global
environment. The Bruntland report used the language of rights
as a means to give expression to the universality of the moral
claims raised by the biophysical limits to the environment: Àll
human beings have the fundamental right to an environment
adequate for their health and well being.’ 13 Legal systems in
thirty countries now recognise the existence of environmental
rights, thus at least in principle allowing individuals and
communities to sue corporations and public institutions for
environmental damage.
The extension of the legal recognition of environmental
rights would not resolve all environmental questions and is an
admittedly anthropocentric procedure, though it may be that the
recognition of the human right to an environment which
promotes flourishing will contribute to the spread of the idea of
the rights of other living beings to an environment which
promotes their flourishing also. The recognition of human
environmental rights both nationally and internationally would
be only one element in the global quest for environmental
justice, and the rebalancing of the environmental rights of
individuals and communities with the economic and
bureaucratic powers of corporations and nation states. But its
advocates in the UN and elsewhere contend that it would offer a
13
World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common
Future, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 348.
surer ground for arbitrating between the powerful and the
powerless than some other forms of arbitration of international
environmental conflicts. However there are a number of
problems with this approach to global environmental justice and
there is space here only to deal with two. The first is the
question of whether human rights in general, and environmental
rights in particular, are a theologically and ethically appropriate
way for Christians to speak about environmental justice, and
whether by commending this approach we are not in fact
evading the true source of the problem and hence the right
response. The second is whether constitutional recognition of
environmental rights in particular nations will enhance
environmental justice in an increasingly global economy.
Christian theologians were not quick to recognise the
legitimacy of rights talk. Its earliest advocates were not
theologians but political philosophers such as Tom Paine and
Jean Jacques Rousseau who were regarded by ecclesiastics as
heretics. And it was those modern states which were most
avowedly secular in their revolutionary origination - the
American and the French - which first enshrined individual
rights in national constitutions. And therein is part of the
problem theologians and some philosophers have with rights
talk. By speaking of certain rights as inalienable, such as the
right to life, liberty or property, or the right to a decent
environment, modern rights talk makes claims about the human
condition which arrogates much which the Jewish and Christian
tradition has said of God and of God’s rights over creation rather
than of humans in themselves. Rather than conceiving of
mishpat or right as inalienable and original to the human
condition, the right referred to in scripture is a right which is
derivative on our constitution as persons made in the image of
God, on our constitution as beings in the body of God’s creation,
and on our reconstitution as persons who are being renewed
after the image of Jesus Christ who came to restore our sinful
inheritance of personhood. Thus in Hebrew law and in the New
Testament the right to property is not an absolute right but a
right derived from God’s gift of creation to humans, and, in the
case of the Israelites, God’s gift of the promised land to the
former Hebrew slaves. Similarly the right to a due share in
God’s creation for all persons, and not just property holders, is
derived from God’s original gifting of creation to the
descendants of the first man and the first woman, and hence to
all the peoples of the earth. The right to liberty is even more
clearly a derivative right for according to the laws of the Hebrew
Bible freedom is not to be expressed in such a way as to drag
down the poor, and according to Paul freedom is constrained
also by the possibility that its exercise may give offence to the
brethren.
The distinctiveness of modern rights talk is not the
concept or claim of right. This is very ancient. It is rather, as
Oliver O’Donovan points out, the idea that human rights are
original, a ‘primitive endowment of power with which the
subject first engages with society’ rather than derivative on the
sovereignty and justice of God.14 In other words modern human
rights are at best an expression of the autonomy of modern
societies and modern persons from dependence on God, and at
worst represent a denial of the sovereignty of God and the
original rights of God over God’s creation and all that lives
within it, including persons made in the image of God. Rights
talk in other words arrogates too much to the human, thereby
substituting human claims to earthly sovereignty for the ultimate
claims of the sovereign God over God’s creation. Indeed it is the
central characteristic of the modern scientistic project to
transform the diversity and alterity of God’s creation into the
service of human needs and aspirations. And in this denial of the
divine ordering of creation to God and to all God’s creatures,
and not just to humans, we may even have identified the true
root of our current environmental crisis. Surely then it is
quixotic to adopt the language of rights, a language which seems
14
Oliver O’Donovan, The Desire of Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of
Political Theology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 248.
to involve the denial of divine sovereignty, as a means for
restraining this technological remaking of creation.
There is a further problem with rights talk. And this is
the tendency of rights talk to construct human relations as
essentially characterised by conflict rather than peace. In
Perpetual Peace Immanuel Kant, one of the foremost modern
advocates of rights discourse, argued that whereas republican
states may achieve peace within their borders through a social
contract which affirms the rights to liberty of all citizens, nation
states are in a state of perpetual conflict or hostility with each
other even if they are not actually at war. It is necessary then for
peace between nations to be realised, that a minimal recognition
be given to the rights of all persons by virtue of their human
nature, rather than of their citizenship of particular nations, and
that federations between nations may therefore be achieved
which advance the cause of international peace by this mutual, if
minimal, recognition of the rights accruing to all human
beings. 15 Against this classic Enlightenment approach, John
Milbank argues that liberal notions of liberty and rights must be
rejected by Christians because they affirm the essentially
modern and atheistic understanding of humanness as the quest
for power and ownership, and of social theory as the means for
arbitrating this quest. In the light of the Gospel, human being is
not a quest for power or ownership but rather a quest for union
with the source of all power which is Godself, and a quest not to
own but to be owned by God:
15
Nigel Dower, World Ethics: The New Agenda, Edinburgh, Edinburgh
University Press, 1998, p. 77.
One could say that Christianity denies ontological
necessity to sovereign rule and absolute ownership. And
that it seeks to recover the concealed text of an original
peaceful creation beneath the palimpsest of the negative
distortion of dominium, through the superimposition of a
third redemptive template, which corrects these distortions
by means of forgiveness and atonement.16
The distortion of dominion is at the heart of our abuse of the
creation and its resolution ultimately is in our repentance of this
sin and our recovery of a sense of the Lordship of Christ over
God’s creation in which recovery only can we and the creation
hope for that peaceable kingdom in which animals and humans
walk the earth without fear of each other as once they are said to
have done in the original Garden.
Now I have no difficulty in agreeing with John Milbank
when he contends that beneath the rhetoric of rights and the rule
of law and international trade and treaty lies a darker reality of
violence and conflict, of rich nations and corporations treading
down poor nations and communities, a reality whose roots lie in
our denial of the sovereignty of God over creation and which
therefore secular liberal rhetoric and political arrangements are
capable of obscuring but incapable of redeeming. But as
Christians who are concerned about the environment we cannot
avoid engaging in some fashion with secular politics and
economics, for it is in this sphere of the secular that the weak or
downtrodden and the environment is abused. The problem with
Milbank’s principled theological rejection of engagement with
liberal political arrangements for the arbitration of the kinds of
conflicts which underlie our current difficulties over climate
change is that we Christians still have to live in a political and
economic system - global capitalism - which does, for the most
part, deny the rights of God over creation, and which does
construe human use of creation in terms of conflict for scarce
16
John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, Oxford, Blackwell, 1990, and
especially chapter 12.
resources rather than mutual enjoyment and sharing of the
original goodness and abundance of the derived wealth of God’s
creation. As Christians we aspire to live in worshipping
communities in which there is no need for talk of rights, in
which the stronger give place to the weaker, in which our
leaders come among us as our servants, and in which the
wealthy freely share with the poor from their abundance. But
even in this aspiration we often find our actual social experience
of church lets us down. Even more so our experience of living in
nation states which, in the case of this nation state still use our
taxes to advance our putative interests in employment and
economic growth and even international `security’ by
subsidising and promoting the sale of weapons of mass
destruction and human torture to nations around the globe.17
The problem with the language of rights for Christians is
that it is a poor substitute for the recognition of our mutual
ontological status as persons made in the image of God, and as
living embodied beings who share creaturehood with all other
life forms of this cosmos. The language of rights, as Jeffrey
Stout argues, is a minimalist language, a kind of moral pidgin
which is a secularized mode of public discourse.18 It does not
say all that can or even should be said about the conditions of
life which make for human flourishing, including most
especially the worship and love of God. But even as we name
the name of God, and remind the modern world, and modern
capitalists, that by making gods of money and power and
consumer goods, they and we are abusing creation precisely
because we are idolising the creature rather than the Creator, at
the same time we must engage with those people of good will,
17
It is a little known fact that a good proportion of the debt owed to the
British treasury by poor nations in the South has arisen as a consequence of
export credit guarantees offered by the Department of Trade and Industry for
the sale of arms to poor nations in the South. See further Michael Northcott,
Life After Debt: Christianity and Global Justice, London, SPCK, 1999.
18
Jeffrey Stout, Ethics After Babek: The Languages of Morals and their
Discontents, Cambridge, James Clarke, 1988, p. 80.
of every faith including that of secular humanism, who are
seeking to instantiate arrangements between nations - and in
particular between the powerful nations of the formerly
Christian North and the weaker nations of the South - which
produce a fairer distribution of the earth’s limited resources,
including its capacity to absorb the waste products and gases of
our consumptive civilisation. Human rights may not be the
language of choice for Christians but it is the characteristic
language in the modern world through which victims of torture
defend themselves against their torturers, in which slaves have
won their liberty from bondage, and in which formerly
colonised peoples have gained their putative independence from
their colonisers.
In Earth Community, Earth Ethics Larry Rassmussen
argues that theological denials of rights language are linked with
the traditional Protestant theological devaluation of creation and
in this recognition we may find some way of mediating between
the post-liberal Protestant theological critique of rights and its
embrace by other liberal and Catholic theologians and church
leaders. Milbank and Hauerwas give us a powerful account of
what it is to be Christian in a world which is not Christian. But
they are less helpful in construing those collective social
arrangements which Christians, and Christian environmentalists,
may pursue with others who wish to recognise, own and
preserve the common shared goodness of creation but who are
not baptised members of the Christian church.19
But even if we do promote rights language as a means
for righting global environmental wrongs we may still note that
its minimalism, or thinness, does not serve well the cause of the
preservation of the embodied character of the environment and
of human flourishing. The original Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which was fifty years old in 1998, has a
remarkably unsituated and disembodied account of rights which
19
In an interesting aside Hauerwas owns Ì make no pretense to think about
the moral life for those who do not share in the baptism made possible by
Christ’s death and resurrection’: Despatches from the Front, p. 230, n. 19.
rarely refers to the biophysical nature of the environment in
which we actually pursue our flourishing and experience liberty.
Article 3 of the declaration recognises the right to life, which
implicitly includes the right to bodily safety, and Article 25
recognises a right to à standard of living adequate for (the)
health and well-being’. But these implicit references do not
constitute a sound basis for the defence of environmental rights.
In contrast to the Universal Declaration, Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, writing earlier in the 1940s, adopted a language of
rights which speaks much more of their embodied character and
of their relationship to God’s creation. Larry Rasmussen notes
that Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the first Protestant theologian to
use the language of rights, and he points out that Bonhoeffer’s
adoption of a more embodied language of rights is closely
related to his account of the essentially embodied nature of
earthly existence. In his commentary on the early chapters of
Genesis, Creation and Fall, Bonhoeffer says that ‘the essential
point of human existence is its bond with mother earth, its being
as body’.20 And he continues:
The human body is distinguished from all non-human
bodies by being the existence-form of God’s Spirit on
earth, as it is wholly undifferentiated from all other life by
being of this earth. The human body really only lives by
God’s Spirit; this is indeed its essential nature. God
glorifies himself in the body: in this specific form of the
human body. For this reason God enters into the body
again where the original in its created being has been
destroyed. He enters it in Jesus Christ.21
For Bonhoeffer salvation is an essentially embodied event which
has implications for the whole embodied life of the cosmos, as
well as for the embodiment of all humans within the cosmos,
20
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall: A Theological Interpretation of
Genesis 1 - 3, p. 45, cited Rasmussen, Earth Community, Earth Ethics, p. 309.
21
Ibid, p. 46.
and the image of God which is restored in Jesus Christ is an
essentially embodied image. 22 In his incomplete and
posthumously published Ethics Bonhoeffer goes on to argue that
humans have à right to bodily life’ for `the living human body
is always the person himself/herself’.23 As Rasmussen puts it:
Natural rights, then, reside in bodily requirements and
bodily integrity. That which is necessary for bodily
flourishing - and that certainly includes its protection
against violation - merits a right secured in law. These
rights are grounded in creation itself and belong to life’s
requirements for flourishing, since our bodiliness is our
unbreakable bond with earth and all its creatures.24
Modern Catholic social teaching reflects this same concern of
Bonhoeffer’s with the bodily character of human rights. As Pope
John declares in Pacem in Terris, `we see that every man has the
right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are
suitable for the proper development of life’.25 Since more than
eighty per cent of the world’s farmers are subsistence farmers,
we can see that the provision of the means suitable for human
development must include, for the poor, if not for the rich who
buy their food in supermarkets, a stable environment in which to
grow food. Under economic rights, Pacem in Terris refers to the
right to `working conditions in which physical health is not
endangered’. 26 Both these rights recognise the importance of
environment and of respect for the embodied condition of
human flourishing.
Among contemporary Protestant theologians Nicholas
Wolterstorff has given a more coherent account of the
22
Rasmussen, Earth Community, Earth Ethics, p. 308.
Bonhoeffer, Ethics, pp. 156 and 183, cited Rasmussen, Earth Community,
Earth Ethics, pp. 308-9.
24
Ibid, p. 309.
25
Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris: Peace on Earth (London: Catholic
Truth Society 1963).
26
Ibid.
23
theological origins and character of rights than any other. And
like Bonhoeffer he also wishes to emphasise the crucial import
of the material nature of human rights, and in particular of what
he calls sustenance rights. In Until Justice and Peace Embrace
he argues that the right to sustenance is one of the most
fundamental of all human rights, and more fundamental than the
right to freedom of speech or property rights. 27 However he also
notes that the modern West, and in particular the USA, is much
less willing to recognise the right of a person to sufficient
sustenance than their right to complain publicly about not
having sustenance. Wolterstorff understands sustenance rights as
à claim on our fellow human beings to social arrangements that
ensure that we will be adequately sustained in existence.’ The
possession of this right in other words creates responsibilities for
individuals and groups not to threaten the sustenance of other
individuals or groups. The recognition of this right requires then
a social gaurantee which creates `correlative duties’ in the
avoidance of threats to other peoples’ sustenance. For
Wolterstorff this way of seeing sustenance rights relates not just
to natural law (as do rights in Pacem in Terris for example) but
to divinely revealed law in the Bible which indicates God’s
particular concern for those whose sustenance is threatened:
27
Nichiolas Wolterstorff, Until Justice and Peace Embrace, Grand Rapids
MI, Eerdmans, 1983, p. 82.
Seeing that rights are claims to guarantees against threats
makes clear that rights are God’s charter for the weak and
defenceless ones in society. A right is the legitimate claim
for protection of those too weak to help themselves. It is
the legitimate claim of the defenceless against the more
devastating and common of life’s threats which, at that
time and place, are remediable. It is the claim of the little
ones in society to restraint upon economic and political
and physical forces that would otherwise be too strong for
them to resist.28
Wolterstorff argues that the claim of the right to sustenance is a
claim which arises from the divine ordering of the creation, part
of the natural endowment of every person who is made in the
image of God. It is in other words a natural right but it is also a
theological right which is affirmed by the redemptive purposes
of God for fallen human society as revealed both in the laws of
the Old Testament which are designed specifically to
redistribute nature’s wealth through social arrangements which
ensure that the poor receive the natural endowment, and in the
revelation of Jesus Christ who reaffirms in his teaching, and in
the values he inculcates in his followers, the central place of the
poor in the redemptive purposes of God which are made
manifest in his incarnation, death and resurrection. Thus
Wolterstorff’s account roots the origins and character of rights
in natural law, in divine revelation, and in the practices of
Israelilte and Christian communities.
In the modern world, Wolterstorff argues, threats to
sustenance have become commonplace, and especially in the
South and these threats are closely connected with economic,
political and social structures in the North, and parallel postcolonial structures in the South. For Wolterstorff therefore the
recognition of the right to sustenance involves Christians and
others of good will in efforts to reform the policies, and in
28
Ibid, p. 84.
particular the foreign and trading policies, of Western nations so
as to remove these threats.
As we have seen the threats to bodily life and sustenance
represented by climatic change in many very poor countries are
often ignored by Northern governments which neglect, or refuse
to recognise, under strong pressure from domestically
headquartered multinational corporations who refuse the duties
which these threats create to reduce energy use. Corporations
also seek to evade legal accountability for environmental abuses
involved in their operations, headquartered in one country and
producing in another where legal mechanisms may not be
effective in upholding human rights in general, or environmental
rights in particular. The recognition of the environmental rights
of individuals and local communities is all the more important in
the light of the growing ascription of rights to corporations in
national and international law and treaty, without corresponding
duties. Corporations have already acquired the right to be treated
as fictive persons in North American and European courts.
Currently transnational corporations and governments in the
North are involved in the construction of a new body of
international law around the World Trade Organization, the
North American Free Trade Agreement, the European Union,
and the recently shelved Multilateral Agreement on Investment,
which raise the legal claims of such fictive persons above those
of local communities of persons and above political entities such
as nation states.29
The incorporation of environmental rights into national
constitutions will go some way to providing a legal basis for the
defence of the environments of persons and communities whose
safety and sustenance is threatened by climate change or other
forms of pollution, and particularly by corporations domiciled in
29
Under the terms of NAFTA the Canadian government had to pay more
than 200 million dollars compensation to a US corporation which wished to
import a particularly toxic and carcinogenic petroleum additive into Canada.
In trying to prevent this company from importing this toxic substance Canada
was found to have infringed the terms of NAFTA.
countries which recognise these rights. The recognition of
environmental rights, as a sub-category of economic or
sustenance rights, also has crucial implications for the foreign as
well as domestic policies of the richest nations and federations
of nations, on earth, and in particular the USA, Japan and the
EU, as one of the most prominent rights philosophers in the
USA, Henry Shue, recognises in his Basic Rights: Subsistence,
Affluence and U.S. Foreign Policy. 30 It has even clearer
implications for any nation which claims, as my own currently
does, that it espouses an ethical foreign policy. Such an espousal,
in the light of the threats to basic existence in the South
represented by Northern-originated climate change, requires
radical changes in UK domestic policies, and in particular in
energy policy, if it is to be more than public relations rhetoric,
changes of the kind which the current government, like the
former, shows little inclination to make in relation to transport
policy, green taxation and energy conservation.
However in a global economic order where many of the
corporate actors are wealthier and more powerful than many
nations, particularly in the South, a new international
recognition of environmental rights, and their affirmation in
international and legally binding treaty is also required if global
environmental inequities are to be fairly addressed. In
recognition of the global character of the forces which
undermine local environments and their capacity to sustain
human life and flourishing, the UN Commission on Human
Rights now advocates the extension of international recognition
of human rights to include the right to a healthy environment.31
This extension of the international recognition of human rights
will also require the establishment of an international court with
30
Henry Shue, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence and U.S. Foreign Policy,
Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1981.
31
See further N. Popovi’c, Ìn pursuit of environmental human rights:
commentary on the Draft Declaration of Principles on Human Rights and the
Environment, Columbia Law Review, 27. 3 (1996), cited Hayward,
`Constitutional environmental rights’.
internationally recognised powers of judicial and economic
sanction if it is genuinely to contribute to reduced conflict over
environmental resources. In such a court holders of newly
recognised environmental rights would be able to take their case
against those nations and corporations whose environmental
abuses genuinely threaten their human sustenance and
flourishing. As with other extensions of rights language, the
very existence of such an international treaty and court will
encourage, in a way environmentalist exhortation and
international environmental conferences have not yet succeeded
in doing, a much more radical shift in consumption patterns, and
in particular in energy use, than the nations of the North have
yet agreed to.
Christian critics of rights language argue that it is a poor
substitute for relations of love such as those which grace, and
not law, prescribe for Christians. However divine love, as well
as divine law, is characterised in the Bible as promoting the
interests of the weak over the strong. As Karl Barth put it,
the human righteousness required by God and established
in obedience - the righteousness which according to Amos
5. 24 should pour down as a mighty stream - has
necessarily the character of a vindication of right in favour
of the threatened innocent, the oppressed poor, widows,
orphans and aliens.32
The international and national recognition of environmental
rights will have the divinely legitimated effect of promoting the
interests of the weak over the strong. Inasmuch as nation states
and corporations already are accorded the rights of persons, the
international recognition of the environmental rights of the
environmentally poor may be said to give legal expression to the
ideal of divine love as revealed in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ
and so memorably expressed by Mary his mother: ‘He has
32
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II, 1, p. 386, cited Wolterstorff, Until
Justice and Peace Embrace, p. 73.
brought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the
lowly’ (Luke 1. 52).
June 2007, pp. 87-118
Towards a Theology of Life: Ecological
Perspectives in Latin American
Liberation Theology with Special
Reference to the Theology of
Leonardo Boff
George K. Zachariah1
The Twentieth century witnessed the irruption of a host
of contextual theologies articulating the experience of the
Divine and the meaning of life mediated through the corporate
life experience of particular communities, and the Latin
American Liberation Theology is one among them. However
there has been a lot of criticism against liberation theology for
it’s allegedly reductionist approach which reduces everything to
the question of class. How do contextual theologies respond to
such criticisms? How do they address issues such as race, caste,
gender and ecological crisis in their theological project? How
are they different from the dominant theologies in their very
perception of, and theological response to such issues?
This paper is an attempt to address these and other
related questions with special reference to Latin American
1
Prof. Dr. George K. Zachariah teaches Ethics at Gurukul Lutheran
Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai. He was the Secretary
of SCM, Kerala region and served as the editor of Christava Sahitya Samiti,
India. Dr. Zachariah’s theological thinking is informed by his active
participation in people’s struggles for justice.
liberation theology and ecological crisis, based on the theology
of Leonardo Boff. Leonardo Boff and his brother Clodovis Boff
have contributed much to the systematic formulation of the
methodology of liberation theology. Again it is Leonardo Boff
who is the pioneer among the Latin American liberation
theologians to address the issue of ecological crisis and to
develop an eco-theology within the wider methodological
framework of liberation theology. While acknowledging the
plurality of perspectives among the liberation theologians, I
propose that a systematic study of the theology of Leonardo
Boff can inform us about the journey of Latin American
liberation theology from a theology of liberation to a theology of
life. The first section of the paper describes the methodology of
liberation theology, and the second section deals with the
theological reconstruction to address the ecological issues within
the framework of liberation theology. The final section is an
attempt to analyze and evaluate this shift/growth/development
/or perhaps the recycling of liberation theology.
I
The urgency and the richness of the commitment that
many Christians in Latin America and the Caribbean
began to feel in the 1960s as part of the struggle for
justice and solidarity with the poor raised new questions,
as well as pointing to fertile new pathways in the
discourse about faith. These circumstances helped
convert such reflections into a theology of liberation;
that is, a way to understand the grace and salvation of
Jesus in the context of the present and from the situation
of the poor.2
2
Gustavo Gutierrez, “The Task and Content of Liberation Theology,” in
Christopher Rowland, (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Liberation
Theology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 19.
Theology of Life 89
This descriptive account by Gustavo Gutierrez, speaks a lot
about the origin, development, task and content of liberation
theology.Liberation theology is originated from the commitment
to be in solidarity with the poor in their struggles for justice.
This praxis has given birth to a new theological discourse that
enables the poor to find meaning of life and salvation in the
context of their oppression, exploitation and impoverishment.
With this introduction let us see how the Boff brothers interpret
the methodology of liberation theology.
Boff brothers in their early works 3 developed an
interpretation of the methodology of liberation theology with
four categories. According to this interpretation, commitment is
the first act of doing theology. Then they present three
mediations in doing theology, namely; socio-analytical,
hermeneutical, and practical. However, later on Leonardo Boff
reformulated this analysis as four moments of doing theology
namely; seeing, judging, action and celebration.4 In this paper,
we will combine both these formulations and try to understand
the methodology of liberation theology.
Seeing: Commitment, the First Act of Doing Theology
The first step for liberation theology is pre-theological. It
is the translation of one’s commitment to faith in the concrete
form of participation in the liberation process in solidarity with
the poor and the oppressed. This affirmation makes liberation
theology a new way of doing theology. Theology is always the
second step. It is the organic knowledge of the reality of
suffering and struggle that begets theology. Boff calls this an
3
See Clodovis Boff & Leonardo Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology,
Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1987, Clodovis Boff, Theology and Praxis:
Epistemological Foundations, Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1987, Clodovis Boff,
“Methodology of the Theology of Liberation,” in Jon Sobrino & Ignacio
Ellacuria (ed.), Systematic Theology; Perspectives from Liberation Theology,
Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1993. 1-21,
4
Leonardo Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, Maryknoll, Orbis Books,
1997, 109-110.
experience of “existential shock,” without which we can not
genuinely engage in the radical transformation of our
surroundings. “This pre-theological stage really means
conversion of life, and this involves a ‘class conversion,’ in the
sense of leading to effective solidarity with the oppressed and
their liberation.” 5 All Third world liberation theologies, in
general, affirm this pre-theological stage, and one of the
statements of the EATWOT articulates commitment as the first
act of doing theology. “We are prepared for a radical break in
epistemology which makes commitment the first act of theology
and engages in critical reflection on the praxis of the reality of
the Third world.”6 However we need to note the emphasis on
declassing as the expression of commitment and solidarity.
Judging: The Two Mediations
Judging is the process through which we analyze the
problem and diagnose the illness mediated through other social
sciences and theological sources. Boff identifies two mediations;
socio-analytical mediation and hermeneutical mediation.
1. Socio-analytical Mediation
To put it in a nut-shell, socio-analytical mediation
enables us to find out why the oppressed are oppressed. It is a
search into the root causes of the present reality. Even though
there are different expressions of alienation and oppression,
classical liberation theology identifies poverty as the
overarching characteristic of the people in the Third world and
hence
socio-analytical
mediation
starts
from
this
“infrastructural” oppression. Here liberation theology does not
neglect other forms of oppression. But it believes that it is the
5
Clodovis Boff & Leonardo Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology,
Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1987, 23.
6
S. Torres & V. Fabella (eds.), The Emergent Gospel: Theology from the
Underside of History, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1978, 269.
Theology of Life 91
socio-economic system that conditions all other forms of
oppression. So liberation theology starts its socio-analytical
mediation from the affirmation that socio-economic poverty is
the fundamental expression of oppression.
i. The Phenomenon of Oppression
Having said this, liberation theology begins its socioanalytical mediation by critically examining the three prevailing
ready-made answers. The empirical explanation considers
poverty as vice and attributes the causes of poverty to laziness,
ignorance and the like. It does not engage in an analytical
mediation and hence the structural dimension of the problem is
not addressed. It proposes aid as the solution to the problem.
Here the status of the poor is nothing but that of objects of pity.
The liberal and bourgeois interpretation, the functional
explanation explains poverty as backwardness. The remedy is
reform and development. Here the poor are considered as
objects of action taken by others. The dialectical explanation
considers poverty as oppression. For it the exploitation and
exclusion of the workers is caused by the economic organization
of the society. It sees “poverty as a collective and conflictive
phenomenon, which can be overcome only by replacing the
present social system with an alternative system. The way out of
this situation is revolution, understood as the transformation of
the bases of the economic and social system.”7 Here the poor are
the subjects of their destiny.
ii. Historical Mediation
Historical mediation enables us to see the poor not only
as sufferers of oppression but also as subjects with
determination to resist and fight against the forces that make
them oppressed. Though feeble, we need to recognize them as
7
Ibid., 27.
social subjects and agents of the historical process. That means
any analysis that does not include the agency of the poor and
their struggles for freedom is partial and irrelevant for the poor
in their journey towards freedom.
iii. Marxism as a Tool for Social Analysis
Any attempt to address the question of poverty or, to be
in solidarity with the poor can not bypass Marxist movements
and Marxist theory. Boff categorically mentions that “in
liberation theology, Marxism is never used as a subject on its
own but always from and in relation to the poor.” 8 Said
differently, it is not the poor who are submitted to the judgment
of Marxism; but it is the other way round. So liberation theology
makes use of Marxism as a tool for societal interpretation and
analysis. It borrows from Marxism some “methodological
pointers,” that are effective in understanding the causes of
poverty and oppression. Boff lists the importance of economic
factors, attention to class struggle, and the mystifying power of
ideologies including religion as some of those pointers. He sums
up his explanation of the relationship between liberation
theology and Marxism by saying that Marx can be a companion
on the way; but never the guide.
It is also important to note that Boff brothers not only
affirm the centrality of faith but also reject everything including
Marxism if it becomes incompatible with faith. “If Marxism is
understood as a closed, monolithic system denying God, the
dignity of person, and human freedom and rights…then
obviously a theologian may not utilize it as a conceptual tool for
understanding history and the conflicts of history, as such a
system would stand in diametrical opposition to Christianity.”9
To conclude, though Marxism is used in liberation theology
with caution in relation to its compatibility with faith and the
8
Ibid., 28.
Leonardo Boff & Clodovis Boff, Liberation Theology: From Confrontation
to Dialogue. San Fransisco: Harper and Row, 1986, 66.
9
Theology of Life 93
struggles of the poor, it is the major social theory that liberation
theology makes use of in its methodology.
iv.
Enlarging the Concept of Poor
While affirming the “basic” nature of poverty, Boff
brothers widen the concept of poor to include the victims of
racial oppression, ethnic oppression, and gender oppression.
“We have to go beyond an exclusively “classist” concept of the
oppressed, which would restrict the oppressed to the socioeconomically poor. The ranks of the oppressed are filled with
others besides the poor.”10 However, their attempt to enlarge the
concept of poor is based on the classical Marxist analysis of
base superstructure as they categorize class oppression as the
infrastructural expression of the process of oppression and the
other oppressions as super-structural expressions. The point that
they want to bring home here is that the superstructural
expressions of oppression are conditioned by the infrastructural.
Continuing in the Marxist framework, they go on to
argue that class struggle is the main sort of struggle as it is an
inevitable encounter between antagonistic classes whose
interests are irreconcilable. On the other hand they consider the
struggles of the blacks, women and the indigenous as
nonantagonistic as their tension with the interests of their
respective oppressors can be reconciled. Here it seems to be that
their initiative to enlarge the concept of poor is basically an
attempt to co-opt the other groups within class struggle.
2. Hermeneutical Mediation
With the understanding of the reality and its root causes
mediated by social analysis, theological construction enters the
second stage where the discourse becomes formally theological.
Here the task is to find what God speaks to the reality of
10
Introducing Liberation Theology, Op cit., 29.
oppression and struggle. For that we need to critically look at
the sources of doing theology. Liberation theology, according to
Boff, recognizes the Bible, Christian tradition, and the social
teaching of the Church as the sources. Let us now examine how
they interpret these sources to make them agents for
hermeneutical mediation.
The Bible of the Poor
Liberation theology reads the Bible from the perspective
of the oppressed and the poor. Though they do not claim this as
the only legitimate way of reading Bible, they consider it as the
obvious one for the Third world people: the “hermeneutics for
our times.” Even though the Boff brothers do not develop a
hermeneutics of liberation, they present some of the major traits
of the hermeneutics of liberation theology.
Hermeneutics of liberation favors application than
explanation. In other words, liberation theology is rediscovering
the Biblical call, which has been neglected for a long time, and
applying it in their contemporary context. Here Bible is
considered as a book of life and they are engaged in a
hermeneutics, which is more interested in interpreting life
according to the scripture than interpreting the text of the
scripture. They seek and activate the transforming energy of the
Biblical texts, which can lead to conversion and revolution.
Liberation hermeneutics further gives importance to the social
context of the texts and the messages so as to make it more
relevant to the present context. Liberation theology has also a
list of favored Biblical books. They are the Exodus, the Prophets,
the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and the Book of
Revelation.
How does liberation hermeneutics interpret the poor?
Boff brothers call the poor as the disfigured Son of God. This
awareness provides us a new understanding of the poor. “The
poor are not merely human beings with needs; they are not just
persons who are socially oppressed and at the same time agents
Theology of Life 95
of history. They are all these and more: they are also bearers of
an “evangelical potential” and beings called to eternal life.”11
This example reveals the difference that hermeneutical
mediation makes to the doing of theology.
Christian Tradition
Even though liberation theology is a new theology
emerged from the particular context of the Third world, it
perceives itself in continuity with the Christian tradition.
Liberation theology has a two-fold stance towards tradition. On
the one hand, it maintains a stance of criticism to those strands
in the theological tradition of the Church which shows no
concern for the poor and their historical project of liberation.
But on the other hand, it maintains a stance of retrieval, where it
incorporates those strands which affirm the social demands of
the gospel and the prophetic mission of the church. Being a
Franciscan, Leonardo Boff also draws inspiration from the
saints and prophets like Francis of Assisi, Savonarola, Meister
Eckhart, Bartlome de Las Casas and the like.
The Social Teaching of the Church
Liberation theology from its very beginning has been
maintaining a positive relationship with the social teaching of
the church. It is not interested to be in competition with the
magisterium. “To the extent that the social teaching of the
church provides broad guidelines for Christian social activity,
liberation theology tries, on the one hand, to integrate these
guidelines into its own synthesis, and, on the other, to clarify
them in a creative manner for the specific context of the Third
world.”12 What Boff brothers try to explain here is the fact that
there is no incompatibility between the social teaching of the
church and liberation theology.
11
12
Ibid., 32.
Ibid., 37.
Action: Faith is Political
The beginning and end of liberation theology is action. It
starts from the action of commitment, solidarity and conversion
to the reality of oppression and resistance. Then it journeys
through the analysis of the reality and hermeneutical mediation
and finally arrives at specific transformative action. Liberation
theology affirms here that “faith is not only ‘also’ political, but
above all else political.”13 For Boff, this action includes action
for justice, the work of love, conversion, renewal of the church,
and transformation of society.
They also speak about the nature of the action. The
action should be historically viable. In its strategies, it should try
to favor non-violent methods. But as a last resort, physical force
is justifiable. The transformative action also involves cooperation with other like minded groups and movements.
II
Ecological crisis is a universal phenomenon, and today,
the whole creation is facing extinction. There has been a
growing awareness among Christian theologians to address this
issue and develop a new theological discourse and praxis
committed to the realization of a redeemed earth. Latin
American liberation theology has in general neglected this
important issue for a long time. This is true with other Third
world and contextual theologies as well. As a result ecotheology, in general, has become a theology from the Northern
hemisphere reflecting the interests of its social location. Of late,
liberation theology also realized the need to widen its
perspective of reality to hear the cry of the earth and see the
bleeding wounds of the creation. However, in their theological
response to the ecological crisis liberation theologians have been
13
Ibid., 39.
Theology of Life 97
taking a different perspective even in the very perception of the
reality. Leonardo Boff is the prominent among the Latin
American theologians to address this issue and to develop an
eco-theology in the wider framework of liberation theology.
A New Look at Ecology
Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), the first proponent of
ecology defined ecology as “the study of the interdependence
and interaction of living organisms (animals and plants) and
their environment (inanimate matter).”14So even from the very
beginning, ecology has been understood as the interaction and
interrelationship between the members of the earth family.
However it was and it has been just a subsection of natural
science for many. But as Boff rightly puts it, for us the third
world communities, “it represents a global interest, a question of
life and death of humankind and of the whole planetary
system.”15
Why the dominant western ecology and eco-theology are
inadequate to address the present crisis that we face as God’s
creation? Boff responds to this question with a quotation from
Josue de Castro: “Poverty is our main environmental problem.”
The models suggested by the dominant western ecology do not
analyze the interrelationship between the ecological crisis and
the prevailing dominant development paradigm and
consumption patterns. There are environmentalists who believe
that since humans pollute the planet, it is not ecological to have
more human beings. Conservationists believe that the problem
can be solved by, conserving endangered vegetables and animals
in special reserves. “What we have here is a collectively
egotistical and self-interested vision that does not deserve to be
called ecological, above all because it does not include the most
14
Quoted in Leonardo Boff, Ecology and Liberation: A New Paradigm,
Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1995, 9.
15
Ibid., 11&12.
complex and also most responsible of created being, the human
being.”16
For Boff and for third world communities, ecology is
primarily a commitment to life. That means it is a struggle
against all idols of death. The definition of environmental
injustice proposed by Michel Gelobter is relevant here.
“Environmental injustice is a three-dimensional nexus of
economic injustice, social injustice and an unjust incidence of
environmental quality, all of which overwhelmingly assures the
continued oppression of communities of color and low-income
communities on environmental matters.” 17 So the struggles of
the working class, the African Americans, the indigenous
communities, the dalits, the women and the like are not just
struggles for better wages or representation or equality. Rather
they are struggles for a better quality of life, for an alternative
social relationship, which affirm life in its fullness. Hence
ecology for Boff embraces all these diverse negations of death
and affirmations of life.
Critique of the Dominant Development Model
The main culprit of our environmental crisis, according
to Boff, is the dominant model of development. This model is
the product of the myth of progress and unlimited growth. In
order to progress, we need to use all our scientific knowledge to
draw from the earth whatever it has, before the other grabs it.
Differently said, development is a systematic and scientific
assault of the whole creation including the powerless and
vulnerable human beings. In the name of economic growth and
development, working class peoples are oppressed, peripheral
nations are exploited, and nature is plundered. It has generated a
new category of human beings: the environmental refugees.
16
Ibid., 13.
Quoted in Larry Rasmussen, Earth Community, Earth Ethics, Maryknoll:
Orbis Books, 1997, 79.
17
Theology of Life 99
Boff makes a critical analyze of the two economic
models; capitalism and socialism and evaluates how they
legitimate and perpetuate this development model. According to
Boff both capitalism and socialism as products of the logic of
modernity, are based on the common assumption that it is
imperative to grow, expand markets and fill them with goods
and services. But there are differences among them. The major
difference is in the modes of production and the ownership of
the means of production. In socialism the workers are the
subjects. But land and nature are being reduced to the status of
original capital to be plundered and exploited for the collective
benefit of the proletariat. Chernobyl can be a good example for
this approach.
However capitalism has an inherent urge to achieve
unlimited growth irrespective of the means applied.
Commodification of the other is the eternal mantra of capitalism.
Within capitalism nature is nothing but the storehouse of natural
resources, and workers are the human resources to convert the
natural resources to marketable products. Boff calls the capitalist
worldview, mechanical and instrumentalist as it takes away the
autonomy and intrinsic value of all living beings. The major
critique of this model is the fact that it cannot create wealth or
growth without impoverishing vulnerable communities and
exploiting nature.
The fall of socialism and the advent of the present wave
of globalization further strengthened the growth oriented
development paradigm. Through the Structural Adjustment
Program of the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund, the countries in the South are obliged to replace their
traditional food crops with export oriented cash crops. Boff cites
the example of what Ingemar Hedstorm, the Swedish social
ecologist, calls the “hamburgerization” of the forests. 18 They
18
The creation of the McDonalds chain of fast food restaurants in 1955 began
an enormous ecological problem for all of Central America. In order to make
the hamburgers cheaper for North Americans, McDonalds began importing
cheap meat from Central America. The meat exporters cut down trees for
also create deforestation and displacement of indigenous
communities through their financial aid to construct mega dams
and mega projects. As a result the developing nations in their
struggle to service the debt are forced to cut spending on
subsidies and welfare programs for the poor. Boff is even
skeptical about the demand for debt cancellation, as it will not
solve the problem as long as the dominant development
paradigm remains. To conclude,
what is sought is not development in the sense of the
flourishing of human potentialities in their various
dimensions, especially that spiritual dimension proper to
Homo sapiens (demens), ever tied to the global interactions
of human beings with the cosmos or the Earth in its immense
diversity and in its dynamic equilibrium. Only those
potentialities that serve the interests of profits are sought.
Development in this model is merely material and onedimensional—mere growth.19
Critique of Science and Technology
Boff begins his critique of technology with the question,
“is it not an illusion to think that the virus attacking us can be
the principle by which we will be made well?” 20 For Boff,
technology has a crucial role in the devastation of the earth as it
is adopted within a model of development. “State-of-the-art
technologies, those of the third scientific revolution, have
enormously increased production. But the social effect is
perverse: the exclusion of workers on a massive scale, and even
grazing land in order to raise more beef cattle. Between 1960 and 1980 the
export of beef grew 160 percent and the green belt of Central America
decreased from 400,000 square kilometers to 200,000.
See Leonardo Boff, “Social Ecology: Poverty and Misery,” in David Hallman
(ed.), Ecotheology: Voices from South and North, Geneva: WCC Publications,
1994. 247.
19
Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, Op cit., 67.
20
Ibid., 65.
Theology of Life 101
of entire regions of the world, which are of little interest for the
accumulation of capital in a cruelly indifferent mentality.”21
Technology is the historical and social embodiment of
power and domination, the fundamental characteristic of our
civilization. Boff calls our civilization technological because we
use the tool (techno) as our primary way of relating to nature. As
a result the solidarity that unites us with the rest of the creation
is broken.
He further criticizes the technological messianism, which
claims that it is possible to provide everybody their basic human
needs. The problem with this messianism is that its promise of
well being does not respect participatory politics. Human beings,
according to Boff
do not want to be simply creatures helped by the decisions of
others, in a history made by others. They want to share in
decision making and in an history which they themselves
have helped to shape. That is, they want to construct their
own individualities and their collective subjectivity. Only
thus will they feel human and build up their own historical,
ecological, and social humanity.22
Critique of Anthropocentrism
Boff in his eco-theology and ethics differs from his
western fellow eco-theologians through his affirmation that
human beings are the most threatened creatures in the world. So
it is very important to understand his critique of
anthropocentrism as one of the fundamental reasons for the
contemporary ecological crisis.
It is a fact that in contemporary societies human beings
have made themselves the center of the universe. “Everything
must start from them and return to them; everything must be at
21
Leonardo Boff, “Liberation Theology and Ecology,” in Concilium, 1995/5,
London: SCM Press, 74.
22
Ecology and Liberation, Op cit., 127.
their service. They feel like the modern Prometheus, with
enough ingenuity and power to overcome all obstacles standing
in the way of their aims. And their aim is the conquest and
domination of earth.”23
The colonial invasion to conquer lands and peoples for
exploitation was legitimized by claiming authority to do so from
God. Whether it comes in the name of God, enlightenment
rationality, science and technology or even democracy, Boff
states that such a will to worldwide domination is buried in the
collective unconscious of Western culture. “It is always a matter
of dominating and enclosing everyone within the dictates of the
Western paradigm of power and domination, especially those
who are different. It has now transferred the conquest of the
Earth to the conquest of outer space and the stars. It is
profoundly against nature.”24
Boff further exposes anthropocentrism as androcentrism
as man regards woman as a part of nature destined to be
exploited for his desire and needs. Unfortunately human beings
do not understand that taking away and thwarting the power of
others does not make them more secure. It is in this perspective
that Boff calls, “the imperial and anti-ecological anthropology at
work in the contemporary dreams, projects, ideals, institutions,
and values”25 as anthropocentrism. So it is clear that his critique
of anthropocentrism is not a critique of human beings per se;
rather it is a critique of the colonial invading worldview that
governs our social relations today.
Having done this analysis of the current ecological crisis
and also theological and ethical responses to the crisis, let us
now explore how Boff constructs his eco-theology.
Liberation Theology and Ecology
23
Cry of the Earth Cry of the Poor, Op cit., 69.
Ibid., 70.
25
Ibid.
24
Leonardo Boff constructs his eco-theology within the
methodological framework of liberation theology. According to
him the epistemological basis for doing liberation theology are
three fold experiences. 26 (1) The experience of political,
economic, and cultural oppression of one group by another
group. It consists of hunger, misery, war, division between the
North and the South, and the like. (2) The experience of
liberation movements, which strive to do away with the idols of
death and to seek to gestate the emergence of a new humanity
and new social order, and (3) The experience of resistance on
the part of dominated but undefeated groups working in a
regime of captivity and refusing to let the spark of hope flicker
and die.
Boff believes that this epistemological basis is the fertile
soil to grow a third world eco-theology because,
liberation theology and ecological discourse have something
in common: they start from two bleeding wounds. The
wound of poverty breaks the social fabric of millions and
millions of poor people around the world. The other wound,
systematic assault on the Earth, breaks down the balance of
the planet, which is under threat from the plundering of
development as practiced by contemporary global societies.
27
So it is the experience of the woundedness, resistance and the
movements that inform an authentic theological and ethical
response to the ecological crisis. Further such an eco-theology
and ethics is integrally concerned with the bleeding wounds of
the margianlized communities and their journey to life in its
fullness.
Having established the integral connection between the
cry of the earth and the cry of the oppressed, Boff further
26
See Leonardo Boff, Passion of Christ, Passion of the World, Maryknoll:
Orbis Books, 1987, 1&2.
27
Cry of the Earth Cry of the Poor, Op cit., 104.
unveils the features of this alternative eco-theology. Let us now
try to systematically understand the components of his ecotheology within the framework of liberation theology.
1. Seeing
It is a common theme in third world liberation theologies
that commitment and solidarity are the primary acts of doing
theology. It is our solidarity with the wounded creation and our
commitment to heal the wounds and to prevent further
victimization that gives us credibility to engage in the
construction of theology. This experiencing of seeing enables us
to reject the spectacles that we have been using as a
technological civilization for which nature is nothing but “a
supermarket or a self-service restaurant.” This seeing also
envisions us to look at critically the various responses to the
crisis. The very discernment to construct a third world ecotheology and ethics is the consequence of such a seeing. This
seeing enables us to realize that the logic that continues to
exploit the vulnerable communities and subject them to the
economic and political interests of the rich is the same logic that
devastates and rapes the earth. Such a realization will also help
us to see the communities of resistance and the social
movements that are engaged in the struggle against the logic of
death. So this experience of seeing is the seedbed that generates
alternative visions, politics, technology, economics, and even
theology.
2. Judging
As we have already seen, judging consists of two
components; socio-analytical mediation and hermeneutical
mediation. Socio-analytical mediation is the application of
different and relevant social theories to analyze the root causes
of the problem. Hermeneutical mediation involves a journey into
our faith traditions to find meaning and to develop alternative
visions. Boff has done extensive work on both these aspects.
1. Socio-analytical Mediation
Socio-analytical mediation inspired by “seeing” helped
ecology to move beyond a fascination for pristine nature and
conservationism to a radical critique of our social relationships
and our civilization. From the third world point of view the most
helpful analytical tool for an eco-theology according to Boff is
social ecology. Social ecology according to Gudynas is “the
study of human systems in interaction with environmental
systems.” 28 Social ecology affirms the mutual interaction
between nature and human beings and advocates that any
analysis of the crisis should hence be done from the perspective
of this mutual relationship. So the questions that social ecology
raises are
How do human beings appropriate natural resources for
themselves: in solidarity, participatively, or in an elitist
fashion with exclusive technologies? How are these
resources distributed: proportionately in accordance with the
work of each person, equally in response to the basic needs
of all, or in an elitist and exclusive way? What kind of
language do those in power use to justify the unequal
relationships that owners of capital in seeking better work
conditions in urban and rural areas?29
This points to the fact that ecology for the third world
communities is a radical discernment of their dependency and
marginalization. Ecology thus reminds us that ecological
awareness is an in-depth awareness of the socio-economic and
political structures of our society. Hence ecological action is a
radical political action to transform the way our society is
28
29
“Social Ecology: Poverty and Misery,” Op cit., 239.
Ibid.
organized. This awareness will motivate us to denounce the
capitalist growth model. As Kenneth E. Boulding puts it, the
choice is between the “cowboy economy” of capitalism and the
“spaceship earth economy.” Cowboy economy is based on the
assumption of unlimited resources and imperial worldview. On
the other hand, the spaceship model believes that the survival of
the passengers and the vehicle depends upon the carrying
capacity of the vehicle and the needs of the passengers. Gustavo
Gutierrez further develops this image of spaceship from the
Third world perspective. He reminds us that in this space ship,
all the passengers are not traveling in the same class.
There are those who travel first class, with wonderful food,
ballrooms and swimming pools; and there are those who
make the crossing in third class, in not in the hold. No one
can escape the task of avoiding the destruction of our
environment, but we in this continent should be particularly
attentive to the situation facing the weakest in humanity. We
must avoid, becoming the rubbish tip of the industrialized
countries.30
Eco-feminism is yet another analytical tool that can inform and
envision our commitment to heal the planet and humanity. Like
social ecology eco-feminism also exposes how the domination
of women by patriarchy, and the domination of nature are
interrelated. However Boff gives emphasis to the essentialist
strand of eco-feminism which is based on the feminine nature of
life giving and caring.
2. Hermeneutical Mediation
Hermeneutical mediation as has already been explained
is an attempt to draw from the faith traditions to understand the
crisis and to get envisioned for creating a redeemed earth.
30
Gustavo Gutierrez, “The Task and Content of Liberation Theology,” Op
cit,.35.
According to Boff Liberation theology was born of a twofold
experience; political and theological. The political perspective
affirmed the poor as a social and epistemological locus and
developed not only a social critique but also a social praxis that
would make the dreams of the victims a historical reality. Boff
states that theology, the second experience, occurred to deepen
the first. The base Christian communities realized that “the best
way to interpret the pages of scripture was to compare with the
pages of life.”31 Such a reading revealed to them that God is the
giver of life and the one who inspires the victims to organize
and struggle against the idols of death. So Boff strongly believes
that the theological debate about liberation theology is irrelevant
as it only serves to hide the actual debate, which is political. “If
we do not take the side of the wretched of the earth, we become
enemies of our very humanity. By losing the poor, we also lose
God and Jesus Christ, who chose the side of the poor. Then we
are without any historical relevance.”32
This understanding of theology as the second experience
is relevant for a third world eco-theology as the issue is
primarily political. For us today the epistemological locus is the
wounded earth and the wounded humanity. Our reading of the
scripture from these bleeding points of our time will enable us to
see the divine who motivates us to strive for a redeemed earth
and humanity.
The theological anthropology of Boff and liberation
theology is crucial for developing a third world eco-theology
and ethics. Two issues are important here. First of all, how he
understands the place of human beings in creation in the light of
his critique of anthropocentrism. Secondly, how he interprets the
agency of the oppressed in the redemptive process.
Even though the whole creation is unique, according to
Boff, this uniqueness is twofold in human beings; the human
being is unique and consciously knows that he or she is unique.
Boff explains this uniqueness of human beings in the context of
31
32
Ibid. 100.
his discussion of ethics. For him human beings are ethical
beings. Here ethics means. “an unlimited responsibility for
everything that exists and lives.” 33 Human beings are
distinguished from the rest of the creation not by biological
superiority but by the character of human beings as moral
entities. However, the dominant ethics of our times is
anthropocentric which legitimizes the commodification of the
other for our selfish ends. But an ecocentric ethics affirms,
respects and celebrates life. So the human being is the sole
creature in creation conceived and conceiving itself as an ethical
being.
Only human beings can make assess the pros and cons…
Only human beings can make sacrifices for the other, out of
love; only human beings can, like the Samaritan in the Bible,
stoop to aid the weaker party, protecting, supporting,
renouncing, and compensating the other. But human beings
can also break, destroy, and endanger the whole planetary
system. Human beings become an ethical subject in that they
can become a subject of history, fulfilling or failing it, for
only humankind can produce tragic or fortunate results. The
destiny of the whole earth system can depend on the ethical
choice made by humanity.34
So while Boff denounces anthropocentrism, which is the product
of the imperial growth model, he affirms the agency of human
beings as ethical beings in bringing about healing to the
wounded humanity and the wounded earth.
After affirming human beings as ethical beings who are
the agents of the redeemed earth, Boff further draws from
Liberation theology to make that statement more specific. Who
are the bearers of a new hope? For him the world’s poor are
condemned to be the soil of a new hope in history.
33
34
Ibid. 29.
Ibid. 31.
Through imagination, society and the oppressed dare to
transcend their prison and envision a world different from
this perverse one that denies them participation and life. This
imagination belongs to those who hunger, to the sick, to
those tied down by a thousand chains. This imagination has
its own historical agent, the sum total of those who make up
the universe of the two-thirds of humanity who are
marginalized and socially deprived.35
3. Transforming Action
Boff considers this stage as the most important stage as
everything has to fulfill in this. Though Christian faith has a
special commitment to radical social transformation, it is not the
monopoly of Christian faith. Transforming action is the
realization of a paradigm shift. It is the dawn of an alternative
politics and social relations.
It is Thomas Kuhn who interpreted the meaning of the term
paradigm as the beliefs, techniques and values shared by the
members of a community which establish the basis for a
disciplined system by which a given society orients itself and
organizes the whole of its relationships. So transforming action
means a radical shift in the instrumentalist and mechanistic
paradigm. Let us now try to understand the features of the
alternative paradigm that Boff proposes which is ecological and
life affirming.
The fundamental problem that social ecology and ecofeminism identifies with the dominant paradigm is the inherent
dualism, which divides reality into two poles: one to be
dominated by the other. So the new paradigm is a bold refusal
“to reduce Earth to an assortment of natural resources or to a
physical and chemical reservoir of raw materials. It has its own
identity and autonomy as an extremely dynamic and complex
organism.”36It is a negation of the instrumental reason and an
35
36
Ibid. 104.
affirmation that to know is to enter into communion with the
other. It is a search for a redeemed science and technology. So
the alternative vision and paradigm perceives science and
technology as part of the process of redemption, construction
and expansion of life and freedom, beginning with those whose
life and freedom are threatened.
What is the alternative in economics and politics? Boff
begs to differ with Pope John Paul II’s statement that the
alternative to capitalism in the third world should not be sought
in socialism but in an “improved form of capitalism.”
Capitalism in the contemporary world, as we have already seen,
reduces everything into commodity to maximize profit. For
capitalism, religion, spirituality, rice, beans and even our bodies
are nothing but commodities. So the alternative vision is not the
globalization of market and profit mechanisms. Rather we need
to globalize alternative values such as solidarity, equality, and
respect for diversity. It calls for a new economic order, a new
concept of ownership, and different social and ecological
relationships. The purpose of ecological economics is to
integrate the economy of human beings with the economy of
earth. It is in this context that Boff reaffirms socialism and
Marxism. “Marxism, enriched by cultural, ecological, and
feminist analysis, is still an instrument in the hands of the
oppressed for overturning the mechanisms that produce their
poverty.”37
Based on the vision of social ecology, Boff proposes
social democracy as the alternative political vision as it upholds
participation, equality, differences, solidarity and communion.
Again from the third world point of view he affirms the
relevance of socialism as socialist aspirations are rooted in our
vision for a different world. So he argues that “stripped of
hegemonic power and purified from the vices of its historical
embodiment, democratic socialism will surely find its place in
the peripheral and oppressed nations of the third and fourth
37
worlds.”38 Going further, Boff proposes what he calls a cosmic
ecologico-social democracy, which respects the rest of creation
as citizens with rights, and as co-citizens of the same planet, we
can build together a redeemed world.
Boff believes that the indigenous communities and the
ecological movements are the foretaste of the alternative social
and ecological relations that we envision today. The indigenous
communities, according to Boff “are the assurance of a still
possible human race, one that would be kinder and charged with
sacramentality and with the reverence that we so much need.”39
Their ancestral wisdom emerges from their age-old communion
with nature and hence it is ecological and life affirming. Their
animism and mystique of nature enables us to understand that
Divine is in all, and all is in Divine.
The ecological movements all over the world are
engaged in a transformative action to do away with the life
denying development model. Drawing from the movements in
the Amazon, Boff states that the alternative for development is
not sustainable development as the western ecologists advocate.
Rather than making development sustainable, we need to begin
from the sustainability of nature to create alternative to the
straight jacket of such development. So it is not development
that we strive for. But it is society, community, and life in its
fullness. Chico Mendes who was murdered on a Christmas eve
for his prophetic stance to protect Amazon and its communities,
realized the close connection between ecological violence and
social violence as they both stem from the same logic. In
opposition to the western ecological notion to turn Amazon into
an untouchable sanctuary, Mendes proposed the model of
extractive reserves, which ensures the co-existence of both
nature and communities. To put it in his words, “in extractive
reserves, we ourselves are going to sell and manufacture the
products that the forest generously grant us. It is the only way to
keep the Amazon from disappearing. Furthermore, this reserve
38
39
Ibid. 100.
is not going to have owners. It is going to be the shared property
of the community. We will have use but not ownership.”40
4. Celebration
Celebration is the stage in which we realize that our
transformative action is the anticipatory signs of the reign of
God. It is “the advent of divine redemption mediated through
historical-social liberations, the moment when the utopia of
integral liberation is anticipated under fragile signs, symbols and
rites.”41 The Franciscan in Boff blossoms here as he draws from
mysticism and the praxis of St. Francis of Assisi to develop an
alternative model. The paradigm, which St. Francis validated
through his life, was to become a fool to the existing dominant
systems of power. Boff also speaks about eco-spirituality. It is
an option for life. That means it is a confrontation of the logic of
death and celebration of life.
III
We have been trying to understand the methodology of
Liberation theology, and the features and components of an ecotheology developed on the basis of that methodological
framework. We can call this progression in Liberation theology
and all third world theologies a journey from a theology of
liberation to a theology of life. Let us now critically examine the
salient features of this recycling of Liberation theology into a
theology of life.
As we have already seen, Leonardo Boff develops his
eco-theology in the same methodological framework of
Liberation theology. However one can identify a host of detours
that he takes to respond to the crisis of the earth theologically
within the wider project of Liberation theology. Let us try to
evaluate them.
40
41
Ibid., 102.
Ibid., 110.
Leonardo Boff is known for his Christology. As a
Franciscan he finds God in Jesus’ humanity. He believes that we
find the face of God in Jesus’ face; the face of a lowly sufferer,
tortured, smeared with blood, and crowned with thorns. Why is
Jesus important for Liberation theology? “Jesus does not present
himself as the explanation of reality. He presents himself as an
urgent demand for the transformation of that reality. It is in this
sense, that he constitutes its definitive explanation.”42 His notion
of cosmic Christ is also important for Liberation theology. It has
two fold meanings. As a sibling of Jesus every person
participates in his reality. Secondly, rejection of the brother or
sister is rejection of God. So Boff concludes,
Wherever people seek the good, justice, humanitarian love,
solidarity, communion and understanding between people,
wherever they dedicate themselves to overcoming their own
egoism, making this world more human and fraternal, and
opening themselves to the normative Transcendent for their
lives, there we can say, with all certainty, that the resurrected
one is present, because the cause for which he lived, suffered,
was tried and executed is being carried forward.43
However in his eco-theology, we do not find a
Christological foundation. Rather he is stretching his concept of
cosmic Christ, drawing from Teilhard de Chardin to “transcend
the anthropocentrism that is common in Christologies, for Christ
has divinized and liberated not only human beings but all beings
in the universe.” 44 Here he speaks about the Christic element
which was part of evolution and became Christological and
contained in consciousness. So this Christic nature of the
universe is the basis of our hope for the future of the cosmos.
42
Leonardo Boff, Jesus Christ Liberator: A Critical Christology for our Time,
Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1978, 279.
43
Ibid., 219.
44
The major criticism of eco-theology to all other
theologies including Liberation theology is the danger of
anthropocentrism which blinds the perception of the non-human
reality as a theological locus. Even though Boff calls for
enlarging the concept of poor, his exclusive dependence on the
Marxist social analysis compels him to interpret other forms of
oppression as conditioned by class conflict. Differently said, this
position believes that class struggle can bring in transformation
to gender, race and ethnic oppression as well. History has
proved that this is a reductionist approach and we need to
confront the multiple forms of oppression and alienation
separately but in solidarity.
The shift in Boff’s theology reflects a shift in his
anthropology also. However he does not subscribe to the
dominant eco-theological rejection of anthropocentrism. For
Boff human beings still have a unique place among the whole
creation. It is not one of supremacy or of privileges or rights.
Rather it is the affirmation that human beings are moral entities
with the ability and responsibility to transform and redeem the
earth and its inhabitants. Further his analysis of the problem of
evil as a problem for ethics, explains both the recognition of the
multiplicity of forces of evil and decay and also the ethical
imperative for human beings to radically challenge these forces
of evil. So the shift in Boff’s theology enables Liberation
theology to see the multiple forces of alienation and oppression
as inter related but not necessarily based on the base
superstructure relationship. Secondly, the new understanding of
evil as a problem beyond theodicy provides a new theological
meaning to our praxis to eradicate the forces of evil and to strive
for the realization of the utopia.
It is also important to note how he differs from his North
American colleagues in interpreting anthropocentrism as a
problem. The dominant eco-theology tends to find human beings
per se as the problem and advocates population control as the
major strategy for the ecological crisis. Boff on the other hand
defines anthropocentrism as the imperial and anti-ecological
worldview of the contemporary dreams, institutions, projects
and values. In other words, many of the western environmental
projects and discourses can be anthropocentric as they operate
within the logic of imperialism and globalization. This insight is
very profound for developing a Third world theological and
ethical discourse on ecological crisis.
Another problem with Liberation theology as articulated
by Boff is its tendency to be a theology for the poor. The pretheological moment of commitment and solidarity indicates that
the authors of theology are not the poor themselves; but those
who “have come down” to do theology for them. Boff’s
classification of three levels of Liberation theology as
professional, pastoral, and popular may refute this argument.
However of late, Boff himself has become critical about this
problem as he observes, “I would criticize Liberation theology
for not yet listening sufficiently to the poor. Our theology is for
the poor, not of the poor. Nor is it a theology directed towards
the poor! We still use the discourse of the First World European
theologians.”45
The widening of the perception of reality to include all
forms of oppression and marginalization makes it a theology of
life and it becomes imperative for all humanity to become part
of it, as everybody is facing extinction. So at the first level, it is
more than a concern for those who are out there; but it is an
existential crisis for all. At the same time, it does not mean that
Boff is trying to make theology universal. Through his analysis
of the environmental crisis as a crisis of our civilization,
development model, economics, politics and governance,
religiosity and spirituality, Boff is enabling us to understand the
political edge of the crisis. Here we are not doing theology for
the poor or the people in the Third world. We are doing theology
for us the living beings who negate all manifestations of idols of
death and promote, sustain and celebrate life. The
epistemological mediation for this theology is the poor, the
45
Mev Puleo, The Struggle is One: Voices and Visions of Liberation, Albany,
SUNY Press, 1994, 171.
blacks, the indigenous, the women and all the oppressed who are
condemned to death before their time.
The commonality between Liberation theology and the
theology of life is the place of social theory in their
methodology. However in the classical Liberation theology,
Marxism is tend to be the only canonical social theory. The
theology of life has rooms for different social theories. They
include social ecology, eco-feminism and of course Marxism.
This provides theology of life to have a comprehensive and
holistic understanding of the reality and its causes.
In Liberation theology though we see the call for
revolution and radical transformation, we hardly see any model
or project of governance. But in the eco-theology, Boff proposes
a passionate appeal for democratic socialism as a form of
governance to thwart not only the forces of globalization and
oppression, but also the invasion on individual rights, freedom
of expression and dissent.
As we have already seen in the first two sections,
Liberation theology lacks the moment of celebration in its
classical form; whereas theology of life, gives prominence to
celebration. This deficiency was identified by many liberation
theologians and started incorporating celebration into the
method of doing theology.
Boff in his eco-theology, makes celebration a moment.
We meet the Franciscan in Boff again here. Mysticism thus
becomes an important component in the methodology of his
eco-theology. “A new paradigm is validated only when it
becomes living truth in the life stories of those who began to
usher in a new consciousness and a new alternative practice.”46
For him mysticism is not romanticizing nature. In romanticism
the self remains its universe; whereas in mysticism the self
becomes kin with the universe, and glorifies the Creator together
with the whole creation. Thus mysticism becomes a source of
46
inspiration for engaging in the struggle for the redemption of the
universe.
Secondly, Boff speaks about the potential of the culture
of the indigenous communities. He particularly mentions their
celebration and dance. The celebration and dance are meant to
create the conditions for experiencing the Divine reality. So it is
a foretaste of the future vision of the redeemed universe, and
therefore it has the potential to germinate the process towards
the realization of that vision.
To conclude, the attempt to problematize the ecological
crisis enabled Liberation theology to become a theology of life,
which starts from the bleeding wounds of the victims and the
earth. This has not only exposed the reductionism of Liberation
theology but also widened its perspective to do justice to the
victims of various forms of alienation and oppression. Such a
problematization provided us a unique third world theological
perspective on ecological crisis and other issues of threat to life.
Let me conclude this paper with a poetic articulation of this
theology of life from an EATWOT statement.47
Cry, cry, cry for life
For the living, for the dead
For the desert, for the sea
Poisoned fish, birds with broken wings
Poets with no words
Singers without a song.
For the little children, fighting in the streets
Playing with toys, guns and grenades
For Afro-Amerindian mothers, weeping out of sorrow
Wondering about their children’s future.
47
K.C.Abraham & Bernadette Mbuy-Beya (eds.), Spirituality of the Third
World, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994, 188-189.
For South Africans, robbed of motherland
Fighting apartheid, denied of liberty
For Korean people, ridden with han
Yearning to be united, for half a century.
For natives in Americas, guardians of wisdom
Staring at the sun, not allowed to dance
For Jamaican youths, captives in Babylon
Wanting to return, but no promised land.
For the Indian Dalits, outcasts in their own land
From day to day, burying hundreds who die
For the refugees, exiled in diaspora
On the willow tree, hanging their harps and sigh.
For the peasants who produce our food
But go bed with empty stomachs
For workers who keep the wheel turning
But carry heavy burdens on their backs.
For the courage, for the hope
For the forest, for the stream
Bodies may die, spirit never dies
In our struggle, we burst in songs
As a new day dawns, we will shout in joy.
.
June 2007, pp. 119-146
Towards a Biblical Understanding of
Ecology: Re-reading the Agricultural
Parables of Jesus
V. J. John1
Introduction
What does the Bible teach about ecology? Has the Bible
anything to say about ecology and environment? How relevant
are the biblical understanding of nature and environment in an
age of ecological crisis? There are no easy answers to such
questions. Yet the biblical understanding of ecology, if there is
any, is very important for those who accept the Bible as the
source of their faith experience. While it is not easy to attempt
an overarching view of the Bible on ecology2, one fruitful area
of investigation could be the agricultural parables of Jesus as
represented in the synoptic Gospels.3 The central theme of the
1
Dr. V. J. John teaches New Testament at Bishop’s College, Kolkata and the
North India Institute of Postgraduate Theological Studies (NIIPGTS), West
Bengal, India.
2
See H.P. Santmire, The Travail of Nature: The Ambiguous Ecological
Promise of Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).
ministry of Jesus, as the Gospels portray, concerns the rule of
God. The parables mediate to the audience of Jesus, this
experience of the divine rule4 as strongly emerge in the images
and stories of the parables which Mark terms “the mystery of the
Kingdom of God” (Mk. 4:11). The agricultural parables in Mark
are introduced with the words, “The Kingdom of God is
like . . .” as in the case of the Seed Growing on its Own, the
Mustard Seed, and the Leaven, 5 while other parables use the
idea without explicit reference to the term.
The in-breaking of the rule of God is articulated in the
parables of Jesus by means of imageries that relate to kingship,
family life, relationships in society, and analogies drawn from
nature. While those images that relate to human experiences in
the domestic, economic and social spheres have been found
prominence, Jesus’ use of agricultural imageries6 and analogies
derived from nature or divine action in nature have not received
adequate attention. 7 This too, despite divine interaction with
humanity taking place in the context of creation, as Amos
Wilder has observed, “[In the parables], it is not only human life
that is observed but nature as well, or man in nature.”8 The use
of nature images in the agricultural parables of Jesus is a clear
indication of the role nature assumes in the parabolic discourse.
The alliance between nature images and the divine rule
underscores the need to look afresh at the agricultural parables
of Jesus in the context of the ecological crisis. The most
3
V.J. John, “Ecology in the Parables: The Use of Nature Language in the
Parables of the Synoptic Gospels”, Asia Journal of Theology 14:2 (October
2000), pp. 305ff.
4
C. H. Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom (London: Nisbet, 1935), pp. 32-33.
5
Cf. Dodd, Parables: p. 82f.; J. Fuellenbach, The Kingdom of God: The
Message of Jesus Today (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1995), pp. 70-71.
6
P. B. Thompson, The Spirit of the Soil: Agricultural and Ecumenical Ethics
(London and New York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 3, 5.
7
P. Perkins, Hearing the Parables of Jesus (New York/Ramsey, N.J.: Paulist
Press, 1981), pp. 2, 16.
8
A. Wilder, Early Christian Rhetoric: The Language of the Gospel (London:
SCM, 1964), p. 82.
Biblical Understanding of Ecology 121
prominent among them in the Markan portrayal are: the Parable
of the Soil (Mk. 4:1-9), the Parable of the Self-Producing Earth
(Mk. 4: 26-29) and the Parable of the Transforming Earth (Mk.
4: 30-32). The relationship of these agricultural parables to
ecology can be noted at least in three areas, namely, the social
location of Jesus from where his parables originates, the process
of nature in the message of the parables and the ecological
vision of the rule of God.
1.
The Social Location of the Agricultural Parables
The agricultural parables of Jesus have nature as their
focus. Most of these parables appear in the gospel of Mark, 9
acknowledged as the closest to a rural setting among the
Gospels. In the words of G. Theissen, “ . . . all the parables in
Mark come from the agrarian world and deal with sowing and
reaping, harvests and vineyards, [in which] we find ourselves in
a deeply rural milieu.” 10 The “simplicity and spontaneity” of
Jesus’ parables when compared to the Jewish parables, together
with their Palestinian origin, seem to reinforce the general
agreement that the underlying basis of the parables belongs to
those words of Jesus which have been “transmitted with great
fidelity.” 11 The Markan author, who remained closer to the
original intention of Jesus12 in conveying his message, himself
9
V.J. John, “Ecology in the Parables”, pp. 305ff.
G. Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the
Synoptic Tradition, trans. by L. M. Malony (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1991), p. 238.
11
N. Dahl, “The Parables of Growth,” Studia Theologica 5 (1951), p. 134.
12
The narrator takes us to a variety of special locations. “Some of these
suggest the rural terrain of Galilee—sea and sea-shore, mountain, desert
place and fields, whereas others reflect various forms of social grouping—
synagogue, house, village, boat. As the narrative progresses, various patterns
begin to emerge in relation to the different locales. The desert is the place of
quiet refreshment and prayer (1:35; 6:31); the mountain too is a place of quiet
(6:46), but also of election and disclosure (3:13; 9:2). It is along the seashore that the crowd usually assembles (2:13; 3:7; 4:1; 5:21; 6:34, 45, 55),
but it can appear elsewhere also: around the house (1:33; 2:2,15; 5:24) or in a
desert place (6:31). S. Freyne, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary
10
hailed from a rural setting and ministered to a predominantly
peasant audience.13 Recent studies on the history and sociology
of Galilee14 have thrown interesting light on the possible social
and mental horizon of Jesus of Nazareth. The agricultural
parables of Mark, therefore, provide us with a definite window
to the life of Jesus and his attitude towards nature.
a.
Rural Setting of Jesus
The Gospels portray that Jesus was born into a poor
artisan family in the village of Bethlehem and grew up at
Nazareth in Galilee (Mt. 13: 54; Lk. 2:4, 51). He is called a
carpenter or son of a carpenter (Mt. 13: 55-56). The account of
the rejection of Jesus at Nazareth records that people took
offence at him with the question: “Is not this the carpenter, the
son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and
Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mk. 6:3). Perhaps
it is a hint at the lower social origin of Jesus. 15 The two
dominant perspectives regarding the social context of Jesus are
the view that Jesus was an artisan-carpenter and that he was a
small village carpenter. According to the former, Jesus was not
confined to the little insignificant village of Nazareth but
traveled around Sepphoris practicing his trade, and in the
process coming in contact with the Hellenistic culture towards
Approaches and Historical Investigations (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), p.
62.
13
J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish
Peasant (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991). A more popular version is Jesus, A
Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994).
14
See G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (St.
James’s Place: Collins, 1973); R. A. Horsley, Archaeology, History, and
Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge,
Pa: Trinity Press International, 1996).
15
R. MacMullen, Roman Social Relations: 50 B. C. to A. D. 384 (New Haven,
CT; London: Yale University Press, 1974), 107-8; Cited by Crossan, The
Historical Jesus, 29; See also G. E. Lenski, Power and Privilege: A Theory
of Social Stratification (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966), pp. 276-77.
which he himself was sympathetic unlike the village folks.16 In
the later view Jesus was seen as a simple village carpenterfarmer who made a living by combining village carpentry with
agricultural work either on his family’s little plot of land or on
others’ land.17
The investigation of the socio-historical setting of Jesus
by recent scholarship 18 has increasingly recognized his rural
peasant upbringing in Nazareth, practicing the trade of a
carpenter.19 There have been attempts to study the history and
use of the term  for a better grasp of its association with
Jesus. According to Freyne,  “certainly is not an
indication of a socially deprived condition, but suggests rather,
in purely socio-economic terms, a degree of mobility and
status.” 20 Basing on the concept of craft specialization by
villages during the time of Jesus, Nazareth was considered to be
concentrating in carpentry.21 McCown’s study of  in the
16
See for instance Crossan, The Historical Jesus.
Cf. L. Legrand, “The Parables of Jesus Viewed from the Dekkan Platteau ”,
Indian Theological Studies 23, No. 2 (June 1986), pp. 154ff.
18
Crossan, The Historical Jesus (1991); R. A. Horsley & J. S. Hanson,
Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus
(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985); R. A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of
Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1987). For a discussion of the current scholarly thinking on
the historical Jesus See S. McKnight “Who is Jesus? An Introduction to
Jesus Studies,” in Jesus Under Prophets, and Messiahs, M. J. Wilkins and J.
P. Moreland, gen. eds., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1985), 51-72.
19
According to R. MacMullen, the artisan included both the weaver of wool
(eriourgos) and linen (linourgos) as well as the carpenter (tekton). Jesus
belonged to the latter (Mk. 6:3 cf. Mt. 13: 55). See MacMullen, Roman
Social Relations, 107-8. Cited by Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 29.
20
Freyne, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels, 241.
21
J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times and Teaching, trans. H.
Danby (New York: Macmillan, 1925), 178 n. 29: Based on Halevy’s
Shemoth ‘Are Eretz Yisrael in Yerushalayim,’ ed. Luncz, 4: 11-20 as cited by
D. Oakman, Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day, Studies in Bible
17
Graeco-Roman world has further strengthened the view that
they were mostly workers in wood than in metal or stone. 22
Jesus, it has been suggested, may have worked in Sepphoris, a
Hellenistic city close to Nazareth, and plied the trade in places
like Tiberias.23
Employing a methodology that takes seriously social
anthropology, Greco-Roman history and literature that concern
the sayings and doings of Jesus, Crossan arrived at the
conclusion that Jesus was a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant who
worked “among the farms and villages of Lower Galilee”.24 As a
peasant Jewish Cynic, Jesus’ strategy,” claims Crossan,
“implicitly for himself and explicitly for his followers, was the
combination of free healing and common eating, a religious and
economic egalitarianism that negated alike and at once the
hierarchical and patronal normalcies of Jewish religion and
Roman power.” 25 The Greco-Roman Cynics, however
“concentrated primarily on the marketplace rather than the farm,
on the city dweller rather than the peasant.” 26
Viewing Jesus as a country peasant who combined
marginal farming with village carpentry, Legrand suggests that
Jesus’ work must have been in building houses which involved
very little wood work since house construction those days was
and Early Christianity, Vol. 8 (Lewiston/Queenston: The Edwin Mellen Press,
1986), p. 178.
22
Oakman, Economic Questions, 180.
23
S. J. Case, Jesus: A New Biography (University of Chicago, 1927), p. 205.
See Oakman, Jesus and the Economic Questions, pp. 180-81.
24
Crossan, The Historical Jesus, pp. xxviii-xxix.
25
Ibid., pp. 421-22.
26
For a critic of Crossan’s presentation of Jesus as a social revolutionary and
a discussion of other views including Jesus as a sage and a religious genius
see S. McKnight, “Who is Jesus? An introduction to Jesus Studies,” in Jesus
Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus M. J.
Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, gen. eds., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1995), pp. 52-72.
little dependent on wood.27 Therefore, additional farm work was
inevitable for the sake of subsistence. Oakman echoes similar
view when he says,
It cannot be doubted, even if it is granted that Nazareth
specialized in carpentry, that most of the residents of the
village occupied themselves regularly with subsistence
agriculture. Jesus came from peasant stock and without
question was socialized early to the routines of
farming.28
However, basing on Josephus (AJ 18.35f.), Oakman
argues for a dual role for Jesus that included the role of a village
farmer and of a travelling tradesman. The accounts in the
Gospels which pictures Jesus on constant travel, according to
him, arose from the practise of plying the trade of a carpenter
and the work opportunity provided by the massive building
projects undertaken by the Herods.29 The occasion also helped
him establish contact with various groups of people, many of
those, for whom, he had later acted as a broker. 30 Citing
evidence from Xenophon, Finley points out that the rural
carpenter despite being involved in diversification of the
carpentry could still not find adequate work to meet the
sustenance needs of the family and many supplemented the
income by working as a farm hand besides practicing a craft.31
b.
Agrarian Context of the Parables of Jesus
The occupation of Jesus probably combined
predominantly that of marginal farming and carpentry when free
27
Legrand, “The Parables of Jesus,” p. 166.
Oakman, Economic Questions, p. 179.
29
Oakman, Economic Questions, pp. 180-81. Cf. also Horsley, Archaeology,
History and Society in Galilee, p. 181.
30
Oakman, Economic Questions, pp. 192, 194f.
31
Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, 8.2.5 cited by M. I. Finley, The Ancient Economy
(London: The Hogarth Press, 1985), p. 135. Cf. Legrand, “The Parables of
Jesus,” pp. 166-67.
28
from the farm land. He was skilled in both, as were many of his
contemporaries. 32 This view is further strengthened by Jesus’
warning to his would-be followers, “No one who puts a hand to
the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God” (Lk.
9:62). 33 Jesus’ competence on the dual job is evident in his
invitation to the weary and the heavily burdened, “Take my yoke
upon you, and learn from me . . . . For my yoke is easy and
burden is light” (Mt. 11:28-30). Plow and yoke were primary
implements prepared by a carpenter for the use of the farming
community and the peasants constantly required the use of these
two for their agricultural activities.
The view that Jesus was a village farmer who also has
practiced part-time carpentry in his native village and immediate
surroundings as corroborated by the parabolic emphases has
been confirmed by archaeological discoveries. 34 Recent
explorations have revealed that Nazareth was a small
agricultural village that came into being in the 3rd century
BCE.35 Settlements in Nazareth were mostly found right at the
top, whereas in the nearby “three northern spurs” they were to
be found largely “on the slopes, lower ridges, and just off the
basins.”36 The reason is attributed to the availability of adequate
soil coverage and water systems that make agriculture possible
even at the hilltop.37 Archaeological digs by Bagatti has shown
that the artifacts recovered under the shrines of Nazareth, among
32
L. Turkowski, “Peasant Agriculture in the Judaean Hills,” Palestinian
Exploration Quarterly 100 (1968), p. 30; 101 (1969), p. 103.
33
Discusses the authenticity of the saying and Jesus’ use of it with relation to
the Kingdom. See M. G. Steinhauser, “Putting One’s Hand the Plow: The
Authenticity of Q 9:61-62,” Forum 5, No. 2 (June 1989), 156.
34
V. J. John, ”Ecology in the Parables”, pp. 323.
35
J. F. Strance, “Nazareth,” in Abingdon Bible Dictionary, Vol. 4, pp. 105051
36
D. H. K. Amiram, ‘Sites and Settlements in the Mountains of Lower
Galilee’, Israel Exploration Journal 21 (1971), pp. 136-140.
37
S. Freyne, Galilee From Alexander the Great to Hardian 323 BCE to 135
CE. A Study of Second Temple Judaism (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael
Glazier; Notre Dame University: University Press, 1980), p. 11.
others, include silos, olive-pressing and wine-pressing
installations, cisterns, and holes for storage jars, some of which
coming from a period as early as the Iron Age. 38 This led
Meyers and Strange to conclude that Nazareth was a peasant
village since “the principal activity of these villagers was
agriculture.” 39 Stressing the peasant background of Jesus and
acknowledging the role of the rural setting and artistic skill in
molding his thought, Legrand observes, “the type of imagination
revealed by the parables is more that of a farmer than that of an
artisan.” 40 Horsley considers, “What is distinctive about the
Gospel tradition’s representation of Jesus’ teaching is not an
itinerant radical individualism, but the renewal or revitalization
of local community…”41 as one who shared the experiences of
the rural agrarian community.
Apart from Jesus’ own engagement in farming, his
extensive travels in the countryside and involvement with the
deprived people of society who earned a living from the
bounties of nature, made it possible for him to observe from
close quarters the role of nature in agricultural activities. They
thus came naturally to him to be used as metaphors in his
parables proclaiming the rule of God, to an audience
predominantly consisting of peasants and others who belonged
to the deprived and alienated social groups.42 Their experience
in life, derived from the struggles on a marginal farmland with
38
B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, vol. 1, From the Beginning till the XII
Century (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing House, 1969), pp. 27, 35, 52-59.
39
E. M. Meyers and James F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early
Christianity: The Social and Historical Setting of Palestinian Judaism and
Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1981), 56 cited by Crossan, The
Historical Jesus, p. 16.
40
41
R. A. Horsley, Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee: The Social
Context of Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press
International, 1996), pp. 179-81.
42
Other than peasants, those whom Jesus ministered from the lower strata of
society included: sinners (Mk. 2:15), prostitutes (Lk. 7:37; Mt. 21:32), the
sick (Mk. 1:40; 2:3), the widows. See Nazareth—Hoffnung der Armen 2 Aufl.
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1981), pp. 24-30.
its pathos and joy, they shared in common. The agricultural
images, therefore, became meaningful to an audience who were
in constant relationship with nature in their daily activities on
the farm, with its variegated experiences. It brings to their
perception in down-to-earth fashion the close connection
between the work of nature and divine activity. Hence Jesus
chose the cycle of experiences of an agrarian season as the
subject matter of his parables with a view to communicating the
divine truth to an illiterate, but intelligent peasant audience. This
led Legrand to rightly observe “A better perception of the rural
background of the parables of Jesus helps better to appreciate
the roots of Jesus in Galilean village life and his originality as a
symbol maker.”43
2. The Process of Nature in the Agricultural Parables
Human life has been sustained through the past several
centuries by land cultivation. Ever since humans discovered the
use of tools, agriculture became part of their life. The
agricultural activity brings a person in constant relationship with
nature unlike any other human engagement. The effect of the
human on landmass is felt as one engages in raising crops and
grazing animals. 44 Jesus’ encounter with farm life in an
oppressive social setting becomes the basis of his articulation of
the divine through the agricultural parables. The parables of the
Soil (Mk. 4:1-9), the Self-Producing Earth (Mk. 4: 26-29) and
the Transforming Earth (Mk. 4: 30-32) lay stress on two aspects
of the natural process in the agricultural activity, namely, the
process of agriculture as an ecological activity of divine
providence that calls for human co-operation with the role of
nature and that it works in tandem with the ecological process
reversing human experiences that adversely affect the orderly
function of nature.
43
P. B. Thompson, The Spirit of the Soil, p. 1.
44
a.
Agricultural Process as an Ecological Activity
Looking at the process of agriculture as an ecological activity of
divine providence stems from our understanding that farming
was an integral part of the ancient life. It was through the
practice of agricultural activities that humans learned to relate to
fellow-beings and nature and to order the course of their life. It
is both an essential activity and one that has great effect on
everything else. This meant viewing nature as having life and
humanity as being related to it. Despite agriculture’s harmful
impact on environmental quality, “farming remains a prime
source of metaphors for the correct relationship between humans
and the wider natural world.”45 Therefore, agricultural activities
are both important and serious and require careful human
engagement. In Schumacher’s view, goals of agriculture should
be directed
. . . to keep [hu]man in touch with living nature, of
which [s/]he is and remains a highly vulnerable part; to
humanize and ennoble [hu]man’s wider habitat; and to
bring forth the foodstuffs and other materials which are
needed for a becoming life.46
Yet over against human activity, the role of nature stands out as
the focus of the agricultural parables of Jesus.
The experience of the peasant cultivator was one of hard
work on her/his marginal farmland as evident in the Parable of
the Soil (Mk. 4: 1-9). Besides having to overcome the vagaries
of nature, the farmer had to wait patiently for the fruit of one’s
labour. The urgency of the farmer or the hard work one put in
did not determine even the timing of the harvest. After a natural
process of germination and growth that appears to be cyclical,
harvest comes in its due season. In the meantime the farmer
45
Ibid., 2.
E. F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), p.
113.
46
waited patiently,47 all the while trusting in the divine providence
for a fruitful harvest. Human patience is tested throughout the
farming operation with unproductive land, problem of weed,
failure of rains and attacks from pests, and enemies of crops (cf.
GThom.9). Through the passing of the seasons and the process
of development of the sown seed, the farmer earnestly hoped
that one’s labour will not be wasted, and that one stage would
lead to the next until the final day of harvest has arrived.
The parables of the Self-Producing Earth and the
Transforming Earth (Mk. 4: 26-29; 30-31) allude to the insight
that humans do not have much to do with the growth process
that is primarily the activity of God. Perhaps it is this thought
that was in Mark’s mind for his combining it with the story of
the seed that “grows on its own” while the farmer “knows not
how.”48 The farmers have a vital role to play in the sowing and
harvesting, as well as in the intermediary stages of plant growth
(tShab 10 (9). 17, 19; pShab 12.1.13c). Yet, there is also a time
when the peasant sits back and let Mother Nature do its work.
Both, “the earth produces of itself ()” (Mk. 4: 28) and
“when the grain is ripe (passive verb: )” (Mk. 4: 29),
according to Perrin, suggests the natural operation. Since the
principle of growth comes from God, it can neither be rushed,
nor could be improved upon. One has to simply wait for them to
occur. Similar exhortations are found in all the parables of the
soil.49
The regular appearance of the seasons without failure
was credited to the divine favour. It is the providential care of
God that sends the rains both on the godly and the ungodly
making the seeds to germinate and grow and dew for the growth
47
Recognizing this fact B. T. D. Smith terms the parable of Mk. 4: 26-29 as
the Parable of the Patient Husbandman. See his Parables of the Synoptic
Gospels (Cambridge: CUP, 1937), pp. 129ff.
48
F. H. Borsch, Many Things in Parables: Extravagant Stories of New
Community (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), p. 123.
49
N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row,
1967), p. 159.
of the fruit.50 Unfriendly climatic conditions so common in the
context of Palestine where rains were scanty and seasonal, each
time there was a delay of rain, there was crop failure. Looking at
the long process that the seed has to endure and the helplessness
of the farmer in expediting any of this process along with the
long wait, Jeremias describes it as “a hopeless prospect!”51 But
divine grace and providential care see to it that the seed despite
its enemies, grow, flower and bring forth a harvest. A yield of
thirty, sixty, and a hundred fold is a symbolization of the “divine
fullness” of the eschatological period experienced in the present
that surprises all human expectations. The agricultural festivals
celebrated by the people often accompanied offerings and
thanksgiving for God’s faithfulness in providing right seasons
and climate to carry out the agricultural processes. The harvest
thanksgiving celebrated God’s faithfulness in providing a
bountiful harvest.
b.
Agricultural and the Ecological Process in Relation
The process of agriculture and the ecological process are
closely linked to one another. In fact, it serves as a reversal of
common human experiences of the farm land. The peasant life
witnesses the constant efforts on the part of the farmer for
survival, despite all odds. Even a bountiful harvest does not
appreciably change one’s situation. The produce often goes to
meet the various life obligations of the peasant. Bread and debt
were the two most immediate problems that faced the Galilean
peasant, day labourer and non-elite urbanite.52 The agricultural
process when accompanied by the ecological process of
50
G. Hamel, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, First Three Centuries
CE, University of California Publications, Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 23
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), p. 104.
51
J. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, trans., S. H. Hooke, rev. ed. (New York:
Scribner’s, 1963), p. 150.
52
J. S. Kloppenborg, “Alms, Debt and Divorce: Jesus’ Ethics in Their
Mediterranean Context,” Toronto Journal of Theology 6 (1990), p. 192.
productive soil and favourable climatic conditions bring forth a
bumper harvest testifying to the divine potential for a reversal of
the peasant experience although in actual experience they
seldom combined.
The Self-Producing Earth has a seed that grew on its
own, bringing an essential change in its condition. Having been
sown, it grows and brings forth a harvest. During the process of
growth, there is a reversal in the life process of the peasant and
the sown seed. The peasant immediately goes to rest and sleep,
becoming “non-active.” On the other hand, the “non-active”
seed becomes active until it is grown and produces a harvest.
The natural process that is at work in the agricultural season
calls for the need to withdraw from activities for a time, then to
sit back and ponder over the working of creation and to enjoy it.
Borsch reminds us, “some people more than others need to be
reminded that humans also have a more passive role to play in
the creation—one of listening, admiring, sitting on the porch,
and looking out over the fields.” 53 It is activity and passivity
together that determine the completion of the natural process.
The rule of God, as Crossan tells us, is like an
agricultural season. The peasant begins the season with sowing,
then, continues with the affairs of life while the ecological
process takes over as the seed sprouts and grows and the earth
produces of its own54 leading to the harvest of fulfillment and
completion. From a single seed to an abundant crop, there is a
total change when the harvest has come. To a people who have
been struck by “poverty and uncertainty regarding the
morrow,” 55 as Braudel remarks, the reversal of their present
experience is what they have eagerly awaited. The nature
53
F. H. Borsch, Many Things in Parables: Extravagant Stories of New
Community (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), p. 123.
54
H. Waetjen, A Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark’s
Gospel Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), p. 107.
55
F. Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of
Philip II, Vol. 1, trans. by S. Reynolds (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), p.
245 cited by Crossan, The Historical Jesus, p. 4.
imagery Jesus picked up from the experiences of peasant life
becomes a means through which he communicates the mystery
of the divine rule. Fullness and joy will once again be their
portion when injustice will be uprooted, and nature’s bounty
shared. The arrival of the divine rule will mark a total reversal of
values and judgment.
The Transforming Earth emphasizes the change of a
mustard seed from its smallness to its growth as one of large
shrubs. In the seed stage, it is something that none would take
notice. But when grown up, it would never miss the attention of
anyone who walks by. There is a change in the seed from
stillness to a dynamic growth. Thus the growth itself is a
reversal of the state in which the mustard seed once was, and
leading into the fulfillment of a process.56 Such use of metaphor
“is truly revolutionary and unprecedented, for it seeks to reverse
the hearer’s normal expectation.”57 Once again, the unexpected
growth is not aided by any human activity, but through the
ecological process of transformation brought about by the
agricultural season even upsetting the normal experiences of life.
The agricultural process is an example of a reversal of
such experiences as indicated from the sowing to the harvest
season. It is a turn around from no prospects to all prospects. As
Jeremias remarks, “In spite of every failure and opposition, from
hopeless beginnings, God brings forth the triumphant end which
he had promised.” 58 This, indeed, is an experience of total
reversal. Commenting on the juxtaposition of sowing and
harvesting, and small seed and great branches, Crossan remarks:
But the diptych of juxtaposition does not wish to
emphasize growth but miracle, not organic and
biological development but the gift-like nature, the
graciousness and the surprise of the ordinary, the advent
56
Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom, 179.
B. B. Scott, Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1981), p. 73.
58
Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, p. 150.
57
of bountiful harvest despite the losses of sowing, the
large shade despite the small seed. It is like this that the
Kingdom is in advent. It is surprise and it is a gift.59
Agriculture efforts should therefore be directed towards
co-operating with nature. It involves preventing soil erosion and
integrating human community with the ecosystem, by
preserving “the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic
community….” 60 The natural process manifests itself as
ecological rather than mechanical in its outworking.61 It is to be
characterized by “frugality, care, security in diversity, ecological
sensitivity, [and] correctness of scale.”62 Human experience of
frustration and pain as well as joy and happiness in the
agricultural process served as a sign of the divine activity of the
rule of God. Patient waiting as against instant success,
providential care despite human helplessness, and plenitude
against poverty and starvation, testify to a reversal of normal
experiences of the peasant community. The process of
agricultural activity thus serves as a sign of the arrival of the
divine rule to the marginalised Galilean peasants. The success at
the end of a long-drawn process of the agricultural season comes
from the divine care as evident in the exhortation against
anxieties. God cares even for the birds of the air and the flowers
of the field. As Crossan rightly observes:
Where God’s care for nature’s birds and flowers should
obviate human worries about food and clothing…. The
serenity and security passed by Jesus to his followers
derives not from knowing hidden mysteries of past or
59
Crossan, In Parables, p. 50.
Thompson, The Spirit of the Soil, p. 118.
61
J. B. Callicott, “The Metaphysical Transition in Farming: From the
Newtonian Mechanical to the Eltonian Ecological,” Journal of Agricultural
Ethics 3, No. 1 (1990), pp. 36-49. Cf. Thompson, The Spirit of the Soil, pp.
126-27.
62
W. Berry, The Gift of Good Land: Further Essays Cultural and
Agricultural (San Francisco: North Point Press, 1981), p. 41.
60
present but from watching nature’s rhythms of here and
now.63
A people who have been pushed to the periphery from
their farmland, as a result of the Herodian policy of city building
on agricultural lands, the peasants found themselves against the
arduous task of making an inhospitable land fit for cultivation.
Not withstanding their hard labour, their marginal land refused
to yield a fruitful harvest. To such an audience, this appeal to
the agricultural parables, have more to say than a mere
exhortation for “trust in God’s future.” Rather, they speak of the
close connection between life and death. They provide relief and
joy from a sense of belonging to “an ordered and bountiful
creation.” The parables of Jesus seek to “help others into their
own experience of the Kingdom and to draw from that
experience their own way of life.”64 In a time when the delicate
relationship between humanity and nature is fast eroding,
parables of natural processes and bounty more than ever remind
us of “our dependence upon the biological environment that we
did not create but must respect.”65
3.
Nature, Rule of God and the Ecology of Parables
The abstract concept of the rule of God was understood
variously by the contemporaries of Jesus. Among them was a
longing for the establishment of justice and peace in the context
of oppression and suffering. Jesus’ audience have not always
understood his teachings regarding the rule of God. He often
used concrete analogies, including those derived from nature to
communicate the concept of the divine rule. Many of these
63
The Historical Jesus, 295. See also M. G. Steinhauser, “The Sayings of
Anxieties: Matt. 6:25-34 and Luke 12:22-32,” Forum 6, No. 1 (March 1990):
74-75.
64
J. D. Crossan, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus, Eagle
Books (Sonoma, California: Polebridge Press, 1992), p. 51.
65
Perkins, Hearing the Parables of Jesus, pp. 77-78.
creation imageries are found in the agricultural parables which
focus on similarities of natural processes and the rule of God,
unlike parables with human characters that centre on human
actions. According to Perkins, parables dealing with natural
processes, address “our feelings for the natural world to
engender trust in Jesus’ vision.”66 Images derived from concrete,
everyday human experience in the context of nature, therefore,
facilitate insights into our understanding of the divine rule. The
agricultural parables testify to a close connection between the
ways in which the process of nature works and the divine rule
unfolds.
a.
Nature Sustains Life
The parables of Jesus derived from an agricultural
setting speak of the earth and the various experiences on earth in
the context of daily living. All life, including human life,
requires the natural surroundings for its growth and well being.
The requirement of water, food and shelter is met from the
context within which life is situated. Disturbances and decay of
the natural setting affects the very survival of life. Quality of
soil determines the kind of harvest; good soil yielding a
bountiful harvest while poor quality soil hinders it. The farmer
admires the rich, fertile soil. The recognition of being linked to
the soil determines one’s relationship with it. Farming that
abuses soil is bad farming as it is inconsistent with the true spirit
of farming itself. 67 Payment of tithes and offerings to the
Temple was a recognition of Yahweh as the owner of the land
and the farmers his lessees.68
The parable of the Soil (Mk. 4:1-9) emphasizes the
importance of the right kind of soil for the growth of the sown
seed and for a successful harvest. Climate and soil are the two
important aspects of agriculture in any context. Hamel points
66
Perkins, Hearing the Parables of Jesus, p. 76.
Thompson, The Spirit of the Soil, pp. 2-3.
68
Cf. Freyne, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels, pp. 192f..
67
out that it was even more so in Palestine and the rest of the
Mediterranean basin.69 Since rains were scarce, their regularity
was essential for the success of a farmer’s labour. The
combination of the timing, the volume of rain received, as well
as its penetration into the soil, is all to be held in a delicate
balance. While too much of rain could wash away topsoil, too
little would be insufficient to moisture the soil. Failure of rain
could work havoc as indicated by the special prayers offered for
rain at Solomon’s dedication of the Temple (cf. 1 Kings 8: 3536) or Elijah on Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 17-18). Human labour
could be fruitless (Jer. 51: 58) as one’s labour would not bring
any harvest without the blessings of God accompanying it, in the
form of favourable weather conditions.
The parable of the Self-Producing Earth (Mk 4: 26ff.)
lays stress on the natural process that finally culminates in the
harvest. While the work of nature in fulfilling its role is often
invisible to us, we are assured that the seed sown on good soil
ultimately comes to fruition aided by rain, sunshine, and the
process of changing seasons. It is with this assurance of God’s
work of miracles that the farmer goes about the other business,
knowing fully well that the harvest will not fail. 70 It is
interesting to note that in comparing the word of God to a
fruitful harvest, Isaiah draws upon the imagery from the work of
nature.
For as rain and snow come down from heaven, and do
not return there until they have watered the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the
sower and bread to the eater, so shall be my word be that
goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me
empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and
69
Hamel, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, pp. 101ff.
J. A. Findlay, Jesus and His Parables (London: The Religious Book Club,
1951), p. 22.
70
succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Is. 55: 10-11,
NRSV)
Next to rain comes in importance, the soil. Hamel observes,
The soil structure falls into three main categories: rather
naked and rough mountaintops; slopes that have been
smoothed and covered with deposits of limestone,
sandstone, or marly clay, and small alluvial plains. In
summer the mountaintops and hills are mostly used by
the shepherds. The slopes carry planted (olives,
vineyards) and sown crops. The alluvial plains are
suitable for more crops and garden vegetables, especially
when properly irrigated.71
The parables of Jesus through the use of various imageries not
only speak of the essential role of nature in making the earth
habitable, but also in revealing the presence of God in the
natural world.
b.
Nature Promotes Life
Life that originates on the earth is maintained by the
harmonious functioning of the process of nature. Whenever the
equilibrium maintained by the natural systems is disturbed, life
gets affected. Air, water, food and shelter are basic to the
survival of life. All of these are made available in nature. The
pollution of air and water or the disturbance of the food chain
and destruction of habitats are all detriment to the preservation
of life. Nature’s balance ensures that the delicate systems are
properly maintained. The fecundity of the earth and the order
and regularity in the functions of nature are examples of nature’s
role in sustaining life. Human intervention, in modern times has,
however, altered the harmonious relationship in the functioning
of these systems. The creation images found in the parables of
Jesus concern the role of nature in an agricultural context and
71
Hamel, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, p. 102.
“engage those fundamental layers of human consciousness at
which we feel our relationship with nature.”72
Peasant involvement in nature is primarily through their
relationship with the earth in the production of food and fodder.
“One pole of that relationship,” argues Perkins “represents the
earth as fruitful beyond belief” while “the other pole is the
anxiety attached to the outcome of our labor.”73 Despite human
callousness in their relationship towards the earth, to a large
extent, the earth takes on its stride the suffering inflicted on it by
humanity. In sowing the field, the farmer works for a harvest,
which would ensure an adequate supply for human consumption
and animal life, besides seeds for the furtherance of the process
in the coming season. It guarantees the reward of human labour,
brings joy and gratitude from a fulfilled life. P. B. Thompson
observes “Agrarian society considered divine blessings in the
form of abundant harvests as their engagement was in
horticulture, animal husbandry and the production of crops all of
which involved risk factors.” 74 So, fertile soils, crops, and
animals were evidence of the blessings of God.
The divine rule operates in a similar way as that of the
outworking of the natural processes. Unlike the stress on a
sudden outbreak of the rule of God in the apocalyptic concept of
the Kingdom of God, the nature parables emphasize its gradual
appearance, one step leading to the other until it reaches the
final stage of fulfillment. As the soil determines the outcome of
the harvest, reception or rejection of the message of the
Kingdom is determined by the kind of reception accorded to the
received message in the first place. The parable of the Soil has
been called a ‘parable on parables’ because of the life of God
that it witness to through an abundant harvest.75 At the arrival of
72
Wilder, Early Christian Rhetoric, pp. 141f.
Perkins, Hearing the Parables of Jesus, p. 77.
74
75
Findlay, Jesus and His Parables, p. 20.
73
the harvest, the peasant is overjoyed for the opportunity for his
involvement in the creative process of producing something.76
There is regularity in the appearance of seasons. One
follows the other in its proper order and enables the earth to
produce. The regularity of nature not only ensures a proper
harvest at the end of the season, but also is a witness to the
divine grace manifested in nature’s activity. Divine rule over the
people is displayed when, as Findlay points out,
The Father sends His rain and sunshine down on the evil
and the good, and simply goes on being God, giving
Himself, however unthankful and churlish the recipients
of His bounties show themselves to be. Here, at least,
natural and revealed religion speak with the same voice,
for they both show us a God apparently both unthrifty
and undiscriminating.77
It is the divine grace that ensures ‘while the earth
endures, seed-time and harvest, summer and winter, shall not
cease.’ God “makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and
sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous” (Mt. 5: 45)
without discrimination. The imagery drawn from the
Transforming Earth, the mustard plant serves as shelter for the
birds, ensuring the protection of these creatures of God, and thus
promoting life. Crampsey aptly observes regarding this parable,
From an ecological horizon of interpretation, this must
challenge the hearer about the understanding of even the
most insignificant feature of the interconnectedness of
the whole earth community. It might also be appropriate
to note that there is no human actor in this imaging. We
have once again been invited to consider the birds of the
air.78
76
Findlay, Jesus and His Parables, p. 21.
78
Crampson, “Look at the Birds of the Air,” p. 293.
77
The emphasis of the use of nature images in the parables
seems to be twofold: Firstly, on the normal outworking of
nature rather than any allegorical use. Nature raw and real is the
point of attention. They speak of a continuous happening—a
creaturely process of growth, rather than a one time occurrence.
The power of growth comes from God rather than human
influence. Secondly, the images in their isolation are not that
matter, rather the total process which is represented by these
images.
c.
Nature Witness to the Rule of God
The association of Jesus with the farm life has led him to
view the divine working from the perspective of the work of
nature. Markan Jesus makes use of the agricultural parables’
emphasis on images from nature to explain to his audience, the
concept of the rule of God.79 Nature serves as a medium for the
perception of God’s dealings with humanity. Parables drawn
from the daily experiences of the peasant life, in the first century
Palestine,80 lays stress on the close connection between ordinary
day-to-day experiences in life and the message concerning the
divine rule.
Though Wilder and Funk recognized the close
relationship between humans and nature, their emphasis was on
Nature as human activity and relationship. Both overlooked the
role of nature, the focal point of the agricultural parables. 81
Dodd and Jeremias have devoted much attention to the setting of
the parables in the life of Jesus. Their studies have broken new
ground in enhancing our understanding of the parables and their
relationship to the Kingdom of God. They found the realism of
the parables of Jesus as their distinguishing mark when
compared to the parables of the Old Testament and that of the
79
H. C. Kee, Community of the New Age (London: SCM, 1977), p. 94.
Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, p. 11.
81
Wilder, Early Christian Rhetoric, p. 82. Funk, Language, Hermeneutic, and
Word of God, pp. 155-56.
80
Rabbis. Both though noted the parables of Jesus were drawn
from the day-to-day experience in society and nature failed to
pay adequate attention to the “realism of nature” to which they
themselves have called attention.82 Goulder emphasized that the
parable is a story, but ignored that the story could have
imageries in its narration. 83 Nature was looked upon with a
utilitarian perspective without consideration for its intrinsic
value. Diesing has pointed out: “[Nature] appears in three forms:
natural resources, cultivated land . . . , and externalities of
production. Natural resources are free goods, res nullius,
nothings, having no value until they are ‘produced’ and made
available for exchange.” 84 Yet, the everyday occurrences in
human life in a given social and ecological context, becomes the
locus of the parabolic teaching of Jesus.
Jesus’ choosing to use the images derived from nature in
his communication of the divine rule indicts the human attempts
to measure the worth of nature in terms of its utility value. The
agricultural activity with which the audience of Jesus was most
familiar had become the context from which Jesus has drawn his
metaphors that explained the rule of God. As a means of
communicating divine activity, Nature has its own value. It
does not merely exist for the sake of humanity, but for its own
sake and as witness to God and his benevolent activity of care.
The parables in Mark 4, based as they are in the context of
agriculture, make use of several images derived from nature and
the divine activity in the process of nature, to speak of the
concept of the Kingdom of God. The soil, the seed, the process
of growth and development, and the harvest are all images that
are used with reference to the divine rule.
82
Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom, p. 198; Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, pp.
115f.
83
M. D. Goulder, “Characteristics of the Parables in the Several Gospels,”
Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968), p. 47.
84
P. Diesing, Science and Ideology in the Policy Sciences (Hawthorne, New
York: Aldine, 1982), p. 294. Cited by Thompson, The Spirit of the Soil, p. 46.
The success of any agricultural activity is determined by
the kind of soil in which the farming takes place. “Soil provides
nutrient content, aeration, and pest infestations basic to crop
production, besides support to root stocks and drain water.”85 As
in the first three instances of the parable of the soil, the poor
quality soil is incapable of producing a harvest since the barren
soil is inimical to the productive process. But good soil
produces in manifold quantities and provides for the
consumption needs of humanity, satisfying their hunger. In the
parable of the Self-Producing Soil, the seed cast on the ground
grew on its own () and brought forth a harvest
without the farmer’s aid. The moisture in the soil and the
nutrients it held aided the germination and growth process, first
as a sapling, and then, to a full plant, till it attained maturity and
brought forth a harvest thus witnessing to the miraculous
outworking of the power of God. When the mustard seed was
sown on the Transforming Earth it grew and became the greatest
of all shrubs, providing shelter to birds of the sky. Folklore and
religion, therefore, emphasized the ‘spirit of the soil’ as against
the scientific view that saw soil as dead matter.86
The emphasis of ‘automatic’ is on a self-regulatory
process that keeps on fulfilling its responsibilities without any
break. The soil thus brings forth by itself. The climate, the
seasons and the geography all are contributing factors in the
agricultural production. The failure of any one badly affects the
entire process of plant growth and therefore, also the harvest. It
is this close unity of the Mediterranean ecology, which was in
mind when Boissevain pointed out in his review of the book,
The People of the Mediterranean that it is more than just a place
of meeting, trading and war. The distinctive character of the
region is to be found in its sea, climate, terrain, and mode of
production context, within which people worked hard, to meet
85
Thompson, The Spirit of the Soil, pp. 74-75.
Ibid., pp. 6, 18.
86
their needs.87 At no stage of the process the farmer is able to
manipulate the outcome. He could only hope for the best, as
each stage is unfolded in its order from germination to growth
and from flowering to fruition and ripening of the harvest.
Analogy of the rule of God to harvest lays accent on the
culmination of the divine intervention in the process of growth,
unlike the “catastrophic” intervention suggested by the imagery
in the Old Testament use. The stages of growth, as Dodd himself
has noted, do not find adequate attention in this interpretation. A
bountiful harvest is attributed to God’s favour. The arrival of
divine rule is to be marked by plenitude with increased
productivity and fruitfulness. Grain is a representation of plenty.
Nature, therefore, is to be looked upon as sacred, rather than as a
mere agent of utility for human needs, towards which human
beings are called to relate with a sense of duty. 88 The arrival of
the harvest, as may be noted from the case of the mustard seed,
asserts that the time has come when the blessings of the
Kingdom of God are available for all including non-human
creation.89
However, nature is not only an epitome of divine favour
and blessings but also a manifestation of divine wrath. God’s
dealings with humanity are witnessed at times in the fury of
nature, often perceived as divine punishment. Thus, nature
serves as an epitome of divine happiness or displeasure with the
affairs of humanity from ancient times. The great Flood of
Noah was thought of as a divine punishment. Similarly drought,
famine, pestilence, locust and war were signs of divine anger
against human disobedience and sin. The earth brings forth
thorns and thistles instead of fruitfulness and plenty. There is an
element of mystery that the parables seem to contain.
87
Boissevain, et al., “Toward an Anthropology of the Mediterranean,”
Current Anthropology 20 (1979), p. 83 cited by Crossan, The Historical
Jesus, p. 5.
88
89
Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom, p. 191.
Conclusion
The agricultural parables are an indictment of the rich
and the powerful who held the poor under their control along
with their possession. The land that produced plenty was turned
into a source of perennial problem for the peasants under the
new dispensation. This was going to be overturned sooner than
expected. God is going to make every land fertile. The longing
for a regular harvest on the part of the peasants is to be fulfilled.
It is in the sharing of the resources that the powerful and mighty
can align themselves on the side of the divine rule. In its
emphasis on the aspect of reversal with the arrival of the rule of
God, the agricultural parables stand in the same relationship
with that of the parable of the Wicked Tenants. 90 The images
also testify to Jesus’ identification with the peasant culture, with
its values of sharing, caring and hard work. He has even shared
with the rural peasant class in his denouncement against the
Herodian urban culture91 that deprived the poor of their means
of livelihood and marginalised them even as the urban centres
enjoyed the fruit of their labour. Making use of images derived
from familiar experience, Jesus subverts and explodes “myths
that build or maintains structures, values, and expectations that
thwart the actualization of God’s rule . . .”92
Jesus’ close association with nature in his struggle for
daily existence helped him share the struggle of many of his
country people of the time. This has also provided opportunity
for his first hand experience of the difficulties faced by his
fellow-beings as well as to keenly observe the working of nature
and its rhythms. In communicating the message of divine rule to
these common peasant folks, Jesus successfully made use of
imageries which both, he and his audience, were familiar with.
90
H. Waetjen, “Imitations of the Year of Jubilee in the Parables of the Wicked
Tenants and the Workers in the Vineyard,” p. 62.
91
Freyne, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels, pp. 143-45; Horsley, Archaeology,
History and Society in Galilee, pp. 83ff.
92
Waetjen, A Reordering of Power, p. 110.
The message that he sought to communicate through the
parables from nature was that there is a similarity between the
divine work of the Kingdom and that of the process of nature. It
is God who is active in both. There is a convergence in his
method of working.
The disruption of the process of nature will result, both
in causing hardship to the farmer in meeting his/her survival
needs and distort the ways of God’s working. Therefore, it is
essential that the process of nature be respected not only for our
own good, but also to leave the possibility open for God’s
communication through the process of creation to take place
unhindered. The parables using imageries from the process of
agriculture in the Palestinian context lay stress on the divine
working as clear and as mysterious as that of the natural
processes. The total process of the agricultural season as the
experience of a farmer then serve as Jesus’ point of departure in
communicating the divine rule. In this connection it could be
noted that apocalyptic language turns into sapiential language in
which nature is given positive significance.
theologies and cultures, Vol. 4, No1
June 2007, pp. 147~168
Environmental Challenges and Earthkeeping activities in Myanmar
Samuel Ngun Ling1
An overview on the eco-landscape of Myanmar
Myanmar, situated between latitudes 09º.32’ and 28º.31’
in the north and longitudes 92º.10’ and 101º.11’ in the East, has
a total land area of 261,228 sq. miles (677,000 sq. km)
stretching 1,275 miles (2,051 km) from north to south, and 582
miles (936 km) from east to west. Myanmar shares land borders
with neighboring countries: 1687 miles with Bangladesh; 832
miles with India; 1,370 miles with China; 148 miles with Laos;
and 1,310 miles with Thailand. There are flatlands, river valleys,
hills, plateau in most of the eastern part, and mountains in the
north and north-western parts of the country rising as high as
20,000 feet above sea level. Equivalent in size to France and
England combined, and as the largest piece of landmass on the
peninsula of Southeast Asia, Myanmar has several land
1
The Rev. Dr. Samuel Ngun Ling is professor of Systematic Theology and
Director of Judson Research Center of the Myanmar Institute of Theology,
Yangoon, Myanmar. He is the chair of the Dialogue Committee of the
Myanmar Council of Churches and Myanmar Baptist Convention and head
of the Theological Literature Department of the Association for Theological
Education in Myanmar. His publications include Theological Themes for
Our Times (2007)
ecosystems such as croplands, grasslands, grazing lands,
woodlands, wetlands and forestlands. There is a famous snowcapped mountain, namely, Mt. Khakabo Razi, a half hour’s
flight from Myitkyina, the capital of Kachin State, with a height
of 19,296 feet (5,881m). Myanmar is one of nature’s choicest
beautiful lands in Southeast Asia, endowed with numerous
natural resources and ecological assets. The land has beautiful
natural parks, lakes, sea beaches, four major and thirty minor
rivers, and a coastline of 1,385 miles (2,800 km) long.2
Despite the growing impact of environmental
degradation caused by the global market economy on the whole
landmass of Asia, Myanmar still remains an environmentally
sound and naturally a safe haven in Southeast Asia, freeing from
serious threats of natural disasters and from the effects of
nuclear plants. Myanmar enjoys a tropical climate with three
seasons: summer (March to May), rainy or monsoon (June to
October) and winter (November to February). Annual rainfall is
less than 40 inches in central Myanmar and about 200 inches in
coastal regions, with above 43.3ºC (110ºF) temperature in
central Myanmar and about 36.1ºC (79ºF) in northern Myanmar
during summer. 3 The heavy rainfall of the monsoon season
provides Myanmar with abundant hydropower resources and
seasonal farming potential. With the exception of cyclones,
problems of serious natural disasters such as flood, tsunami,
hurricane and earthquake are almost non-existent when
compared with the disasters facing other Asian countries in
recent years. Because of the non-existence of heavy industries
and the low level of industrial development, the degree of
industrial pollution and accompanying environmental
degradation is significantly low and highly localized. 4
2
Myanmar: Facts and Figures 2002, published by Ministry of Information,
Union of Myanmar (2002), 1.
3
Ibid., 2.
Dr. Win Naing, “Sustainable Development Capacity,” A Report (unpublished) (December 5,
1991), 4-7.
4
Earth-keeping in Myanmar 149
Among various environmental problems, I would like to
focus only on three main issues namely, Depletion of Forest
Resources; Land/Soil Pollution and Water Pollution.
1. Depletion of Forest Resources:
Myanmar, one of the most biologically diverse countries
in mainland Southeast Asia, ranks 5th in the world in terms of
percentage of forest and woodland covering. Hence, Myanmar
retains a substantial covering of valuable forests, including a
major share of the world’s teak stock. Currently, 37.41 million
acres are recognized as reserved forest, 5.83 million acres as
protected area, and 1.8 million acres as degraded forest area.
Out of the total land area (344,237 sq. km), 15% is under
cultivation and 50.8% is covered with forest. 5
Depending on rainfall, temperature, and soil conditions,
forest types vary widely in the country, with rich pristine forests
in the north; mangrove forests in the delta and coastal area; and
evergreen forests that produce valuable teaks and hardwoods in
the east, south and middle part of Myanmar. The annual loss of
actual forested area in the years between 1975 and 1989 was
estimated to be about 0.64%.6 According to a report of FAO
(The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations),
in the years between 1990 and 2000, Myanmar lost 1.4% of the
total forest per year.7 This is believed to be the highest rate of
deforestation in Southeast Asia, along with the Philippines, a
region that has the highest rate of deforestation in the world.
The major reasons for deforestation that brought adverse
effects on environment and wildlife in Myanmar include the
following:
5
The New Light of Myanmar, Daily Newspaper, (November 5, 2001), 5. See
also Mirror (Kye-mon in Burmese), Daily Newspaper, (October 8, 2004).
6
Myanmar Final Report, vol. 1 (Manila, The Philippines, 12-14 November,
1997), 13.
7
FAO, “Myanmar Deforestation Roles.” (2005).
(1) Myanmar relies more heavily on wood fuel than on
electricity or gas energy. Wood fuel accounts for 80% of the
total energy needs of the country and the growing demand for
wood fuel is at a rate of 1.1% annually.
(2) Teak products or logging done by commercial timber
companies for national commercial purposes, whether in legal or
in illegal frameworks, have caused serious damage to the
sustainable capacities of Myanmar forests. The annual rate of
only teak logs (not including hardwood logs) is estimated to be
about 230,000 cubic tons per year so that logging becomes one
of the major causes of forest degradation. It is often carried out
exploitatively by politically elite groups in the name of the
country’s economic development.
(3) Large-scale construction projects, such as the
building of bridges, highways, dams, and irrigation systems,
cause depletion of forest capacity and damages natural
environment.
(4) The slash-and-burn method of cultivation practiced
by tribal/ethnic rural communities is another cause of
deforestation. This system has been extensively practiced by the
mass of rural people in Myanmar for generations. This system
causes problems especially when the population in the region
reaches beyond the sustainable limit of the forest. It is practiced
for about 5 to 7 years at a given place and then moved to another
forested area to burn down trees for cultivation. Returning to
the same spot for cultivation may take about 15 to 17 more years.
Hence, this cultivation system causes soil erosion, depletion of
natural or virgin forests, extinction of forest and plant species,
and destruction of wildlife habitats. In addition, this system
cannot be easily replaced by another way if no alternative
livelihood is provided for the local people. It is generally
believed that about 23% of the forested area is affected by this
practice of shifting cultivation.
(5) Other problems such as conversion of the forestland
into commercial cash cropland, conversion of opium fields into
crop fields, and the mining of rubies and gold have also caused
deforestation, land devastation, and loss of bio-diversities.
Myanmar is home to diverse species: 3700 tree species; 285
flora species; 300 known mammal species, 400 reptiles; 1000
bird species (12% of the world total); 580 fish species; 830
orchid species; 100 bamboo species: 30 cane species; 400 grass
species; and several thousand other water and marine species are
reported to have existed. 8 These species are reported to have
decreased annually because of deforestation. Traditional
hunting and fishing also plays a role in depletion of animal
species. Most households in rural areas possess flint guns, bows
and arrows, snap traps, jaw traps, and log traps which are used
for hunting and for capturing wildlife. Some practice hunting
for commercial purposes, collecting skins of leopards, bones of
tigers, internal parts of wild boars or galls of bears, and trade
them for profit. Such practices may possibly lead to the
extinction of valuable wildlife, unless they are prohibited.
Because of illegal hunting, rare animals like bears, antelopes,
deers, boars, leopards and tigers, which are of the most exploited
hunting mammals in Myanmar, have drastically declined in
population. In addition, many of them were reported to have
abandoned their original habitats to look for new and better
pastures. Illegal catching of fish by using poisonous leaves or
roots and by exploding dynamite in small streams and rivers has
also caused a great loss of fish and water species every year in
rural areas.
2. Land/Soil Pollution
A. Mineral Resources: Myanmar has a large potential of
mineral resources. The main minerals include copper, gold, lead,
zinc, silver, iron, tin and tungsten or wolfram, antimony,
chromium, marble, alabaster, oil, gas for energy and nickel. 9
8
Myanmar: Facts and Figures 2002, 113.
9
Myanmar Facts & Figures, published by Ministry of Information, 2002, 31-52.
Before World War II, one of the oldest mines in Myanmar,
namely, Mawchi mine, was reported to have produced 10% of
the world’s supply of tungsten or wolfram. Precious stones such
as ruby, sapphire, emerald and jade are numerous, compared to
neighboring countries. The country is estimated to have a total
coal resource of 200 to 230 million tons mainly in the northern
part of the country. Nonetheless, exploration and exploitation of
the minerals are continued in the name of national development.
Hence, the environmental problems associated with mineral
resources would include degradation of land; pollution of soil
and water; displacement of local people; disintegration of land
gravity power; and destruction of various ecosystems of the
natural soil and land.
B. Use and sales of Hazardous Pesticides & Chemical
Fertilizers: Myanmar is an agricultural country. Agriculture is
the main strategic sector along the production line. In fact,
many agricultural shops, markets, and even street-side minishops are found importing, exporting, and selling toxic
chemicals, pesticides, insecticides and chemical fertilizers.
Many rural farmers and cultivators of Myanmar unknowingly
used chemical fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides that are
designated as hazardous or toxic chemicals in growing rice,
maize, beans and other vegetables. The insecticides sold and
used widely in Myanmar are mostly organic phosphate such as
methyl parathion, 10 whose trade name is Folidol, originally a
product of Beyer Company in Germany imported through
Thailand. According to Rachel Carson,11 the use and sale of this
insecticide (Folidol) was banned by the Japanese government
since 1971 because it caused the death of over 300 people by
poisoning. Other imported insecticides include phosdrin, whose
10
Methyl Parathion is a compound of methanol (alcohol) and
organophosphorous insecticide used to control insects.
11
Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962). See also Koa
Tasaka, “How to overcome environmental crisis: Focus on Agriculture in
Asia” in Engagement, Judson Research Center Research Bulletin of the
Myanmar Institute of Theology, vol. 4 (June, 2005), 66.
trade name is mevinphos, a product of Shell Company in United
States; and aldrin, 12 organ chlorine insecticide, which has
caused birth deformity in experimental animals.13 Other popular
pesticides, which rural people in Myanmar use widely without
considering their adverse effects, are DDT (Dichloro Diphenyl
Trichloroethane), PCB (Poly Chlorinated Biphenyl) and
Dioxin. 14 DDT 15 is especially used for the purpose of
eradicating malaria – one of the epidemic diseases that has
affected many adults and children in rural Asia. Known as
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), the above pesticides and
insecticides do not easily decompose and last for a long time in
the human body and in the environment. During World War-II,
in 1941, Japanese army landed on the Malay Peninsula and as a
result Southeast Asia became a battlefield. In this area, many
soldiers died from malaria. In order to protect soldiers from
malaria, US started large-scale of production of DDT and used it
to eradicate mosquitoes that transmit malaria. Hence, DDT
came to be used to eradicate hygienically harmful insects such
as mosquitoes or flies. The problem is that finally people came
to think of DDT as a safe pesticide and use it to spray even over
their heads to kill lice.16 Having warned of the danger of using
DDT as such, Rachel Carson pointed out in her book, Silent
Spring (1962) that in the areas where DDT and other
insecticides were sprayed, the population of birds has declined,
because, for example, robins eat earthworms contaminated with
pesticides, and these chemicals affect the reproductive capability
12
Aldrin is one of the organochlorine insecticides, used to control cabbage
root fly, wireworms and leatherjackets.
13
Ibid.
14
Dioxin is extremely poisonous gas.
15
DTT is the short form of Dichloro Diphenyl Trichloroethane. It is a highly
toxic insecticide which remains for a long time as a deposit in animal
organisms. It gradually builds up in the food chain and systems of the bodies.
See Dictionary of Ecology and Environment (Third Edition) published by
P.H. Collin (New Delhi, India: Universal Book Stall, 1999), 62.
16
Ibid., 67.
of the birds.17 This decline of bird population is a reality in the
rural areas of Myanmar where many village farmers use DDT to
protect themselves from the infliction of malaria.
3. Water Pollution
Contaminated Water:- Water pollution is a very serious problem
in Myanmar today. Most poor families in rural areas have to
drink contaminated water that comes from small streams or
rivers polluted by the excessive uses of toxic chemicals,
pesticides, and fertilizers by the farmers in their slope-farms.
Peoples who live in the areas (Shan State in the east and Kachin
States in the north) where valuable minerals such as gold and
silver are mined out day and night, have to drink mercury or
quicksilver- white metal contaminated water. The net result of
the whole mining process in those areas was that the innocent
poor families suffered from inflictions of various diseases
caused by polluted water such as high blood pressure, premature
births; cancers; diabetes; brain damages; and other kidney and
lung related diseases. People who live in cities are faced with
different kinds of water pollution. Since local governments
cannot afford supporting adequate facilities to provide people
with free clean water, city dwellers have to purchase bottles of
drinking water from private companies, which are quite
expensive for many poor families who live in cities but earn
very low income and live from hand to mouth on a daily basis.
Sewage and Wastes:- Myanmar does not have many industrial
hazardous wastes, radioactive wastes and underground storage
wastes, though she has municipal wastes, mining wastes, and
wastes of mills and factories. In the cities like Yangon and
Mandalay, municipal wastes and sewage cause water and
environmental pollution, because these cities have neither
systematic municipal systems such as sewage disposal systems
17
Op.cit., Rachel Carson.
or sewage farms, nor adequate facilities such as recycling
factories to clean up municipal wastes and sewage. These
wastes and sewage make the surface water so polluted that many
of the rivers, streams, creeks, and wells from which cooking
water are drawn become filthy and not fit even for bathing.
Such polluted water can cause malaria (through mosquitoes),
dysentery, and many other known and unknown diseases.
Dam and Irrigation:- Crops grown in the area known as “Dry
Zone” in the middle part of Myanmar need adequate water
coming through irrigation canals from dams and reservoirs
constructed in nearby areas. There are three dry zones:
Mandalay, Sagaing and Magway dry zones. Activities of
greening these dry zones have been carried out by the
government in 57 townships in 13 regions among the dry
zones. 18 Greening activities included (1) re-plantation, (2)
protection of deforestation, and (3) supplies of drinking water.
While irrigation helps much in greening the dry zones,
construction of dams, reservoirs and irrigation canals has often
caused other forms of water pollution, dislocation of village
people, soil erosion and deforestation, followed by unnecessary
social and economic problems.
For instance, when the
unexpected flooding of one river destroyed constructed dams
and nearby villages, the villagers suffered from loss of their
homes, land, and properties. 19 More dangerous than anything
else is the fact that dam constructions can also cause
desertification of many fertilized land areas. In addition, while
dam construction helps in making water available to farmers for
increased agricultural production and in setting the stage for
sustainable progress, it can also cause negative effects to the life
18
Myanmar: Facts and Figures 2002, 109-110.
Myanmar: Facts and Figures 2002 (see the cover pages inside). There was
an incident of flooding over nearby villages, high way, and railways between
Yangon and Mandalay because of the collapse of a dam construction in 2000,
resulting in leaving behind a number of poor families homeless and
dislocated.
19
habitat of the farmers living in that region. The government
made no report on the negative effects of dam and irrigation
constructions, although 129 new dams (32 more are under
construction) and 4.9 million acres of new irrigation were said to
have been completed in the country between 1988 and 2002.20
Environmental Protection and Preservation Activities
A. Protection and Preservation Activities of the Government
Environmental protection had been visible in Myanmar since
early Bagan period (11th century) of the Burmese kings through
the British colonial period (1885-1947) onwards. Myanmar
history tells us that Myanmar kings proclaimed valuable teak
forests as royal property and levied royalties for the teaks
properly extracted under royal permission. The systematic
management of forest resources began in 1856 while
conservation of biological diversity started in 1860 when King
Mindon established 17, 500 acres of sanctuaries. King Mindon
issued a royal order declaring, “a vast area of land as sanctuary
for all creatures and beings, which haunt and dwell on land and
in the water.” 21 This royal order provided a “place of nondanger” for wildlife in Mindon’s kingdom.22 The concerns for
the environmental protection from early years of postindependence (after 1948) through the Socialist period (19481987) were not very effective. But from the ‘80s, the
government of Myanmar’s policy towards the protection of
environment and ecology has been very remarkable.
Environmental protection has found a special mention in the
State’s constitution.
The government established three
ministries for maintaining environmental management. The
Forest Ministry is most responsible for sustainable forest
management, including wildlife conservation and forest reserves.
20
Myanmar Perspective, (vol. 3, 2000).
21
Dr. Khin Maung Nyunt, (1998: 51-52), cf. A Stone Pillar, dated AD. 1857.
cf. A Stone Pillar dated AD 1866.
22
The Ministry of Industry controls and regulates industrial
activities and pollution, while the Ministry of Health undertakes
responsibilities for environmental-related health issues. Until
1990, there was no institution responsible for comprehensive
policy making, coordination and legislation.
With the
introduction of a market-oriented economic policy in 1988, the
government of the Union of Myanmar formed the National
Commission for Environmental Affairs (NCEA) in February,
1990, with the following mandates: (1) to develop sound
environment policies in the utilization of forests, aquatic, land,
mineral resources, marine resources, and other natural resources
in order to safeguard the environment and prevent its
degradation; (2) To set environmental standards and lay down
rules and regulations to control pollution including water
pollution, air pollution, noise pollution, disposal of hazardous
wastes and toxic chemicals; (3) To lay down short, medium and
long term environmental plans, policies and strategies that take
into account both environmental needs and developmental
requirements; and (4) To promote environmental awareness
through information and education so as to foster public
participation in environmental protection endeavors.
The Burma Forest Acts of 1902, reinforced in 1992,
adopted the following three principles for management of the
forest in Myanmar: 23 (1) To conserve forests to maintain
ecological balance and to keep forested areas constant; (2) To
extend forested areas that preserve and maintain flora and fauna
bequeathed to us by nature and their natural habits; and (3) To
administer the forest in such a way as to enable posterity to
continue use of the forest products. 24 According to the Forest
Acts mentioned above, the State is responsible for the social
problems of the country and pollution is one of them.
Environmental laws were enacted to deal with various aspects of
environmental protection; regulate the conduct of
23
Hla Tun Aung, Myanmar: The Study of Processes and Patterns (Yangon:
National Centre for Human Resource Development Publishing, 2003), 171.
24
Myanmar; Facts and Figures 2002, 112-114
environmentally harmful activities, and provide remedies in
cases of their breach. The central environmental board was
formed to help monitor the environmental deterioration and to
implement the environmental protection laws. Nevertheless,
what is still needed in the government’s environmental policies
is to include environmental studies in the curriculums of the
State’s High schools, Colleges, and Universities of Myanmar.
In June, 1997, The NCEA issued an historic document entitled,
“The Myanmar Agenda 21” (See Appendix-I) with the aim of
promoting sustainable development and reaffirming Myanmar’s
commitment to the Earth Summit, the Rio declaration, in 1992.25
Myanmar has acceded to several environment-related
international agreements including the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,
The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer;
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone
Layer, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the
Framework Convention on Climate Change (since November,
1995); the Convention to combat desertification (since January,
1997); and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) (since September,
1997). From 1997, Myanmar has taken part actively in the
Greater Mekong Sub regional (GMS) Environmental Programs
and Sub regional Environmental Monitoring and Information
System (SEMIS) project funded by Asian Development Bank.
The NCEA also made sustained efforts for enhancing public
awareness and participation in various environmental protection
activities. Workshops, seminars and training courses have also
been held with the aim of disseminating education and
knowledge on environmental protection among the
governmental departments, organizations and the public.
B. Participation of Religious Communities in Environmental
Activities; The Buddhist Communities:
25
In this Earth Summit was made the “UN’s Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development” at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on June 3-14, 1992.
The environmental friendly traditions that are inherent in preBuddhist (animistic) and popular Buddhist traditions play
significant roles in dealing with environmental issues in
Myanmar. It would be unthinkable for devout Buddhists or
superstitious animists to exploit nature and environment.
Because, for them, any kind of hostile or offensive attitudes
toward nature and environment is considered un-religious, ungodly, and even un-ethical. In this sense, the spirit of
environmental protection and preservation in Myanmar has to
do more with religious beliefs of the people than with political
and economic systems which often appear to abuse nature and
human environment.
Popular Burmese Buddhism teaches its adherents not
only how to revere nature and environment as one of the divine
rituals but also how to be aware of their moral responsibility for
protecting and preserving them against all kinds of human abuse.
Hence, tree planting with good moral purpose, that is, to provide
food, shade and flowers for all living beings is believed to be
part of the Burmese Buddhist religion and culture, being handed
down from one generation to another. The religious merit gained
from planting trees or conserving forest is therefore considered
as an equal value as the merit gained from building a monastery.
26
Strongly influenced by pre-Buddhist animistic traditions
and Buddha’s positive teachings on the preservation of nature,
the Burmese Buddhists from ordinary people to government
officials revere natural environment as part and parcel of a
Buddhist meritorious life on earth. The pre-Buddhist animistic
traditions revere nature and its resources such as forests, trees,
mountains, rocks, lakes, rivers, streams and springs as sacred
benefactors of village communities and as abodes of benevolent
spirits. Popular Myanmar Buddhist tradition claims that since
all forms and systems of life are interconnected, religious merits
can be accumulated from planting trees, by conserving or
26
cf. Bagan Stone Inscription, AD 1236.
protecting forest, and by paying homage to forest spirits.
Typical Burmese Buddhists believe that forest Nats or spirits
(taw-saung-nat in Burmese) guard and protect the forest and that
they need to be propitiated by local people. Mount Popa in
central Myanmar is believed to be the abode of powerful
guardian spirits. One of the Burmese Buddhist seasons, namely,
Kason (June) is considered an ecological season in which the
whole public should take part in preservation and protection
activities of the natural environment and hence, this month has
become the month of public tree planting in Myanmar. 27
Christian Communities:- For centuries, Judaism-predominated
Christianity taught only how to conquer nature but failed to
teach how to preserve or sustain it. According to Lynn White, a
historian, “Christianity thus bears a huge burden of guilt for the
ecological crisis.” What Christians should do today is, therefore,
to reconceive God’s whole creation seriously as part of our life’s
existence, to rediscover nature and environment as God’s
creation continua, and to relocate ourselves into the complex
web of eco-life system. This means to say that Christians
should stop thinking of nature and creation as objects of
exploitation and abuse, and should start to think of them as a
living organism as part of our existential reality. As we are
responsible stewards of God’s creation, God’s creation itself is
a living steward of our own existence. “Nature is to be obeyed,
but is not to be worshipped.” 28 Nature and environment are
symbols of God’s grace, love and mercy. The earth is God’s gift,
our life, and our common shared home. We should love it and
care for it. We should love and value nature as God’s precious
gift to us and must take steps to integrate ourselves into the
27
See Dr. Sein Tu, “Traditional Myanmar Folk Beliefs and Forest and
Wildlife Conservation,” in Myanmar Perspectives, vol. 3 (2000), 25 and San
San Aye, “Myanmar and Environmental Conservation” in Myanmar
Perspectives, vol. 2 (2001), 70-74.
28
Francis Bacon.
complex web of eco-life.
Myanmar Christian Responses to Environmental Problems
The changing socio-economic and political circumstances
and the greater pressure on natural resources put the country to
increasingly face different kinds of ecological problems in
different regions of Myanmar. The basic Christian belief in
Myanmar is that nature is the creation of God and that human
beings are responsible stewards (developers, protectors and
preservers) of creation. To preserve, protect, and develop
nature and its resources, churches in Myanmar have taken vivid
steps in many different ways.
Baptist churches and
organizations under the Myanmar Baptist Convention have
carried out limited programs and activities on environmental
concerns as part of their ministries. To give an example, in
2000, the Myanmar Baptist Convention launched the ‘Advanced
Leadership Seminar’ on a yearly basis as part of the leadership
development programs of its ‘Holistic Leadership Training
Institute,’ where many Baptist church leaders from different
rural areas were drawn together for short training on continuing
theological education such as ecology, development, and
leadership skills. Other organizations such as the Myanmar
YMCA, YWCA, Alynn Ein, Metta Foundation, Shalom
Foundation have also engaged themselves very actively in
environmental care and awareness activities in many different
ways.
Focus of those churches’ ministries involved not only the
responsible stewardship aspect of creation but also educating
member churches about sustainable development, reforestation
(planting trees programs), soil conservation, and new methods
of agricultural technology and farming.
Two Baptist
organizations which I personally know to be actively involved in
the environmental protection, awareness, education activities,
and in community development programs are the Chin (Zomi)
Baptist Convention (ZBC) and the Christian Association for
Rural Development (CARD).
On April 5, 1994, The Chin (Zomi) Baptist Convention
made a historic declaration known as “Zaungnak Declaration”
(See Appendix-II) in order to help change rural peoples’
cultivation system from shifting cultivation to SALT (Sloping
Agricultural Land Technology) Farming system. There are
three steps in SALT Farming: SALT-I, SALT-II and SALT-III.
SALT-I represents Sloping Agricultural Land Technology;
SALT-II as Simple Agro-livestock Technology; and SALT-III
as Sustainable Agro-forest Land Technology. This farming
system, already experimented with successfully in the
Philippines, is said to have protected farmlands and forests from
the hazards of climate change, water shortage, soil erosion,
deforestation, and devastation. This system has been practiced
in Hakha, Falam and Tedim townships of Chin State and in the
Kale Valley of Sagaing Division, with good success.
The second organization, the Chin Association for Rural
Development (CARD), established on May 22, 1998, in which I
myself am partly involved, is to promote rural ecological
awareness, environmental education and sustainable rural
development among the rural churches especially in the ChinIndia border areas of the Chin state in Myanmar. The
organization is comprised of five Baptist Associations, one
village area council of churches and individual members. The
declaration of this organization, known as the “Leitak
Declaration’ set its focus on rural health care and environmental
protection. One of the most successful agricultural systems
which member churches of the CARD have used is the
‘Circulation or Permanent Farming’ system. Based on this
system, rural farmers begin to develop the ability to compost
natural fertilizers for their own farms and gardens, using their
own composted soil and raw materials such as grasses, leaves
and others.
This system strongly encourages rural
farmers/cultivators not to use chemical fertilizers in farming but
to practice and develop ‘organic farming’ by using natural
fertilizers that are made out of natural resources and raw
materials available to them in their own reach. There are more
agricultural activities directly or indirectly implemented as such
by different churches, denominations, and organizations, which
we cannot identify all here because of limited information we
have.
Finally, mention should also be made of the
environmental study programs that have already been part of the
curriculums of theological schools in Myanmar. Since the
2000-2001 academic year, the Myanmar Institute of Theology
has offered courses on ecological theology and eco-feminism for
M.Div./MTS and M.Th classes and seven M.Div. graduates of
MIT have already done their theses on ecology. One M.Th
student is currently working with me in this field. In Myanmar,
some ATEM (Association for Theological Education in
Myanmar) member schools are reported to have given
environmental education as an integral part of Ecumenism or
Social Ethics, while other theological seminaries and colleges
such as Myanmar Institute of Theology, Yangon; Zomi
Theological College, Falam; and Chin Christian College, Hakha
have included ecology as an elective subject in their schools’
curriculums. In order to promote theological education in
environmental studies, the Judson Research Center of the
Myanmar Institute of Theology, for which the author currently
serves as director, conducted ecological seminar/workshops
every year as part of MIT’s academic programs. This program
involves local church leaders, NGOs partners, theological
educators, and students from different, denominational and
institutional backgrounds in Myanmar. All these academic and
research activities have given significant contributions to
promotion of environmental education among future leaders of
the churches and theological educators in Myanmar.
A Prayer for Environmental Stewardship29
O Heavenly Father, who hath blessed us with a rich heritage and
environment of natural resources and beauty;
Give us, O Lord, a sense of humility that we may recognize
ourselves, not as masters of the earth, but as members and
stewards of Thy living community;
Help us, we pray Thee, to understand our proper
interrelationships and responsibilities toward other forms of life;
Grant us, Almighty God, a vigilant Christian and ecological
conscience that we may be wise environmental stewards.
We beseech Thee, Creator of Life, for wisdom and guidance to
work toward harmony between humankind and nature in
thought, word and deed.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Amen
Appendix- I:
Myanmar Agenda 21
29
Prayer written by Daniel H. Henning, former lecturer in the Department of
Government and Public Administration, the Chinese University of Hong
Kong. An eco-activist and a member of the International Council of
Environmental Law, he has written and lectured widely on the environment
in different countries including Myanmar.
(This document is the expression of the political commitment of the
government to sustainable development)
Myanmar Agenda 21 seeks to achieve four main objectives;
1.
To provide a forum and context for the debate on sustainable
development and the articulation of collective vision for the future.
2.
To provide a framework for negotiation, mediation, and
consensus-building in the
country to achieve development with
due regard to the environment, to focus the
entire country on a
common set of priority issues
3.
To provide a strategy and implementation plans for the
changing and strengthening of values, knowledge, technologies and
institutions with respect to environmental
protection
and
development
4.
To provide the impetus and the framework for the
development of organizational capacities and institutions required
for sustainable development.
Myanmar Agenda 21 is organized into four main parts:
Part-I
This section addresses the social dimensions of sustainable
development and as such deals with population dynamics,
consumption patterns, poverty alleviation and border area
development, human health issues and the development of human
settlements.
Part-II
This section addresses economic and infrastructural support for
sustainable development, first in broad overview in relation to the
development of economic policies and instruments for sustainable
development. Subsequently each sector that contributes to economic
development in Myanmar is addressed separately namely- agriculture,
livestock and fisheries, energy production and consumption, industrial
development and transport and communications, tourism, and finally
environmental management and enhancement. The forestry sector
which also contributes to economic development is addressed in partIII.
Part-III
This section highlights environmental and natural resource
conservation through an analysis of the impacts of socio-economic
development and examination of conservation and management
approaches. This is addressed sectorally in the areas of integrated
management of land resources, fresh water resources management,
coastal and marine ecosystems management, forest resources
management, biodiversity conservation, development of mineral
resources, and preservation of cultural heritage. The section stresses
the need to conserve these resources to ensure the sustainability of the
ecosystem and maintains cultural diversity.
Part-IV
This final section addresses the development of policy changes and
support systems for sustainable development. It emphasizes the need
for the enhancement of policy support system for sustainable
development and stresses the importance of appropriate legislation
and the strengthening of institutions to enable them to implement
Myanmar Agenda 21. Also addressed are the incorporation of
environment and sustainable development concerns in processes of
policy formulation and national development and sectoral planning.
Public participation in sustainable development is addressed through
formal and non-formal education programs, promotion of general
awareness and information dissemination, all with a view to
encouraging participation and involvement of all stakeholders.
Appendix- II:
Zaungnak Declaration
(Direct Translation from Original Burmese Document)
[Zaungnak Kyaw-nya Sadan, 45: 1997-2000]
Since its 72nd Executive Committee meeting held on April 5, 1994 at
Zaungnak village, Chin State, Myanmar, the Chin (Zomi) Baptist
Convention made the following historic declaration on environmental
protection, which later became known as “Zaungnak Declaration,”
Statement of Confessions
1. We confess that the eternal God who created and holds sovereign
power over everything has given human beings the authority to
act as custodians over all other creation (Gen.1:28). In the same
way, we the Chin people confess that we are entrusted by God
2.
3.
4.
5.
with a great task of looking after and protecting all things of
nature that lie on the western mountain range of the Union of
Myanmar.
We acknowledge, however, that ever since the days of our
forefathers, trees have been set on fire for the slash and burn
method of farming. As the result at present, forests have been
destroyed; natural water is drying up gradually, soil is becoming
less fertile, agricultural production is falling, the weather is
becoming inclement, and animals and fish are becoming scarce in
the mountainous area of the Chin state.
We see therefore the need to do away with the destructive method
of slash and burn farming and change to the systematic method of
terrace farming known as ‘SALT-I” (Sloping Agricultural Land
Technology). We believe this method provides for the growing of
small plants within the contour lines, which makes the soil fertile.
This method also prevents soil erosion, conserves topsoil, supplies
natural fertilizer, prevents the growing of weeds, protects moisture
and therefore protects the environment and increases agricultural
production. Besides, this method is cheaper, demanding less labor
and is sustainable with one’s own labor.
We discover that instead of turning domestic animals loose to
graze, we should apply the simple Agro-live stock technology
(SALT-II). If we put fences around our garden and grow plants
for animal feed, we will be able to take care of our household
needs and even do commercial livestock breeding, thereby
promoting and sustaining the livelihood of the Chin peoples. This
will not only prevent trees from being cut down and forests burnt,
resulting in more barren mountains and unpredictable weather but
also in the application of such method as Agro-Forest Land
Technology (SALT-III). By replanting of trees, making the whole
Chin region green and beautiful.
We find, soon after the above-mentioned methods of changes are
undertaken, that we should give priority to the growing of trees
and plants that are suitable to our environment and also learn to
consume more of those home grown products. Instead of trying to
grow plants are not suitable to our climate, we should concentrate
on growing plants systematically that produce better yield in our
region. According to the Chin people with the view to promoting
their living standard and liberating themselves from the threat of
social problems and upholding the great responsibility entrusted to
human beings by God to care for His creation.
Continued from APPENDIX- II:
Statement of Denouncement
1. We denounce the outdated and traditional method of slash and
burn farming which destroys the green mountainous region and
turns it into dry barren hills.
2. We denounce the random felling of trees and burning of hills
causing natural streams and springs to dry up harming fertility of
soil and causing weather upset.
3. We denounce the careless way of breeding domestic animals,
which serves as an obstacle to the systematic method of farming.
4. We will do away with the slash and burn method of farming
which causes the Chin people to become isolated and to
disintegrate and replace it with the method of terrace farming
known as Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT-I).
5. We will replace the careless habit of allowing domestic animals to
move about an grazing grounds with the scientific method of
simple Sloping Agro-Livestock Technology (SALT-II).
6. We will do away with the system of random felling of trees and
plants and the burning of forests and replace it with the scientific
method of hill forest conservation known as Sustainable AgroForest Land Technology (SALT-III).
June 2007, pp. 169~194
Religion, Culture and Environment: an
African Feminist Perspective
Eunice K. Kamaara1, Gilbert N. Mbaka2 and
Naomi L. Shitemi3
Introduction
One of the major concerns of our contemporary world is
environmental management. Environmental disasters have
become common and extreme leading to immense human
suffering across the globe. Many human lives are lost and a lot
of property destroyed so that people do not easily forget these
events. Mention the word environmental disasters and
immediately people think of climate change and global warming
to conjure up memories of Hurricane Katrina and the tsunami.
But the more serious impacts of these disasters is found in their
aftermath as it leads to loss of lives, livelihoods and many other
issues that touch on health, security, peace and comfort.
1
Eunice K. Kamaara is a Professor in Religious Studies at Moi University,
Kenya <[email protected]>
2
Gilbert N. Mbaka is a Lecturer in Geography at Moi University, Kenya
<[email protected]>
3
Naomi L. Shitemi is a Professor in Kiswahili and other African Languages
at Moi University, Kenya <[email protected]>
However, few people will broadly think of the
environment beyond human relationship with the earth. In many
situations we think within our academic disciplines to see only
one perspective to reality. Yet, there are many perspectives.
Because modern knowledge compartmentalizes knowledge on
reality into small components few people would associate such
disasters as HIV and the consequent AIDS with environmental
management. While it is necessary to break down knowledge on
complex reality into small components for clarity and simplicity,
there is the danger of fragmenting reality which it is not the case.
Reality is a complex multidimensional whole which must be
understood as such and addressed as such if we are to be
effective.
In this paper, we seek to dialogue the need to take a
multidimensional approach in order to assemble various
perspectives together in order to have a whole picture of reality.
These writers define the concept of environment from an
African feminist perspective to indicate the central role of
religion/culture in integrating different components of
knowledge on reality into a whole. Using illustrations from
traditional African worldview, the writers present HIV/AIDS as
an environmental problem which must be addressed as such for
effectiveness. Within this African world view is a feminist
perspective that is distinct from other perspectives of feminism
in the sense that it is all inclusive rather than exclusive.
That the writers come from different disciplines that
would otherwise appear to have no link especially on the subject
of environment in general and of HIV/AIDS specifically is
deliberate and strategic. This symbolizes the possibility of
addressing any subject from different perspectives while
stressing the importance of consolidating the perspectives into a
collective whole as is with real life.
The major conclusion derived from this presentation is
that all knowledge must be integrated into a whole for
developing practical means to address the real life situations.
This calls for effective coordination of multidisciplinary and
Religion, Culture and Environment 171
multi-sectoral approaches to life challenges. In this application
and discourse, religious-cultural approaches to reality are
considered paramount.
Definition of Terms
Culture may be defined as a people’s total way of life; way of
thinking and acting. Hence, a people’s language, economic
activities, recreational activities, social organization, and
political activities are part of what makes up culture. Modern
societies distinguish between religion and culture to refer to
religion as a people’s way of life that is related to a supernatural
reality. Hence religious activities will be presented as those
activities that directly and explicitly indicate a people’s belief in
God to include prayer and worship with all the attendant rituals
and rites associated with these.
From an African perspective however, the same
definition that is given of culture is given of religion. There is no
distinction between religion and culture as both are about the
total way of life. For traditional Africans, religion permeates
into all departments of life because to live is to be religious.4
They do not conceive of a situation where one can live without
religion. Hence every situation is regarded as a religious activity
even when this is not overtly expressed. More often than not
however, traditional Africans will explicitly reify their
religiosity and spirituality in their total way of life. Therefore,
every human activity right from birth to death is seen from the
perspective that God is the author of all and therefore will
always be interpreted with reference to God. Major moments in
a person’s and a community’s life such as birth, initiation from
childhood to adulthood, marriage, and death are marked by
overtly religious activities. But ordinary activities such as
weeding and planting are interpreted as religious activities not
just because they are accompanied by religious rituals but also
4
J.S. Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy. London: Heinemann, 1969, 1.
because the supernatural reality is considered the very purpose
for engaging in these activities. In essence, humans are
understood to be intrinsically religious so that there is no
situation or activity in their life that can be isolated as secular or
profane. This is why J.S. Mbiti writes: “Africans are notoriously
religious”.5
It follows therefore that the African concept of
environment is holistic and inclusive to include: the spiritual
environment which refers to the non-physical reality within
which are ancestors and other spirits; the human environment
which includes the living dead and the living human persons
among whom an individual operates; the animal environment
which includes animals of the air, land and sea; the plant
environment which includes all plants of the land and sea; and
inanimate environment which includes physical features like
mountains, rivers, rocks, and other elements of what modern
science calls the physical world.
It is against this background and understanding of
religion, culture, and environment that this paper is written. The
following section describes the African ethical community to
illustrate the holistic understanding of reality from an African
feminist perspective indicating how this helped in environmental
management. Suffice to mention that ‘traditional’ in this context
does not refer to archaism, primitivity or out-datedness as has
erroneously been understood in some circles. Rather it refers to
the way of life of Africans that is authentic to Africans rather
than what is a product of deliberate efforts by non-Africans to
make Africans discard their way of life in favour of other
people’s ways over colonialism and missionary activity of the
19th century. Contrary to many people’s beliefs, the Traditional
African way of life is alive as it continues to be practiced by
many Africans. This explains the choice of tense throughout
this paper
5
Ibid.
The African Ethical Community
Different peoples in Africa have different ways of life as
dictated by their specific contexts. The pastoralists of the plains
move from place to place with their animals in search of pasture
and water while the farmers of the mountains cultivate crops
specific to their climatic regions. The fishermen around the
lakes rely on foods from the lakes while those along the seas
will gather their livelihood around the sea. This means that
Africans are heterogeneous so that it may be erroneous to
discuss a concept like the African community. However, it is
possible to discuss the concept of practice of the African ethical
community from a general perspective because the elements that
make up this community and the interactions between these
elements are common in the sense that what is wrong or right
among one people is basically wrong or right among any other
African community. This is because the same values govern
interactions whether the people are fisher folk, pastoralists or
farmers.
The traditional African community is not just made up of
human beings, both living and dead. It is also made up of spirits,
animals of the air, land and sea, plants of the land and sea, and
of in inanimate elements such as rivers, lakes, mountains, soil,
and rocks which are natural as well as human made elements
such as chairs, beds, houses, granaries etc. this indicates that the
traditional understanding of all reality is holistic and
communalistic in the sense that all the elements of the created
order are intrinsically interconnected. Any attempt to interfere
with their interconnectedness would be considered sacrilegious
and extremely dangerous.
As is in every community, there is a system of
government in the African community. While there are various
levels of governance, all the elements of this community are
governed by the same reality which is their origin, purpose and
destiny – the supernatural. Though described different by
different communities depending on their physical environments
and lifestyles, the attributes of the supernatural are common
among all Africa societies. The attributes of the supernatural are
summed up in the different names that different peoples give to
this reality. Even within one people, there are many names for
this reality. For example, among the Kikuyu of Central Kenya,
the supernatural Being is referred to as ‘Ngai’ which translates
to mean the Great Divider (essentially of land which is the major
source of livelihood for these people) as well ‘Mwene’ which
means the owner of all. When they are more specific they will
refer to the supernatural as ‘Mwene Nyaga’ which means the
owner of glory as symbolized by ‘Nyaga’, the awesome natural
phenomenon on the unreachable top of Mt. Kenya.
Similarly, among the Luhya of Western Kenya, God is
refereed to by his revered attributes and characteristics. These
names include ‘Nyasaye’, ‘Were’, ‘Omulonji’, ‘Omulonji wa
biosi’, and ‘Khakaba’. Nyasaye means ‘the one whom we pray’
or ‘the one from whom we ask’; ‘Were’ is similar in meaning to
Nyasaye but used in different Luhya dialects; Omulonji’ is
‘Creator’ whereas ‘Omulonji wa biosi’ is ‘Creator of all things’.
Khakaba’ means ‘One who gives’ or ‘Giver’. The Supremacy,
greatness, divine, universal and yet interpersonal nature of how
God is perceived and relates with the African community is
therefore evident and implied in all the references and names
that are accorded to this ultimate reality. More adjectives that
denote God’s supremacy and omnipotence emerge in each
instance of prayer, living, relating to, and appreciating God’s
presence in the environment.
Early Christian missionaries dismissed traditional
Africans as idol worshippers just because they had many names
for this reality but these references may be equated to the
Christian God as the attributes are similar. In any case the
Christian God has also got many names. Generally, all African
peoples acknowledge God as the all-pervading creator and
owner of all things, power, and knowledge as is reflected in their
references to God. This means that at one level, the African
community is Theo centric since everything revolves around
God. An important note to make is that in the African traditional
thinking, although God is sometimes defined using human
attributes, it is clearly understood that God is not human and
therefore there is no people in Africa who have a gendered
reference to God.
At another level, the African understanding of
community is anthropocentric in that human beings are
considered as managers of the rest of creation. But this role of
managing is more about responsibility and stewardship than
about privilege and dominance. To enable them play this role, it
is understood that God endowed humans with higher faculties
than other elements of the created order.
In his novel Things Fall Apart, Chinua Achebe develops
a discourse between Mr. Brown, a colonial District officer and
Mr. Akunna a village elder, on the concept and definition of
God. 6 Each member gives their perspective based on their
cultures and relationship to the environment. Akunna gives a
holistic definition of God, referring to God as one who is
evident, present and manifest in all creation hence one who is
continually and perpetually worshipped through all elements of
creation. He also gives the dimension of God as one who is not
only supreme but one who can also punish one if they err. A
lack of harmony between humans and their environment
therefore denotes a lack of harmony between them and God. It
therefore will be paramount for the harmony to be restored if the
equilibrium is to be attained once again. Aspects of poor life,
poor harvest and early death would call for cleansing and
appeasing whereas aspects of enjoyed peace, tranquility and
bountiful harvest would call for celebration and thanksgiving.
The religious rituals and worship that precede land preparation
for farming, planting and harvesting seasons tell of the habitual
need to ensure harmony and continue and sustained contact and
communication with God the creator and giver.
6
Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart Nairobi: Heinemann, 1962.
These aspects of worship, recognition, dependence, fear
and awesomeness of a supreme being are not unique to the
society about which Achebe writes. They cut across all African
communities with variation in practice and application.
At the centre of traditional African community is ethics.
This means that there are rules and regulations indicating what
is wrong and what is right and governing behaviour of all the
elements of the African community. Without ethics, there can
be no community. God is the author of this ethics as the allpervading owner and creator of all things, power and knowledge.
African ethics are comparable to the Roman Catholic
understanding of natural law in that God imparts to humans
understanding on what is right and wrong. But it is different in
that unlike in the Roman Catholic morality, all elements of
creation are understood as having ‘vital force’ which operates in
response to what is right and wrong making them part of the
ethical community. But the sense of ethics is only found in
human persons to enable them play their role as stewards of the
rest of creation.
Within the African ethical community is a web of
interrelationships between all the elements: spirits, humans,
animals (of air, land and sea), plants and non living things.
These relationships are governed by respect, care and concern.
As already mentioned, human persons are endowed with sense
of ethics and therefore have special responsibility. Much more is
demanded of them as members of the ethical community. For
this reason, traditional Africans were careful to ensure that they
relate with respect, care and concern to the rest of creation. But
it is not just to meet their responsibility that they have to be
ethical. Traditional Africans understand that if they engage in
unethical relationships with any of the other elements of creation,
the elements are capable of responding in a negative way since
they have ‘vital force’ within them. Hence the concept and
practice of communitarianism is not merely an obligation
especially for human beings but absolutely necessary for their
own survival and wellbeing.
African communitarianism recognizes the interdependence of all elements of creation so that when one species
suffer, all species suffer together. The understanding is that there
is mutual dependence and therefore mutual destiny. Ethical
relationships enhance life, unethical relationships inhibit life. It
is therefore in one’s own interest to be ethical. In this context
one may understand Mbiti’s widely quoted statement: “I am
because we are and because we are I am”7 not just to refer to
human interdependence but also to interdependence of all
elements of creation. It is from this perspective of African
ethical community that one may also understand the words of
the first African woman Nobel peace prize winner Wangari
Maathai: “Nature can be very unforgiving”.8
African cultural-religious studies indicate that traditional
Africans have taboos and values governing the behaviour of all
in the ethical community. These relate to all relationships and
interrelationships in the holistic environment. Being stewards of
creation, human beings are expected to respect, care and show
concern for all other elements of creation, not just in isolated
acts but, in all their day to day activities. While some cultural
beliefs and practices may seem absurd to modern thinking,
critical analysis show that there is rationale for such behavior.
For example, among all African communities, water bodies such
as seas, lakes, rivers and oases were accorded special respect,
care and concern that some Christian missionaries
misinterpreted this to mean nature worship. Yet, for the African,
it was out of clear understanding of water as source of life when
appropriately utilized, managed and conserved; and yet being
also a source of death if proper relationships between water and
humanity are not upheld. It is because of the polarized attributes
of relating with nature that such respect, care and concern was
7
Ibid
Wangari Maathai, Unbowed; the Story of One Woman…Croydon: Arrow
Books, 2006
8
accorded to these elements. Talk about the Word of God in the
Bible being a double edged sword!
The African’s relation with nature is equally double
edged. If appropriately nurtured, it is life but if abused, it
becomes death. There are rules and regulations governing the
use of these resources and other related resources within the
ecosystem to ensure healthy relationships between human
beings and these elements of creation. For example, among most
African communities, certain areas and vegetation are preserved
and therefore not cultivated because they are recognized as
direct sources of life while farms were indirect sources of life.
For example, Kikuyu’s reserve areas around mountains and hills.
these are preserved and religious rituals were performed around
these at certain intervals/seasons. Similarly, the Luhyas revere
forests and river catchments areas. Most rituals were carried out
in these places and often they were not only places of worship
but most religious rituals of initiation, cleansing and petitioning
God were carried out in such places. The Kaya shrines (forests)
of the Miji Kenda people of the Kenyan coast are gazzetted
areas because of the religious significance they hold for the
people, an attribute that contributes to the diverse heritage of
Kenya. Within the forests, for example, are sacred trees
associated with divinity hence requiring specific protection,
preservation and management. The preservation element takes
care of the physical need while the religious rites have a two
fold meaning: i) to make sacred the areas and therefore bind
people to preserve it physically, and ii) to appeal to higher being
for continued benevolence. This means that Africans clearly
distinguish between their power and responsibility in creation
but also their limitations in understanding the complexity of life.
Today we understand through modern knowledge that
mountains and hills are catchments areas but we do not respect
or care for them. Traditional African thinking could be
insightful on how to understand the larger picture beyond the
rhetoric.
The Need for Holistic Perspectives to Environmental
Management
African culture as evident through oral literature and
language use best illustrates the interactive harmony and
intertwining between humanity and nature that symbolizes
God’s supremacy hence religion. Narratives, sayings, proverbs,
riddles, stories and other literary expressions tell of the
connection between human beings and nature in manners that
either teach, guide, warn, admonish, restrict, caution, inform,
educate … and the list is endless, in a manner that holistically
internalizes the importance of creating and ensuring harmony
between humans and nature in a manner that is beneficial and
sustainable for the benefit of all that share the environment.
Here below are case illustrations drawn from folk narrative.
The Story of the Elephant and the Four Blind Men
One of the popular stories in Africa is the story of four
blind men who came in contact with an elephant. Because they
could not see, they had to touch the elephant in order to
comprehend what type of animal it is. The first blind man
touched and felt the bulky side of the elephant. The second
touched and felt the huge flapping ears. The third one felt and
touched the trunk-like leg while the fourth one felt and touched
the thin frail tail. Then the blind men were asked to describe the
animal, one at a time. The one who felt the bulky side of the
elephant reported that an elephant is like a huge wall; the second
one said it is like a huge tree truck. The third blind man
reported that an elephant is like a broad, flat, winnowing basket;
while the fourth one described the elephant as a thin stick with
short branches.
The four blind men were all right about their description
of the Elephant, each from their perceived perspective. Each saw
their description as the only right and complete one of the
elephant and could have argued as to who was correct and who
was wrong. To a great extent however, they were all wrong
because they had not beheld the entire elephant with all its
features and structures. Their perceptions were very narrow
because they failed to get the larger and holistic picture of the
description of the elephant. In this sense an elephant is like all
the features they mention combined plus much more depending
on the perspective from which one looks at it.
Often, reality has been truncated as was the description
of the elephant as illustrated in this tale. While different
disciplines or perspectives can offer segmented ‘truths’ about
the ‘whole’, only a holistic perspective that considers the
‘elephant’ in totality can really give the truth.
A
multidimensional, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary
approach is therefore inevitable in the present times of seeking
holistic knowledge and ‘truth’ for sustainable eco-management.
This could never apply more than in environmental
studies and management. As a reality, the environment can be
perceived from a variety of perspectives hence its being
embodied with various perspectives. All of these need to be
understood if one aspires to get the whole picture for appropriate
and sustainable management. For clarity and simplicity, it
however is essential to compartmentalize knowledge into
disciplines and even into sub-disciplines.
For example, from a geographical perspective, one can
look at spatial concerns and even compartmentalize these further
into spatial human environments or spatial physical
environments. But such perspectives will only provide limited
perspectives to reality. It is essential to assemble the
perspectives together in order to see the larger picture given the
interdependence and the interrelatedness of the human and the
physical aspects of the environment. Attempts to provide
solutions to one aspect of the environment can only lead to
disaster as history attests. It would seem like there is a lot of
wisdom to borrow from the traditional understanding and
practice of African ethical community.
Another dimension that links the interrelation of humans
and nature, especially on aspects of responsibility,
accountability, diligence and conscientiousness is told in a tale
of the monkeys desiring to construct a house for their habitation
but never really getting down to doing it.
This tale cautions against complacence and lack of
commitment plan and strategy in relating to nature and
environment for own safety, sustainability, comfort and health.
It gives challenge on how, for instance the Millennium
Development Goals are approached, not to mention what
brought them on especially in the context of Africa. It also
illustrates the vices that have catalyzed the seemingly unabated
spread of HIV and AIDS from the dimension of decadent
behaviour coupled with a lack of desire to change this behaviour
in spite awareness and knowledge that it is the main abettor.
The story goes; during the rains the monkeys always lack
shelter. They therefore set out to undertake a house construction
project. This project had been conceived of and planned for on
several occasions but never really undertaken. Of course the
timber was always available in the forest and all they needed to
do was to cut as needed and to embark on the construction.
Since they never got round to undertaking the project when they
had time, it always appeared very urgent and an emergency
during the rains now that they were cold and wet. During the
drought however, when the weather was warm and bright, the
project lost its urgency. The monkeys actually always called
meetings to discuss house construction after they had really been
rained on and couldn’t withstand it anymore. Unfortunately they
arose to the call when the rainy season was almost coming to an
end. When the rains stopped the issue lost its urgency and they
shelved it. They never saw the need to construct houses when
the rains were gone only to be awakened during the next heavy
rains! Up till today they always gather during the rains to plan
house-construction but never get round to it because the rains
disappear just when they are about to start constructing the
house! Ask them next time you meet them why they do not have
houses yet!
What is the moral here and how is it related to the thesis
in our paper? Two issues emerge, the importance of planning on
one hand and the need to execute the plan through action and
implementation on the other. As mentioned earlier, it also
challenges the interaction of humans with nature and their
environment for own sustainability. Are they awake to the
resources available for their tapping? Are they tapping on them
in a sustainable manner? How do they relate to their
environment? How do they cultivate, hence enhance the
harmony between themselves and nature on one hand and
manage the environment for their sustainability, having been
given the prerogative of overseeing nature? How does the
complacence of these monkeys tell of lack of commitment hence
poor usage or non use of their environment for their own welfare
and health?
Similarly, an environment that is not utilized for the
good of humanity could be in contravention of God’s plan for
humans. As understood in traditional African thinking, the
environment is given by God for use and management, not to be
exploited. Such are the environments that bring about chronic
poverties even where humanity could be self sustaining. It is
even worse in these days of prevalent donor funding and aid,
including food aid. Africa has been plagued with a myriad of
lacking and deprivations leading to chronic poverty even where
the people could tap on their environments in a sustainable
manner to enhance production and food security. The economic
deprivations, marginalization and underdevelopments could be
associated with, in part, the complacence of the monkeys who
could probably have liked it better if another being had actually
come to build the houses for them although the resources were
just at arms-length.
The central role of humans as stewards of creation
demands that they understand the interconnectedness and
interrelatedness of all creation and all issues. Addressing various
concerns in a compartmentalized way is often a waste of
resources.
Take the HIV and AIDS phenomenon for example. This
is not only a medical issue but also an environmental and social
issue. It is not merely environmental in the sense that we can not
only study the spatial spread of the virus, or the impact of health
interventions on natural resources but also in terms of the virus
being as a result of unhealthy relationships between humans and
their environments. HIV spread in Africa is basically through
sexual promiscuity though not necessarily of the victim. Lack of
care, respect and concern for fellow humans especially for
women is a major contributing factor to HIV infection. The
illusion is that what is of interest to others is not necessarily of
interest to the self. The African ethical community implies that
what is of interest to others is necessarily of interest to the
individual. This is a basic principle that modern knowledge
needs to apply in all disciplines.
This therefore leads us into a deeper exposition of
African feminism in relation to the holistic binding of all the
elements of nature and environmental sustainability for
continuity and health through a procreation that centralizes the
feminine attributes that go with reproduction and nurturing. It is
not for nothing that the earth is often referred to as mother
earth/mother nature; heavy clouds referred to as being pregnant
with rain; soils as being fertile; a nice healthy crop as being
pregnant with harvest and also a fruit tree in fruit as being
pregnant with fruit! All these adjectives and many others to be
found in artistic, metaphorical and literary expressions strongly
bind nature to feminine attributes. Poor emaciated land is
referred to as barren land. The desert too is often referred to as
barren since little crop or nothing grows unless the ‘fertilization’
and ‘watering’ elements are undertaken to alleviate the
‘barrenness’ thus enhancing or bringing about (re)production. It
is a no wonder Africa is feminized and referred to as mother
Africa in many discourses be they social, political, economic or
even entertainment and music.
But first, we discuss something about orature as a
vehicle through which the interrelatedness of culture, religion
and environment has been manifest in a holistic manner.
Orature
The traditional creative medium for most of humanity is
orature. Most of the traditional/African underwent formal and
informal indigenous education through rituals, celebrations,
daily living and interaction with members of community.
Information and knowledge were thus transmitted orally hence
each member grew up sharpening, deepening and mastering the
traditional medium, in terms of the information packaging,
dissemination and utilization through language and creative
resources. They were able to speak out on behalf of fellow
members and in terms that the majority of the members could
understand and identify with.
However, orature demands both resourcefulness and
talent. The oral narrator is not only a speaker but also a
performer, a singer, an improviser, not to mention being a living
library, archive and guardian of indigenous and community
knowledge. Apprenticeship was part and parcel of mechanisms
of orature for propagation and transmission of art and skills that
were respondent to the dictates of indigenous knowledge.
The conditions of existence, the joys and sorrows
accompanying life experience, serve as sources of inspiration for
much of the oratorial productions. As a young member of
community, one learns and imbibes the age old traditions and
taboos of one’s society, then passes on the same age old
traditions, tales and songs and taboos to subsequent generations.
The older generation instructs and guides the younger
generation and give recourse and resolution to issues as
community elders.
The communities’ creativity is therefore informed,
regulated, and nurtured by socio- economic, cultural,
environmental and historical factors to mention but a few. It
therefore requires that communities exist and operate in specific
social formations that are dictated and responsive to the
environment. Culture and the relations of production and
reproduction therefore tend to conform to basic socioenvironmental structures that are endorsed and supported by
indigenous knowledge and natural resources they are endowed
with. Depending on the needs of the existing social formation,
communities tend to relegate certain tasks, be they economic,
biological and artistic, to specific genders. Language ends up
serving as a communication channel and medium through which
orature is transmitted for socio-cultural and environmental
nurturing and development.
For Africans therefore, as alluded to earlier, religion is
not the “opium of the oppressed”. It is the supernatural
empowering that exalts them from their natural powerlessness to
reach positions of divine authority protesting against all that
dehumanizes them. Whether possessed by ancestral spirits or
filled with the power of God’s own Spirit, their identity is
overtaken by the supernatural, they soar to levels beyond the
reproach of the natural authority and alter the otherwise
unalterable in the quest for more just and inclusive
communities. 9 Since these communities comprise African
peoples who are ‘notoriously’ religious, whose religious beliefs
permeate all realms of their lives whatever is denounced or
demanded is taken as authoritative as is a divine charge through
the agency of a medium.10
For example, when a man is unfaithful to his wife,
modern communities enshrined with the double-standard ethos
which favours men while demanding strict observance and
9
Fulata L. Moyo, (2004): “Religion, Spirituality and Being a woman in
Africa: Gender construction within the African Religio-Cultural Experiences’
in Agenda A61: 72-78.
10
Berger, Iris. (1976), “Rebels or Status Seekers? Women as Spirits
Mediums in East Africa” in Nancy J. Hafkin and Edna G. Bay, (eds.) Women
in Africa: Studies in Social economic Change Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press, 157-82.
obedience from women, would expect the women to be more
understanding and more forgiving. This aspect and perspective
of subservience has had its own share in fueling and spreading
HIV and AIDS among the communities. The entire society turns
out to be literally and figuratively condescending regardless of
the known repercussions.
Not only does land have strong religious meaning, it is
the principal object of production that also holds pride of place.
The one who controls land controls whatever dwells on it. In
pre-colonial times, land was not yet scarce, and arable land was
usually
communally-owned,
though
individuals
had
usufurctuary rights over their plots. The community that owned
the land could be the clan, the village. In most cases however,
the main tillers of the land were the women. Women were
perceived as custodians of the domestic well being of the
community. “They were for the reproduction and production
ensuring that there was adequate food for the family and extra
for the various functions on which the status of the homestead
depended”.11 Men assisted in the initial clearing stages but left
women to plant, weed and harvest and oversee the disposal of
all food crops.
Besides orature, other aspects of the spiritual culture,
such as art and literature, are also influenced by the traditional
beliefs and practices. For instance, sculptures and masks serve
as religious and ritual items.12 Religious beliefs and myths have
inspired numerous songs, stories and epics, depicting the worlds
of humans and spirits, and the concerns of humans in this life
and the next. In many of these, both male and female symbolism
and imagery dominate. Objects of material culture, such as
housing, dress, food, and tools, also have a religious and
ideological dimension. For instance, it may be interesting to
speculate on why the round hut is such a common feature in
11
Jomo Kenyatta, (1938) Facing Mount Kenya: the Tribal Life of the Gikuyu,
Nairobi: Heinemann, 1938:37-38.
12
M.M. Mulokozi, (1982), “Protest and Resistance in Kiswahili Poetry 16601900” in Kiswahili, 49 (1): 25-51.
sub-Saharan Africa all the way from the Sudan and Ethiopia in
the north to South Africa. In some of the centralized states, even
the direction the house faces is dictated by politico-religious
considerations.
Feminism from an African Perspective
Feminism is an ideology subject to many qualifications
and diverse definitions and labels. Distinctions in types of
feminism reflect the contestations that have emerged and which
have been part of the history and worldwide development of
feminist ideas. Of focus however in this paper is African
feminism, a social movement, to which the voices of women in
the text have either consciously or unconsciously subscribed as
will be illustrated by and by.
Whereas Feminism as a noun reflects a historical social
movement founded to struggle for female equality, Feminist as
an adjective is not confined to history but describes a range of
behaviour indicating the female agency and self (singular or
plural) determination. 13 The two augur differently in the
feminism theoretical premise and feminist woman participant as
is manifest in the African contexts.
Distinctions in the definition and types of feminism have
over time reflected the contestations that have emerged
depending on ideology and origin; and which have been part of
the history and worldwide developments and definitions in the
woman’s world as viewed by herself and others in society. The
pursuit by African women to define the concept within their
own contexts is therefore not a strange phenomenon. She seeks
to contextualize herself within African parameters thus laying
emphasis on the uniqueness of her environment and sociocultural and economic landscapes. A theoretical exposition on
13
O. Oyewumi, (Ed.) (2003): African Women and Feminism: Reflecting on
the Politics of
Sisterhood. Africa World Press Inc.
African feminism is therefore taking root in a variety of gender
and feminist related dialogue.
In the African situation and position of the woman, the
value and virtue of self determination has been manifest as a
matter of course and way of life for young and old alike in both
traditional and modern times. This is manifested further at a
variety of levels in the totality of life including, personal,
cultural, socio-economic, political and others which make up the
compounded and complicated web of life. This web complicates
things even more when it is truncated in a series of local,
national and lately global historical processes. In this web are
multiple forms of oppression and subordination to which the
African woman has been subjected; yet around which she has to
maneuver and manipulate her will and resources to cope. The
woman’s will for self determination, resistance and manner of
coping with issues have however landed her means of reprieve
out of which a rich multiple hurt but not beaten personality and
character has emerged.
Generally, feminism is concerned with the liberation of
women from a variety of yokes following sensitization and
awareness creation. In Africa however, woman cannot be
isolated since womanhood does not constitute a specific social
role neither does it identify a specific position or location. It
cannot be defined in isolation since it embodies the
wholesomeness of life and continuity. In it therefore is
encapsulated the same male who through patriarchy has been
accused to be the authors suppression, oppression and
subordination. Each individual woman finds herself occupying a
multiple of overlapping and intersecting positions and roles with
various relationships to both privileging and disadvantaging
situations revolving around herself and around the man within
her environment.
Local situations in which the woman finds herself and in
which she operates continue to be fluid, volatile and flux given
not only the internal influences but also the proportionate
influence of external agents in her life. Many forces, gender and
the disparities that go along with it inclusive, make up primary
courses and focus for forms of her resistance, political agitation
and more resolve for self determination, especially when she
does not despair.
The irony and satire in the African woman’s life
comprises the uniqueness of African feminism. This emphasizes
how in African feminism womanhood has to continue to
embody life and continuity through both positive and negative
impacts and interactions. The self determination, will to survive
and modes of resistance, what is referred to in Kiswahili as
kuzunguka Mbuyu (literally, to go over a great impediment or
barrier as symbolized by the enormous baobab tree – Mbuyu)
mark her resilience and survival.
Our dialogue on religion, culture and environment is
therefore sufficiently encompassed in the African feminist
approach which is as holistic and all inclusive as is the society
that is African community. In Africa, it has not been so much
the problem of definition as is the negative perception and
‘stigma’ that has accompanied the terminologies of feminism
and feminist as a label. Clarity has therefore continued to be
sought among professionals with the term being pulled down
from the western abstraction that has often accompanied it and
taking on an afro-centric perspective that acknowledges and
propounds Africa specific contextualization from cultural, social,
religious, environmental and economic dimensions.
An African Feminist school of thought is not premised
upon the bodily perspectives as is the western feminism but it is
dialogued upon but the phenomena of woman and womanhood
as symbolic of nature and nurturing for procreativity,
sustainability and continuity of life. The various terrains and
landscapes that characterize the woman as sought out in this
school of thought, are conceptualized around holistic
representation of the said nature and nurturing in which male,
female and all elements of nature that relate to life and living are
encompassed. African feminism therefore owes its being to
various multidimensional dynamics of religion, society, culture
and environment. This therefore signals the woman’s divine
duty and desire to be an active player in determining the
direction of manipulation of nature, environment and
development to which she is part.14
The thesis is that African Feminism has largely been
shaped by African women’s resistance to Western hegemony
and its legacy within African cultures. It does not grow out of
individualism, neither does it from capitalism. It is inclusive,
heterosexual, pro-natal and concerned with the daily subsistence,
cultural, political and sustainability issues. It grows out of a
history of female integration within a largely corporate and
agrarian based society endowed with strong cultural heritages
that have been traumatized by the West. The Daily Nation of
Friday October 29th 2004, a Kenyan daily, gives weight to this
contention by reporting an admission by Norway’s Ambassador
to Kenya, Mr. Kjell Harald, that Norway has erred in its past
development policies in Kenya thus:
Although most of its projects were of noble cause ….
they failed because no proper prior evaluation had been
done. … “we introduced to Kenya projects that worked
in Norway without seeing what was going to work
locally”…with hindsight we now realize that many
things we tried to do with good intention were not
properly researched and studied before we started. The
lessons have now sunk in that it is not we from Europe
or the donor community who know all but it is the local
people who know best.
The African Feminist trend therefore seeks to foregrounds the
unique African communalism as pivoted by and upon women
being symbolic of the assurance of continuity and sustenance
14
Oyewumi, O. (Ed.) (2003): African Women and Feminism See also:
Friedman, S.S. (1998): MAPPINGS: Feminism and the Cultural Geographies
of Encounter (Princeton University Press).
through nature and nurturing. It also seeks to inform policy
while blending the same with emphasis on culturally linked
forms of public participation and alternative initiatives of
environmental management. The woman in Africa therefore
continues to be bold and to gather courage in order to
aggressively address socio economic and political elements that
determine and affect her status in society. She draws upon
distinct cultural traditions and historical experiences that have
either subjugated elevated or actualized her. Initiatives are to be
found in the emerging and growing grassroots mobilizations and
pursuits towards more friendly and harmonized aspirations of
cohabiting and managing the environment for welfare that is
social, political, cultural, and economic not to be ignored.
The gender relations that prevailed in pre-colonial times,
and which continue to prevail, albeit with differing or
stereotyped traits were and still are largely dictated by the
culture, social structures, religious beliefs and power relations
largely from a patriarchal human alignment. The African woman,
her values, virtues, efforts at self determination and actualization
are manifest in this scenario as matters of course and way of life,
to which reactions, adaptations and conformity or otherwise are
variously presented. Her position and identity are imbibed in, as
well as shaped by, the various environmental settings in which
she finds herself. The role expected of her or imposed upon her
from these various dictates including the traditional, political,
economic, modern and other settings which govern and
determine her operations. The compound and complex settings
of the woman are further determined by the series of local,
national and global socio-cultural and historical processes in
which she must strive and operate. Multiple forms of
acculturation, socialization, genderization, subordination and
often oppression dictate the actualization of womanhood thus
placing her in a ‘do or die’ form-of-response, reaction and
adaptation to her environment. The plight to which she has been
exposed in such instances as those of war and conflict, poverty
and marginalization foreground the eroded and abused
correlation between humans, nature and environment.
Unfortunately, the same woman bears most of the brunt.
The communal aspect of African feminism is often
contributed to by the women in their verbal discourses as they
go about daily engagements. Discourses depicting this form of
feminism are manifest in the communal songs that characterize
the traditional landscape of the woman’s worlds as manifest in
various African communities.
Orature and indigenous
knowledge as discussed above become core components of
enquiry if African feminism is to be adequately used to theorize
culture, religion and the environment as is in this paper.
An understanding of African feminism therefore calls for
a move beyond gendered sex in the bodily sense; a move in
which the multiple character and multi-tasking characteristics of
the woman need to be recognized. This is a phenomenon well
illustrated by Friedman as ‘mappings and borderless- ness’. 15
The fluid, mobile and continually shifting concept of social
structures is a manifestation of the interplay of culture and
history on one hand and the permeability versus impermeability
of the social and political boundaries on the other. The concept
of homogeneous versus bounded cultural wholes; historical
dynamics; cultural creativity; and the interplay between global
historical forces and local social relations and cultural
configuration beg for an Africa-specific prism for theorization
towards environmental management. An acknowledgement of
borders in this sense therefore denotes the significance of
identifying with the sites of production and dissemination
through which social structures and gender relations can be
localized. The various perspectives of the elephant’s body as
illustrated above are but highlights of the complex sense of
mappings, borderless ness, multiple and layered dimensions that
encompass the multidimensional, multidisciplinary and holistic
approaches to culture, religion and the environment.
15
Friedman, S.S. (1998): MAPPINGS: Feminism and the Cultural
Geographies of Encounter (Princeton University Press).
Conclusion
This paper presents the interrelatedness of all elements
of creation as understood from a traditional African perspective.
The concept of African ethical community indicate that all the
elements have a special role to play in environmental
management as they all have vital forces within them. However,
the human person has more responsibility than all the other
elements because of special appointment as steward of all
creation. Therefore, all elements of creation have
interrelationships which if governed by respect, care and
concern lead to flourishing of the environment while poor
relationships lead to environmental degradation and
consequently suffering of all creation. At the centre of all these
interrelationships is God who is the owner and giver of all. If all
elements of creations are so closely interconnected and
interdependent, the implication is that these elements need to
respect one another for mutual welfare. Otherwise, they are all
destined for mutual doom. This is a basic truth.
The implication of this truth is that even as we
compartmentalize knowledge for purposes of clarity and
simplicity, we need to assemble this knowledge and see how
reality interrelates. This calls for multi-disciplinary approaches
to understanding reality and addressing it.
African feminist is presented as pro-natal and concerned
with the daily subsistence, cultural, political and sustainability
issues. It is holistic and all inclusive unlike other forms of
feminism that tend to be exclusive and ‘womanist’. This
perspective ties up well with the traditional African
understanding of religion, culture and environment. It grows out
of a history of female integration within a largely corporate and
agrarian based society endowed with strong cultural heritages
that have been traumatized by the West often to the detriment of
the environment. The discussion indicates the need to borrow
from indigenous knowledge on holistic perspectives to real life
situations and their challenges
June 2007, pp. 195~217
A People’s Charter on
Peace for Life
Kim Yong Bock.1
Section I
A New Context
1. Preamble
Recognizing the yearning and right of people to live in peace
with dignity;
Realizing that a new global situation has arisen with new
challenges and threats to peace, where the total life of all living
beings is at stake;
United by the need to rediscover the true meaning of peace
today as peace with justice and peace for life;
Underscoring the need for a new commitment as well as to
mobilize people in order to make and build peace;
1
Prof. Yong Bock Kim is the Chancellor of Advanced Study of Life, Korea.
As senior research fellow at Sophia University, Tokyo, he founded the
Documentation for Action Groups in Asia. A past president of Hanil
University and Theological Seminary, Jeonju, Korea, Kim has been active in
the global ecumenical movements. A prolific writer on Minjung theology, he
is the author of Messiah and Minjung.
This Charter is adopted as an affirmation of the ardent desire
and aspirations of the people for peace.
2. Objectives
This Charter is adopted with the following objectives:
To articulate the people’s vision of peace for life;
To clarify and redefine the context and concept of peace
for life;
To affirm the fundamentals of peace;
To serve as a reference point as well as a guide to action
for groups and movements for peace; and,
To provide a model on which instruments for peace
efforts can be built in specific situations.
3. The New Context
Peace is the condition for the fullness of life, just as justice is the
precondition for peace. Peace ensures the harmonious living of
all humankind and creation. In essence, peace is the defense of
human dignity and the integrity of the cosmic order of living
beings.
From the most violent and war-ridden century in history, the
world emerged into the 21st century only to witness the
inauguration of an endless and borderless imperial war. A new
international order of the Global Empire is emerging that sees
the world in a permanent war and where it proclaims itself as the
force for global peace and stability.
Under this situation, intolerance, xenophobia, racism and
discrimination are being reinforced often in violent and even
genocidal fashion. Their practitioners justify them on the
grounds of religious, national, cultural, ideological, racial, and
ethnic affiliations.
Peoples Charter on Peace for Life 197
The War on Terror, waged by the United States of America and
its allies, has disastrous consequences for the whole world. This
war poses present and future threats to peace. The War on
Terror is limitless, borderless, endless and ever changing in its
aims, targets, and enemies.
This is part of the broader geopolitical reality that takes its roots
in the twentieth century and emerges more aggressively at the
beginning of this century – the Global Empire. It is intertwined
with the militarization of globalization and the attempt to build a
new military and economic order threatening all living beings,
their future and self-determination, cultures and economies, as
well as the ecosystem.
All these have created a world of systemic and structural
violence unparalleled in history. The threats to peace and
security are no longer solely of a military nature, however. In
the recent period, there has been deterioration both at the
national and international levels of the various dimensions of
security. The scope of destruction and devastation wrought by
the combination of these threats is unprecedented in the history
of humanity.
Section II
Understanding Peace for Life
1. The Right to Peace
The peoples of our planet have a sacred and inviolable right to
peace. Citizens of each country can therefore demand of their
governments to ensure that their national and international
objectives are directed toward attaining peace for life.
The human right of every woman, man, youth, and child to
peace and disarmament lies at the very heart of the realization of
all human rights. War and violence result in the systematic and
sweeping denial of civil and political rights as well as economic,
social, and cultural rights. People have a right to live convivially
in harmony with all living beings.
The right to life is denied through various forms of violence
such as political killings, forcible displacement, and destruction
of habitat.
Peace is a prerequisite for the exercise of all human rights and
duties. It is not, however, the peace of silence, whereby men and
women remain passive either by choice or by constraint. It is the
peace of freedom, of happiness, equality, and solidarity in which
all citizens count, live together, and share. Peace is not an
abstract idea but one that is rooted firmly in cultural, political,
social, and economic contexts.
The right to peace functions mainly to promote and protect the
right to life through peaceful settlement of disputes, by the
prohibition of the threat or use of force in international relations,
by total disarmament, and through the enforcement of
international laws and standards of human rights.
2. Redefinition of War
“By a combination of creative strategies and advanced
technologies we are redefining war on our own terms,”
President Bush thus said in May 2003 after claiming “victory”
over Iraq.
This is an ominous declaration as the Empire redefines not only
war strategies but also aims and doctrines of war. War aim has
been redefined to mean “regime change” in and occupation of
the adversary state. The redefinition of war places nuclear
weapons as essential for military purposes. Preemption is
redefined as “preventive war” with the empire claiming an
exclusive right to it, even in defiance of international law and
multilateral consensus.
Therefore, the redefinition of war has grave implications for
peace. The “creative strategies and advanced technologies” are
well reflected in the new doctrines of war. More alarming is that
the redefinition is “on our own terms,” i.e., the terms of the
Empire. Hence, it is a definition of imperial wars.
These doctrines have to be challenged from the perspective of
people grounded in people’s sovereignty and integrity of life of
all living beings. Peace has to be redefined on the terms of the
people even as rulers and aggressors of the world redefine war
on their own terms. The new terms of war – the terminology as
well as the conditions they impose – have to be rejected.
Peace can be recovered, reclaimed, and regained only by
unmasking the powers, their religion, systems, and institutions
that perpetuate war and injustice.
3. Exposing the New Image of War
New images of war are deliberately and assiduously created
with a view to sowing fears about so-called new “enemies of
freedom” and “non-traditional threats to security” while
thwarting efforts and opportunities for peace.
The two World Wars in the twentieth century led people all over
the world to develop an abhorrence of war. After the Second
World War, wars in many forms, regional and civil, were fought
in many parts of the world, often sparked by imperial aggression.
Social movements and cultural resistance against war
strengthened through various forms of social and political
thoughts as well as art and literature denouncing war.
As the 20th century came to a close a new image of war
emerged or rather was contrived, if not fully displacing the old
one, competing and challenging it. A new lexicon of military
terms appeared. War became “surgical”, “precise”, frictionless”,
“post-modern” and even “abstract”. The killing of hundreds of
thousands of civilians, through preemptive strikes as well as
cruel economic sanctions, was called “collateral damage”.
At the turn of the 21st century another perhaps more profound
and disastrous change came. War is projected as inevitable. Its
doctrinaires justify war as the means to peace and it is through
war that freedom is ensured. Thus, the Empire’s army is praised
as the greatest force for freedom. Wars waged by the Empire’s
forces will build democracy and free market in many countries.
Weapons of war are called instruments of peace. The producers
of weapons of mass destruction are hailed as the new
peacemakers. The new images of war are glorified by the
powers that be through media manipulation with the aim of
globalizing a culture of war.
These images of war have to be exposed and challenged for
what they are – myths and lies. One of the casualties of the
culture of war is the colonization of our imagination. People
need to resist subjugation and reclaim their imagination. They
have to dream anew of new possibilities. People need to exercise
their imagination and envision a new world - a world without
war or violence.
4. A Holistic Understanding of Peace
Simplistically equating peace with the mere absence of war has
to be rejected. The peace that is usually projected is the peace
that is maintained by “peace through strength” posture that has
led to the arms race, the stockpiling of nuclear weapons, and the
ultimate threat of mutually-assured destruction. It is precisely
through this machination that big powers are able to bully small
nations and create disequilibrium and disharmony throughout
the world. This actually creates conditions for war even as the
imperial wars for profit threaten peace no end.
More aggravating, many nations of the world erroneously
believe that security alliance with the USA will guarantee peace.
To the contrary, “peace” that is tied to the threat and intention to
kill vast numbers of human beings is hardly a stable or
justifiable peace worthy of the name. Peace is fundamentally
about sharing universal values such as respect for life, liberty,
justice, solidarity, tolerance, and equality. A holistic
understanding of peace involves the recognition that humanity
cannot exist independently of the biosphere, which sustains all
life.
Peace is the condition for the fullness of life. Human beings can
become truly humane only in conditions of peace. Creativity,
spirituality, individual and collective achievements attain glory
and grandeur only in the salubrious climate of peace.
The notion that war is inevitable is totally unacceptable, either.
If war is inevitable then peace becomes dispensable; peace has
no space. The commitment to regain and expand the space for
peace by struggling for a just and inclusive world community
has to be reaffirmed.
The understanding of peace has to be broadened to lead to Great
Peace. Toward this, the rich resources on peace from Asian
traditions and religions need to be tapped.
Peace and justice are indivisible. Justice is the condition for
peace, just as peace cannot be built on injustice. Peace requires a
radically new international order based on justice for all and
within nations, and the respect for the humanity and dignity of
every person. Peace is the effect of righteousness. Recent history
teaches us that without justice for all everywhere there will not
be peace anywhere. Peace is for life with its fullness of
humanity and dignity.
Section III
Threats to Peace
1. Threats to Peace from the Global Empire
The Bush administration’s war on terrorism, invasion of
Afghanistan and Iraq, expanded military budget, new military
doctrines and the ideology of the National Security Strategy
2002, have thrust the USA into the light of the day as an empire.
Its ideology claims a mandate for the pursuit of permanent
military security.
The Pentagon is moving at breakneck speed to re-deploy U.S.
forces and equipment around the world in ways that will permit
Washington to play “GloboCop”. The vast network of U.S.
bases on every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a
new form of empire. These military bases are today’s version of
the imperial colonies of the world. The USA has military
relationships with the vast majority of the nations of the world
ranging from alliances to access to facilities.
The Empire claims “global freedom of action”. It is geared
toward intervening militarily in any part of the world where –
dictated by its security doctrines and global strategic interests it perceives a threat, whether present, future, or potential. This
constitutes today the most visible threat to peace.
The Empire’s use of religion has to be challenged while
exposing the nexus between the neo-conservatives and the
Religious Right in the USA.
Since war has been redefined to suit imperialist objectives, the
struggle for peace has become today a struggle against
imperialism in general and resistance against the U.S. Empire in
particular.
2. The War on Terror, an Imperial War
The War on Terror launched by the USA as its response to the
terrorist attacks is an imperialist war. On the pretext of attacking
terrorists, their organizations and the states that allegedly
support them, the Bush administration has actually been
building the new American Empire. It has changed the nature of
war: It has become a war of conquest. It is claimed to be
continuous and permanent. In the name of the War on Terror,
the USA claims its right to intervene in the world militarily
anywhere and anytime.
The terminology of war assumes that terrorism has to be
combated solely through military means. War on terrorism is
based on a dangerous logic – that “modern terrorism” is
primarily a military threat and warrants a military solution. The
disconnect between countering terrorism and pursuing the War
on Terror for imperialist objectives has to be exposed.
The special nature of the War on Terror poses an unending
threat to peace. It represents the transition from conventional
wars to imperial wars in the 21st century. Planning for imperial
wars is different from planning for conventional wars. The
maximum amount of force is used as quickly and preemptively
as possible for psychological impact and to demonstrate that the
empire cannot be challenged with impunity. Even after imperial
wars end, imperial garrisons are left in place indefinitely in the
name of order and stability.
3. Patriarchy and War
The links between patriarchy and war need to be emphasized.
The very structure of the military is patriarchal. To galvanize to
full potential the struggle against militarism we must question its
gender-based approach. Since the very beginning of war,
women have been considered spoils of war and, as victims, are
today subsumed under the euphemistic phrase “collateral
damage”.
The main casualties of war are women and children. The
economic consequences of war are exacerbated by patriarchy.
Militariation reinforces the sexual commodification of women.
It also perpetuates sexual violence against women. Military
occupation further degrades women.
4. The Threat of Terrorism
Terrorism is a form of political action. It cannot be treated apart
from its specific historical, social and economic context or
considered as a generic phenomenon. It is a strategy rooted in
political discontent anin the service of many different beliefs
and doctrines that help legitimate and sustain violence.
Sometimes it is easier to understand a terrorist act than to define
terrorism or terrorist. An attack on innocent people is a terrorist
act. Such terrorist acts are carried out by some states and nonstate actors as well as state agencies, and some organizations
and sections of organizations. Attacks that mainly target
civilians are terrorist acts, whoever perpetrates them.
However, terrorism does not help the cause of freedom or justice.
It cannot be part of the struggle for freedom or liberation. In fact,
terrorism can endanger freedom and justice and
counterproductively encourage reactionary forces. Terrorist acts
are a threat to peace.
Military means have a limited role in countering terrorism and
often generate more terrorism – or as such constitute= a terrorist
act. Only the resolution of the basic political, economic and
social problems that cause the discontent that, in turn, gives
birth to terrorism or is capitalized on by terrorists, can deal with
terrorism.
5. The New Nuclear Arms Race, a Threat to Peace
Nuclear arms have always been one of the biggest threats to
peace. The continued existence of nuclear weapons as well as
their threat or use, by accident, miscalculation or design,
threatens the survival of all humanity and life on earth.
The stockpiling of nuclear arms and their spread especially in
the recent period in the Asian region has to be decried and
opposed. There is a close link between the new nuclear doctrines
of the USA and the new stage of proliferation. The new nuclear
doctrine of the USA places new emphasis on the utility of
nuclear weapons in U.S. military strategy. It considers new uses
of nuclear weapons and claims that nuclear weapons may be
used in any war including preventative wars. When the
mightiest military machine in the world claims that nuclear
weapons are indispensable, the message it sends to nations is
clear and dangerous.
Thus, the campaign against nuclear weapons must be a major
component of peace activity.
6. The Threat from New Weapon Systems
A particular cause for alarm is the emergence of new weapons
systems resulting from new technologies, the merging of
conventional and non-conventional weapons, and the extension
of the arms race to space. Cyber strategy changes the nature of
warfare. New technologies of remote control, electronic warfare,
and laser weapon are alarming developments.
Section IV
Human Rights and Peace
1. Violation of Human Rights
The violation of human rights is one of the roots of war – and is
a major victim of war itself. These violations, exacerbated by
neo-liberal globalization, have resulted in the denial of
economic, social and cultural rights as well as political and civil
rights on a scale larger than before. The artificial distinction
between these two sets of rights should be rejected. We affirm
the universality and indivisibility of human rights and call to
strengthen mechanisms to implement and enforce human rights
treaties and to afford redress to victims for the violation of rights.
Although the right to life is fundamental, it is constantly denied
by attacks of various forms on the human person particularly
extra-judicial killings, forced disappearances, and torture. The
War on Terror in a qualitatively new way causes a denial of
human rights. In many countries where wars of intervention and
occupation are waged – or where antiterrorist operations are
staged - people are denied their collective rights to selfdetermination and national sovereignty.
The defense, protection and promotion of human rights and
support to struggles for human rights are important areas of
peace activity.
2. Internal Conflicts, Civil Wars
Ethnic, religious and racial intolerance and narrow nationalism
are among the principal causes of armed conflict today. In many
countries, internal conflicts, civil wars, sectarian strife, as well
as class conflicts take place leading to killings, destruction,
ethnic cleansing, and other forms of large-scale violence. It must
be emphasized that various factors contribute to these internal
conflicts: Among these are the unjust distribution of political
power and economic wealth, feuds over land and resources,
ethnic and religious divisions, and intervention by outside forces.
Civil wars take place between the establishment and organized
groups of those who are denied political and economic rights.
Unjustly, many of the wars that are waged against social,
economic, and political inequities are redefined as nontraditional acts of terrorism. Under the guise of War on Terror,
national liberation movements have been demonized and labeled
terrorist.
Seeking political solutions and resolving internal conflicts are
extremely important for peace actions.
3. Counter-insurgency, Low Intensity War
As part of the War on Terror and under other pretexts, counterinsurgency and low intensity wars are carried out against
sections of people in many parts of the world particularly in neocolonial countries. Counter-terrorism is implemented most often
through brutal military actions backed by so-called antiterrorism laws. Counterinsurgency and low intensity wars,
which were developed as Cold War anti-communist strategies,
are now increasingly subsumed under the War on Terror. They
result in widespread violations of human rights, such as extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances, and the
displacement of large numbers of people, their future, and
economies.
This is an issue, which should receive high priority in planning
peace activities.
4. Neo-liberal Globalization, a Threat to Peace
Neo-liberal globalization has produced more injustice,
inequality and poverty. It has marginalized broad sections of the
world’s population, further widening the gap between the rich
and the poor, between centers of global capitalism and
peripheral countries. The concern is not only about globalization
and the plunder and other unjust consequences it creates but also
the fact that justice is alien to globalization. Justice has no scope
or space in globalization. Globalization sets the paradigm of
development only on growth that emphasizes profit
maximization. Justice and people’s participation, two essential
components of development, have no place in globalization.
Exploitation and destruction of environment under globalization
are threats to peace.
Under neo-liberal globalization, increased poverty and
unemployment is triggering a surge in global migration, its
feminization and informalization a major source of human
insecurity. In their countries of destination, the human rights of
migrant workers including the diaspora migrant communities
remain largely unprotected and are often threatened with job
discrimination, , low pay, racism and xenophobia.. Increasingly,
women and children are victims of human trafficking and
smuggling, with no possibilities of justice and protection.
Globalization and militarism should be seen as two sides of the
same coin. On one side, globalization promotes the conditions
that lead to unrest, inequality, conflict and ultimately war. On
the other, globalization fuels the means to wage war by
protecting and promoting the war industries needed to produce
sophisticated weaponry and that, in turn, are utilized to destroy
national economies and people’s lives. Weaponry is used – or its
use threatened – to promote the interests of transnational
corporations. Globalization and imperial security go together.
Global capitalism, enforced militarily if needed, is integral
to building the empire.
Neo-liberal globalization has to be vigorously combated.
Struggles for economic justice and for peace have to be fought
together.
5. Threats from Denial of Right to Self-Determination
Indigenous and unrepresented people are suffering from the
suppression of their right to self-determination, ethnic and
cultural genocide, the violation of their cultural, linguistic
and religious freedoms, and the militarization and nuclearization
of their lives, lands and waters.
Many of today’s violent and persistent conflicts are between
states and unrepresented peoples and are characterized by an
extreme power imbalance. As a result, unrepresented peoples by
themselves are unable to engage states in negotiations for
peaceful resolution of conflicts. Moreover, these conflicts tend
to continue for decades leading to gross sufferings and cultural
annihilation. To counteract the power imbalance, which drives
these conflicts, it is necessary for the international governmental
and non-governmental community to support actively people’s
right to self-determination, to prioritize attention to these
conflicts, and to promote their peaceful resolution.
The denial of the right to self-determination has led to several
long-term conflicts most of which remain unresolved. It is
important to comprehend that what generates conflict is not the
legitimate claim of the right to self-determination but rather the
denial of this inviolable right. Thus, it is imperative that the
internationally-recognized right to selfdetermination be actively
promoted as a basis of conflict prevention and conflict
resolution.
The efforts of colonized or neo-colonized peoples toward the
exercise of their right to self-determination have to be endorsed
by all those who believe in peace. Specifically, the demand for
the establishment of a permanent forum for indigenous peoples
within the United Nations and the full implementation of the
rights under “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”
deserves active support.
Section V
True Security
1. Protection of Environment as Peace Policy
The ecological consequences of war and militarization are
extremely serious.
Imperiling the environment, conflict impairs economic growth,
sustainable development and livelihoods. Armed conflict
accelerates the loss of infrastructure and degradation of
resources and reduces society’s capacity for self-reliance.
The world’s dominant consumers are overwhelmingly
concentrated among the rich, but the environmental damage
from the world’s consumption falls most severely on the poor.
It is important to end the military destruction of the environment
and especially the militarization of indigenous lands. Peace
being peace of and among all living beings, environmental
destruction is a threat to peace.
2. Toward True Security
In the imperial agenda, security is the substitute for peace. The
meaning of security itself has been restricted and no longer
contains economic, social and cultural rights. Security has left
the universe of the people, and has nothing to do anymore with
the security of the people. The doctrine of national security has
narrowed down its definition to the security of the state, if not
military security alone.. Now it is not even the security of the
state but the security of the occupier or the military. The notion
of security today revolves around imperial security.
Other terms used in connection with this notion of security are
“stabilization” and “pacification”. Both generally involve the
use of force. These notions have to be exposed for what they
are – creating more insecurity and violence.
We have to affirm a holistic understanding of security with
focus on people’s security. We have to rediscover and reclaim
security fundamentally as people’s security. Security is
fundamentally the condition in which people live in dignity
enjoying all human rights--civil, political, economic, social and
cultural--made possible only with the security of life.
National security and imperial security doctrines are threats to
people’s security. Neo-liberal globalization, which is predatory
in nature, is a threat to people’s security especially in its denial
of social and economic rights.
It is time to redefine security in terms of human and ecological
dimensions instead of national sovereignty and national borders
alone. Redirecting funding from armaments to human security
and sustainable development will establish new priorities
leading to the construction of a new social order that ensures the
equal participation of marginalized groups, including women
and indigenous people, restricts the use of military force and
moves toward true collective international security.
3. From a Culture of War to a Culture of Peace
A Culture of War is characterized by: A Culture of Peace is
characterized by:
* Enemy Images * understanding and tolerance
* Armies and Armaments * disarmament, general & complete
*Authoritarian governance * democratic participation
*Secrecy and propaganda * free flow of information, knowledge
*Violence (structural and * respect for human dignity
physical)
*Male domination * equality between men and women
*Education for war * education for a culture of peace
*Exploitation of the weak * sustainable economic and social
and of the environment development
*Destruction of the order of life *Convivial life of all living
beings
Since war begins in the minds of human beings, it is in those
very minds that the defense of peace must be constructed.
The transition from a culture of war and violence to a culture of
peace is a process of individual, collective and institutional
transformation, developing within particular historical sociocultural and economic contexts. A culture of peace aims at
transforming values, attitudes and behavior based on violence to
those which promote peace and nonviolence. It aims at
empowering people at all levels with skills of dialogue,
mediation, and peace building.
Section VI
Peace Making
1. Victims, Vulnerable Sections
The fundamental vision of peace emerges out of the perspectives
and experiences of victims. It is that vision that needs to be
pursued.
Concern for peace has to be reflected in awareness about and
concern for victims of wars, militarism and neo-liberal capitalist
development. Their human rights are grossly violated. Large
numbers of refugees and internally-displaced persons result
from militarism and militarized globalization. Women, children,
and old people are particularly vulnerable. Among the most
vulnerable as a result of armed conflicts and militarization are
the indigenous people.
Working for the rights of the victims should receive priority
attention in peace activity. But it needs underlining that the
victims are the protagonists and thus should be empowered.
2. Taking Initiatives in Peacemaking
It is time for people to assert their right and commitment to
peacemaking, to wrest peacemaking away from the exclusive
control of politicians, national security doctrinaires and military
establishments. Peace initiatives are often taken as a last resort
with negotiations restricted to war protagonists and imposed on
those most affected, particularly women and children. When
peace agreements are negotiated, those who have suffered most
must have a seat at the table. Civil society should also convene
peace initiatives before crisis gets out of control and more lives
are lost. This can help to turn early warning from a slogan to a
reality.
Armed conflicts are often “resolved” by external actors with
little or no reference to either the just demands of those who
assert their right to resistance and self-determination, or the
rights of those who must live with the situation. As a result,
either there is no satisfactory, multilateral solution or the
solution reached is ephemeral. If efforts to prevent, resolve or
transform armed conflicts are to be lasting and effective, they
must be based on the active participation of local civil society
groups committed to building peace. Strengthening such local
capacities is vital to the monitoring and maintenance of peace.
There is a strong need to promote the specialized training of
civilian men and women in the strategy and techniques of
conflict resolution, mediation, negotiation, etc., and to facilitate
their deployment in conflict areas in order to carry out peacebuilding tasks. But such skills should be grounded on the
principles of true peace and justice.
3. The United Nations
The United Nations remains the best inter-state mechanism to
build the conditions for peace and provide human security for all.
Its achievements in peacemaking and peace building and
humanitarian efforts should not be underestimated.
However, its weaknesses and failures – a by-product of big
power dynamics and not necessarily of the international
organization as a whole - should be considered and addressed.
The manipulation of the organization by the Empire is a matter
of serious concern. Many countries, including some of the most
powerful, use the UN as a fig leaf and a smokescreen to blur
unwanted focus on them, to defuse political pressure, or to dilute
or evade their own responsibilities. States often make
commitments, which they do not honor.
We believe that urgently needed are:
The reform and democratization of the United Nations,
including democratic strengthening of the General Assembly;
The reform of the United Nations Security Council to make its
composition more representative of the international community
and its decision-making process more transparent;
The promotion of regional institutions to advance peace through
adherence to international law; and
The meaningful and effective participation of non-governmental
organizations in the processes and programs of the United
Nations.
3. A New Peace Movement
Considering the new context and fresh challenges, the new
nature of warfare and the need to rediscover peace, there is a
strong need for a new peace movement. There are already
initiatives in many parts of the world, reviving some of the old
movements to face challenges today and also creating new ones.
These initiatives have to be supported while forming new groups
and movements where necessary, locally, nationally, and
regionally. There is a need to affirm international solidarity and
actively support each other’s struggles and issues. Information
and experiences have to be regularly exchanged. It is necessary
to build a broad platform of people’s movements for peace.
3. Role of Women in Peacemaking
UN Security Council resolution 1235 mandates the protection of,
and respect for, the human rights of women and girls and calls
for the increased representation of women in decision-making
for the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts and
in peace processes.
There is need for specific initiatives aimed at understanding the
interrelationship between gender equality and peace-building,
strengthening women’s capacity to participate in peace-building
initiatives and equal participation of women in conflict
resolution in decision-making levels.
4. Mobilization of Public Opinion
Public opinion has to be regularly mobilized in support of peace
agenda, nationally and internationally. This has to be done
through organized campaigns and other effective ways of
communication and advocacy.
An important method for clarifying issues and marshaling
support of the wider public is public tribunals on situations/
issues of militarism and conflicts. They can be a significant
means to create greater awareness of causes and consequences
of armed conflict, military actions (by states), and internal
security laws and regimes.
A people’s tribunal relies on the preparedness of victims to
testify about their plight as well as the participation of credible
personalities (nationally and internationally) to adjudge the
evidence and testimony within a people’s security and holistic
justice framework. The publication of the findings of such
tribunals will contribute not only to an understanding of the
problems but also their solutions.
Another method will be public hearings. These hearings also
will help bring out the issues in a particular situation, including
the sufferings of the victims.
5. Inter-faith Cooperation
In building a platform for peace as broad as possible, inter-faith
cooperation is important. In doing this convergence among
religions for peace can be explored, identified and highlighted.
The wisdom and insights from traditions, religions and
philosophies can be translated into a language that will motivate
and activate the broadest sections of the people.
Epilogue
The People’s Charter goes beyond inter-state agreements. It has
spiritual, cultural, philosophical and ethical foundations, which
have national legal and international juridical implications.
The charter is addressed to the peace movements of the people,
peace-making organizations as well as nation states and
international organizations.
The charter is not a fixed and rigid system, but is an open
declaration in the process of convergence of diverse experiences
on all levels of locality, nation states, and world community.
Therefore, it is an open document to be enriched further and
adopted by all involved in peacemaking in the present global
context.

theologies and cultures

Transcription

Similar documents

Sales Sheet

SPRING 2016 TRS GRADUATE COURSES

Recursos para la Parroquia Encíclica del Papa Francisco

1 – Bread of Life

Deepak Chopra

Click Here

12/06/15 Sunday Bulletin

Ethiopia - Mission Friends

- Global Interaction

“May the Lord Jesus be always adored in his Sacrament, and be