A
Theological Response to the Ecological Crisis
REV.K.C.ABRAHAM, Ph.D.
There
was a time when we thought that ecological crisis was not a serious problem for
us in the poorer countries. Our problem, it was assumed, was confined to
poverty and economic exploitation, and the environmental issue was rejected as
a “luxury” of the industrialized countries. Social action groups and peoples
movements in the Third World countries understandably have shown relative
indifference to the problem of ecology But today we realize how urgent this
issue is for rich and poor countries alike- in fact for the whole world. The
threat is to life in general. The life of the planet is endangered. The
ecological crisis raises the problem of survival itself. Moreover there is a
growing awareness of the organic link between the destruction of the
environment and socio-economic and political Justice.
The
interconnectedness between commitment to the renewal of society and the renewal
of the earth is clearly seen in the struggle of many marginalised groups all
over the world. The indigenous people everywhere (Native Indians in the USA and
Canada, Maoris in Aotearoa-New Zealand, Aborigines in Australia, tribal people
in many countries of Asia), and many groups who have been traditionally dependent
upon the land and the sea -- small farmers, fisher-folk, agricultural labourers
-- have kept these two dimensions together in their movements for liberation.
A
majority of the poor are also landless. Agricultural developments helps the
rich landlords and not the poor. The poor in the slums of our cities are
squeezed into small hovels and their struggle is simply for living space. Yet,
to enhance and expand their comforts, the rich continually destroy whatever is
left for the poor: their villages, their forests and their people. The stubborn
resistance of the poor tribal women in the now famous Chipko movement against
the Government’s decision to turn their habitat into a mining area, has brought
to our consciousness the inseparable link between the struggle of the poor and
ecological issues.
Today
the cry of the poor in the Narmada Valley in India is not only to preserve
their own habitat but to protect forests everywhere from wanton destruction.
The ecological crisis is rightly the cry of the poor. The experience of
deprivation and exploitation is linked with environmental degradation and
therefore, their perspective on these problems should be the starting point of
our discussion. It is not a problem created by scientists or by a group of
people who fancy growing trees around their houses. It is the problem of the
poor. It is integral to their struggle for justice and liberation, and
basically it is about preserving the integrity of Creation.
Of
course, committed scientists and other ecologists have helped us to deepen our
understanding of the ecological problem. In the past, nature was thought to be
an object for ruthless exploitation by the “developers” and scientists for the
“good of humans”. Little thought was given to the perils of environmental destruction.
A sense of optimism prevailed among them about the capability of science to
tame nature. Those who raised any voice of concern about it were branded as
“prophets of doom.” But today more and more scientists are joining others with
a, crusading zeal, to make people aware of the ecological disasters.
Marshalling convincing scientific data, they tell us that the environmental
degradation caused by massive pollution of air water and land, threatens the
very life of earth -- fast depletion of non renewal resources, indeed of
species themselves, the thinning of the ozone layer that exposes all living
creatures to the danger of radiation, the build up of gases creating the
greenhouse effect, increasing erosion by the sea -- all these are brought out
through their research. Related to these are problems of rapidly increasing
population, spread of malnutrition and hunger, the subordination of women’s and
children’s needs to men’s needs, the ravages of war, the scandal of chronic
poverty and wasteful affluence.
I do
not want to dwell at length on these problems. They are now well known and much
literature is available on them. My purpose is to highlight the theological and
ethical issue involved in this problem and to suggest a possible response from
the church and people’s movements. To do this we need to clarify for ourselves
some of the perspectives on the ecological problems.
PERSPECTIVES
Growth
Model Must be Changed
The
ecological crisis is created by modern industrial and technological growth and
modem life-style. A paradigm of development, the western industrial growth
model, is almost universally accepted. It is a process whereby we use enormous
capital and exploit natural resources, particularly the non renewal ones.
Ruthless exploitation of nature and fellow beings is the inevitable consequence
of this pattern of development. Decisions about the kind of goods to be
produced and the type of technology to be used are influenced by the demand of
consumerist economy where the controlling logic of growth is greed and not
need. It creates imbalances between different sectors and allows massive
exploitation of the rural and natural environment for the benefit of the
dominant classes. Much of the profit oriented growth which destroys the
eco-balance, is engineered and controlled by the multinationals of USA, Europe
and Japan. We are told that Japanese multinationals indiscriminately destroy
forests and other natural resources m the Philippines, Indonesia and other
Asian Countries. Japan is able to preserve its own forests and trees because
there are countries in the surrounding region that supply their needs to
maintain their modern life-style!
Industrial
pollution has risen alarmingly The havoc created by the gas leak in Bhopal is
vivid in our memory. Over use of fertilisers is turning our farmlands into
deserts, and the fishes in our seas and rivers are dying. In Kuttanad area in
Kerala a massive epidemic is destroying all the fishes.
Human
demands for food and power are increasing faster than the resources, which are,
in fact, dwindling. It is recognised that the negative impact of people on
environment is the product of thee factors the total population, the amount of
resources consumed by each person and the environmental destruction caused by
each person. All these continue to increase, especially because of the new
life-style of the rich, and the irresponsible use of natural resources which
add a peculiar burden on the ecosystem.
A Conference
on Ecology and development clearly states:
While
all are affected by the ecological crisis, the life of the poor and
marginalised is further impoverished by it. Shortage of fuel and water adds
particular burdens to the life of woman. It is said that the tribals are made
environmental prisoners in their own land. Dalits, whose life has been
subjected to social and cultural oppression for generations, are facing new
threats by the wanton destruction of natural environment.1
We
need to ask whether the present policies of the government will help us alter
this form of development. The answer is likely to be that nothing short of a
rejection of the dominant paradigm of development and a commitment to an
ecologically sustainable form of development, will help avert the present
crisis.
Ecological
Crisis: A Justice Issue
Our
ecological crisis should be seen as a justice issue. This is a fundamental
perspective that distinguishes people’s view on ecology from that of the
establishment, and even of the experts. Political and social justice is linked
to ecological health. “We shall not be able to achieve social justice without
justice for natural environment; we shall not be able to achieve justice for
nature without social justice” (Moltmann).2 Several dimensions of this
echo-justice are now brought to the fore though the experience of the struggle
of the marginalised.
First,
the connection between economic exploitation and environmental degradation is
clear in the deforestation issue. The massive destruction of forests through
avarice and greed results in atmospheric changes. The poor are driven out of
their habitat for the sake of “development”. In a paper prepared by the Kerala
Swatantara Matsya Thozilali Federation (Trade Union of Fisher People) it is
said, because of the massive fish epidemic caused by the use of some
pesticides, people refuse to buy fish today This has resulted in making the
fisherfolk jobless. Again, the use of mechanised trawlers in the fish industry
has resulted in threatening all fish life, and the traditional fisherfolk have
still not recovered from the loss they have suffered.
Second,
justice is actualized in just relationships. Unequal partnerships and patterns
of domination are unjust. It is obvious that today human relationship with
nature is not that of equal partners, but of domination and exploitations. Unjust
treatment of the planet by humans is one of the principal causes of the
ecological crisis.
Third,
the uneven distribution, control and use of natural resources are serious
justice issues. It is estimated that 1/5th of the world population inhabiting
the Northern hemisphere consume, burn or waste at least 40-50 percent of the
world’s non-renewable resources. Further, natural resources needed to maintain
the life-style of an average American is equal to what is required by 200-300
Asians. Imagine what will happen if we extend the same American life-style to
people everywhere.
Fourth,
the fast depletion of the natural (non-renewable) resources today raises the
question of our responsibility to future generations. If we extend the
five-star culture to all the countries and segments of people, then the
pressures on these resources will become intolerable. Already, we are warned
that we cannot go on exploiting the deep-level water. That will disturb the
ecological balance. Someone had compared the function of deep water to the
middle ear fluid that helps the human body maintain its balance. The question,
therefore, is how to use natural resources in a way that sustains life and not
destroys it.
Ethics
of Care, Alleviation of Poverty
We
need to discuss two related concerns. The first is the concept of justice
itself. The logic of justice as developed in the West emphasis rights and
rules, and respect for the other. It can be applied only to human beings --
supposedly equally. It is a balancing of rights and duties. But to include the
Cosmos in the justice enterprise, we need to affirm the ethics of care. Justice
cannot be accorded except through care. Justice expressing compassion is the
biblical emphasis. Prophets were not talking about balancing interests and rights,
but about the caring, the defending of the poor by the righteous God. Defending
the vulnerable and defenseless should also mean defending our weak and silent
partner the Earth.
We
can no longer see ourselves as names and rulers over nature but must think of
ourselves as gardeners, caretakers, mothers and fathers, stewards, trustees,
lovers, priests, co-creators and friends of a world that while giving us life
and sustenance, also depends increasingly on us in order to continue both for
itself and for us.3
Secondly
poverty is also a source of ecological degradation, and the alleviation of
poverty by the poor through their struggle for justice is an ecological
concerns. We cannot separate these two concerns. Unless the poor have alternate
sources of food and basic needs like fuel, they too will want to destroy
whatever natural environment is around them.
Justice
in relation to ecology has a comprehensive meaning. Negatively, it is placed
against economic exploitation and unjust control and use of natural resources.
Positively, it affirms the responsibility.
A
New Sense of Interdependence
The
ecological crisis has impressed upon our consciousness a new awareness about
our dependence on the earth. We belong to the earth. We share a common destiny
with the earth. This awareness has sharply challenged the modern view of
reality and demands a revolution of previously held scales of values. The
modern perception of reality thanks to the all-pervasive influence of western
rationality, follows a mechanistic model. It is functional and dualistic-
spirit /flesh, objective/subjective, reason/passion, supernatural/natural. But
the ecological view is organic, in which the emphasis is on interconnectedness
and mutual inter-dependence. It is to adopt the view of the so well captured in
Martin Bubers’ famous distinction between I-Thou and I-It. All entities are
united symbolically.
Sally
Mcfague expresses this challenge thus:
Ecological
perspective insists that we are in the most profound ways, “not our own” we
belong from the cells of our bodies to the finest creation of our minds, to the
intricate, constantly changing cosmos. The ecosystem, of which we are a part,
is a whole: the rocks and waters atmosphere and soil, plants, minerals and
human beings interact in a dynamic, mutually supportive way that make all talk
of atomistic individualism indefensible. Relationship and interdependence,
change and transformation, not substance, changelessness and perfection, are
the categories within which a theology for our day must function4
We
cannot here go into the implications of this rather provocative suggestion.
Nothing short of a “paradigm shift?’ is taking place in theology. It is not
merely anthropocentric.
Challenge
to Ethics
The
ecological perspective has also challenged our notion of ethics. In fact, the
ecological model of mutual interdependence can provide a new orientation in
ethics that can be source of human renewal. Our Lord asks us to learn from the
birds of the air, the lilies of the field. Values that are essential for the
survival of life are those of caring and sharing, not domination and
manipulation; domination and exploitation can only lead to the silencing of
nature and to the ecological death of both nature and humans. The new
perspective affirms our interrelatedness one to another and nature. The scale
of values that is essential for sustaining the interrelatedness and wholeness
of creation is different from the dominant value system of modern society. One
may state them as follows:
conservation,
not consumerism
Need, not greed
Enabling power not dominating power
Integrity of creation, not exploiting nature
Need, not greed
Enabling power not dominating power
Integrity of creation, not exploiting nature
THEOLOGICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
The
Church’s response is shaped by its understanding and interpretation of its
theology. A crucial aspect to be considered is the relation between human and
nature.
The
Relation Between Humans and Nature
One
may suggest at least three topologies that have influenced modern thinking on
this: Humans above nature; humans in nature, and humans with nature. We can see
biblical parallel for each of these. But our effort is to see which ones come
closet to the central vision.
Humans
above nature
This
may be the hidden ideology of the scientific and technological culture of the
period. Science was considered as power and not as a source of wisdom. “Modern
Technics”, wrote Bertrand Russel in the late forties, “is giving man a sense of
power which is changing his whole mentality. Until recently, the physical
environment was something that had to be accepted. But to modern man the
physical environment is merely the raw material for manipulations and
opportunity. It may be that God made the world, but there is no reason why we
should not take it over”. Perhaps, very few scientists today make such a claim
so unambiguously, yet this confidence in science and technology and the
instrumental, manipulative use of nature, is very much present in modern
culture.
Attempts
are made to provide a biblical basis for the development of technology in the
West. They are primarily based on the exegesis of Gen. 1:28-30 and Psalms
18:6-8. During the late ‘60s, a beat-seller in theology was The Secular City by
Harvey Cox, and an influential book on mission was Arand Van Leeuwen’s
Christianity In World History. Both these books show a preference for the view
“humans above nature.” They provide a biblical and theological basis for the
technological manipulation of nature by humans. They unequivocally affirm that
technology is a liberator, an instrument in the hands of God for releasing
humans from the tyranny of natural necessities. They paid little attention to
the biblical witness against this attitude;
The
Earth mourns and withers
the world languishes and withers, the heavens languish together with the earth.
The earth lies polluted Under its inhabitants;
for they have transgressed the laws
violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant
the world languishes and withers, the heavens languish together with the earth.
The earth lies polluted Under its inhabitants;
for they have transgressed the laws
violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant
-Isaiah
24:4,5
Thus
says God, the Lord
who created the heavens and stretched them out
who spread forth the earth and what comes from it,
who gives breath to the people upon it
and spirit to those who walk in it.
who created the heavens and stretched them out
who spread forth the earth and what comes from it,
who gives breath to the people upon it
and spirit to those who walk in it.
-Isaiah
42:5
In
the Bible, the planes of human history and nature are never set in opposition
as these interpreters seem to be doing. The two planes are held together in the
biblical witness of faith. Liberation, according to Exodus, is a struggle to
possess the land. Faith in Yahweh, the Liberator, is also an affirmation that
God is sovereign over earth.
In
an interesting study on Land in the Old Testament, Walter Brueggemann points to
the significance of land for Hebrew religious experience. The land as promise
and as problem: promised land, alien land; landlessness and wilderness -- all
these appear at different stages in the history of the Hebrews. There is, of
course a tension between landedness and landlessness; the former becomes a
cause of exploitation and the latter leads to total trust in Yahweh.
The
Christian practice that directly or indirectly supported colonialism and
capitalism comes out of this view of
“humans above nature”. Lynn White, the California Professor of History,
holds this view responsible for the modern ecological crisis. His words are
strong.
Especially
in its western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the
world has seen. Christianity, in contrast to ancient paganism and Asia’s
religions, has not only established a dualism of man and nature, but has also
insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends...
Hence we shall continue to have a worsening ecological crisis until we reject the
Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence, save to serve man.
Humans
in nature
This
is a reaction against the first typology It maintains that there is no
distinction between humans and nature. One gets an expression of this view in
the writings of some Romantic poets. Some of the environmentalists, in their
facile enthusiasm, lend support to this. Biblical support may be found in the
verse:
All
flesh is grass
‘and all its beauty is like the flower of the field.
Surely, the people is grass,
the grass withers,
the flower fades,
but the word of our God will stand forever.
- Isaiah 40: 6-8
‘and all its beauty is like the flower of the field.
Surely, the people is grass,
the grass withers,
the flower fades,
but the word of our God will stand forever.
- Isaiah 40: 6-8
Yet
it is difficult to conclude on the basis of this verse that the biblical idea
is to treat human life as grass. There is a mystery of their being, and there
is a distinction between human and other creatures, but the difference is not
superiority because it comes with an awareness of responsibility.
The
command of God to Adam and Eve in Gen. 1:28-30 to have domination over
creatures is problematic. In its original Hebrew, domination is a harsh word.
It is to tame and control the forces of nature that are destructive and
violent. Taken in isolation and purely in this context, that word gives a basis
for a ruthless exploitation of nature. But in interpreting biblical images and
words, we need to see them through the prism of our Lord’s saving mission.
“In
the light of Christ’s mission,” says Moltmann, “Gen. 1:28 will have to be
interpreted in an entirely new way. Not to subdue the earth, but free the earth
through fellowship with it!” We may ask what is our understanding of dominion?
Is it not from one whom we call Lord, Domino, that is, Jesus Christ and Him
crucified?”
Lordship,
therefore, has a new meaning. It is responsibility for the other in love. The
overriding emphasis in the Bible with regard to human relationship with nature
is on human responsibility for nature.
Human
participation is necessary for maintaining the Cosmos Over against the threat
of Chaos. “The Earth is the Lord’s and all that fills it, the world and all of
its inhabitants.”
Because
he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers - Psalms 24:1,2.
Scholars
point out that the Hebrew words for sea (yam) and river (nahar) are also the
words for ancient, near-eastern gods of chaos. If humans break the covenant,
disobey the laws of God and unjustly treat the neighbor, then, creation will
return to its primeval chaos. To maintain creation, cosmos, human participation
of responsible love and justice is necessary.
Human
participation is also needed to keep the earth fertile and productive ( Gen.
2:5, 3:17-19). Man is called the gardener and tiller. Again, humans have no
right to exploit and plunder the earth. Some of the symbols and practices that
emerged in the history Israel clearly articulate this. Sabbath and jubilee year
are two of them. Rest is a way of preventing over exploitation of the earth.
Also, the drastic change in ownership is a poignant reminder that humans are
merely trustees. They are called to maintain the integrity of creation. Human
responsibility for the whole creation is to participate, with love and care, in
God’s continuing act of creation
Human
responsibility and co-creatureliness is further emphasised with the affirmation
that all creation, along with humans, long and groan for perfection and
liberation. All distortions of creation, compounded by human violence,
disobedience and greed, will have to be redeemed in Christ (Rev. 8:13-28). The
final vision of a new heaven and a new earth (Rom. 21:1-4) is accomplished by
God and human beings together.
The
Church’s Response
Although
Christianity was born in a different cultural ethos where a holistic view of
reality was in vogue, the Indian Church’s theology and practice have been, with
some notable exceptions, heavily influenced by western missionaries. With the
result, at least in our Protestant churches, little thought was given to link
faith with ecology. We are all inclined to view with suspicion any talk of
nature in theology. Church practices sometimes adopted symbols and customs that
arose out of our natural environment but seldom were they integrated with the
mainstream thinking or practice.
However,
the Church’s record here is not altogether dismal. There have been bold
experiments, responses which have the potential for challenging us. We need to
critically examine them and affirm whatever is helpful and relevant. Mention
must be made of a world consultation on “Justice, Peace and Integrity of
Creation” held in Seoul, Korea, in 1990 where representatives of Protestant and
Orthodox churches gathered together to make affirmations and covenants on their
responsibility to creation. Perhaps, it was the first time in the history of
the churches that such a significant step was taken to express concretely the
Church’s response to the ecology crisis.
Three
models
There
are at least three models that are available in church’s life and practice for
its response to ecological concerns.
(a)
Ascetic, monastic model: Perhaps, this is the oldest form of the church’s response
aimed at integrating some concerns relating to ecology as well as the crisis
created by the misuse of the natural environment. Renunciation was the key.
Greed is identified as the source of the problem of ecology. By adopting a
simple life-style they showed a way to suppress greed. “Small is beautiful” is
the slogan coined by moderns who have been highly impressed by the monastic
models of life. Living in harmony with nature and keeping their needs to a
minimum, the monastic communities proclaimed the message that the earth is the
Lord’s and that it should not be indiscriminately used to satisfy human avarice
and greed. It was also, a powerful protest against a wasteful life-style that
is devoid of any responsibility to the world of nature.
We
see a similar response in the characteristic Indian/Asian model of relating to
the concerns of ecology Our sanyasis and ashrams were centres where life in
harmony with nature was consciously promoted. One is reminded of a scene in
Kalidasa’s Shakuntala. When Shakuntala has to leave Kanva Mum’s ashram m order
to join Dushyanta’s household, the plants and creepers of the ashram, and also
its birds and beasts, mourn her imminent departure. Their hearts bleed at the
idea of her separation from them.
In
the Church, this model has been instrumental in calling people to their
responsibility to lead a life that is in tune with nature. The problem is
addressed to individual life-styles. While the values enshrined in this model
are important, they are not adequate enough to effect structural changes and
radically alter relationships that have assumed a systemic character. Today, we
face a situation where individual greed is organized as structures, as
capitalism, market economy. They are forces that are deeply entrenched in
society. They have a logic of their own. A constellation of power -- ideology,
multinationals, market and media control -- influence our collective life.
Individuals at best can only raise a voice of protest. What we need is
collective action and countervailing power that can alter the course of these
trends. Certainly the monastic ideals could inspire us.
(b)
Sacramental/Eucharist model: Life and all its relationships are brought to the
worshipful presence of God and they are constantly renewed. All things are
received as gifts; therefore, they are to be shared. The cup is offered,
blessed and shared. Psalm 146 is a beautiful poem that affirms the cosmic
setting of our worship. We praise God in the presence of and in harmony with
all creation. They are together with us as we praise God.
Again,
in the tradition of the Church, the human person, through his contemplation,
realises his cosmic being. Scientists today say that the volume of each atom is
the volume of each universe; Cosmic power can be absorbed by humans. Tribals
are more receptive to the power or earth. Particularly in the Protestant
tradition, we have neglected this tradition of cosmic contemplation as a source
of renewal.
One
of the problems with this model is on the level of practice. For many Christians,
the meaning of the Eucharist is confined to ritual observance and not as a way
of active engagement with the world. The body broken is rarely taken as an
imperative for sharing. We need to recover its dynamic character and motivate
people to be open to God’s creation and re-creation.
(c)
Liberative solidarity model: According to this model, the Church is in
solidarity with the weakest; with that part of the whole creation. It is by far
a contemporary model, but its roots are in the Bible. Liberation theologians
have forcefully articulated the biblical motif for liberation in Exodus and
other passages. Salvation is liberation. But, particularly because of their
immediate context, for them liberation is primarily political and economic. We
today want to affirm that the liberation that is witnessed to in the Bible
includes liberation for Creation. According to Paul in Romans, the work of the
Spirit, freedom, extends to the total renewal of Creation. Christ’s work of
redemption takes in the whole universe (Rom. 8:19-23). Christ, the Lord of
history, initiates a process of transformation that moves toward cosmic release
(Eph. 1:1-10; Col. 1:15-20. The unity between the hope for the inward
liberation of the children of God and the hope for the liberation of the entire
physical creation from its bondage and oppression, is the theme in Roman. The
work of the Spirit is to renew all of the earth. Ktisis, translated as
Creation, includes not only women and men, but all created things, including
demonic powers. It is in the search for liberation of all aspects of human
life, histories, cultures and natural environment that we can truly affirm that
salvation is the wholeness of Creation.
There
is something common to the interpretation of liberation as a historical process
in Exodus and the liberation process in Creation in Romans. The liberation in
Exodus is linked to the cry of the oppressed, and in Romans the glorious
liberty is promised in response to the groans and travails within us and in
Creation. God has heard the cry of the poor, and God is taking sides with the
poor. In the same manner, the renewal of earth comes in response to the cry of
the poor and of the dumb creatures, and of silent nature. It is interesting to
note that when God decided to spare Nineveh (Jonah 4:11), it was out of God’s
pity for the “more than 12,000 persons who do not know their right hand from
their left hand (the reference is to babies), and also much animals.” God is
not interested in preserving great cities for the sake of their skyscrapers,
supermarkets, and giant computers!
We
are committed to a vision of human wholeness which includes not only our
relationship with one another, but also our relationship with nature and the
universe. We are also committed to the struggle for the transformation of the
poor, the weak, and the disfigured and over-exploited nature. Both together are
decisive for our faith, mission and spirituality.
The
covenant idea in the Bible has also influenced this model of liberative
solidarity. Both the Abrahamic covenant set within the framework of history and
the Sinai covenant which affirms God’s continued care and commitment to the
human structures and law, have assumed great significance in our theological
construction and biblical interpretation. But the Noahic covenant and its
cosmic setting are often forgotten. God is faithful in his promise to the whole
of humanity and all of his creation. It is this broader meaning of covenant
that is reflected in the World Convocation organised by WCC on justice, peace
and integrity of creation. It calls all the churches to make a covenant based
on God’s covenant for the well-being of his total creation
The
convocation calls the churches to translate their response to God’s covenant
into acts of mutual commitment within the covenant community Four areas have
been selected for specific “acts of covenanting” They express concrete
commitment to work.
•
for a just economic order and for liberation from the bondage of foreign debt;
•
for the true security of all nations and people;
•
for building a culture that can live in harmony with creation’s integrity;
•
for the eradication of racism and discrimination, on national and international levels, among all people.
In
India, churches should enter into an act of covenanting, and commit themselves
to fight for the marginalised -- Dalits, tribals and women -- to build a just
economic order, to commit themselves to sustainable development; justice, peace
and the integrity of creation in our context.
A
New Spirituality
We
need to evolve a form of spirituality that takes seriously our commitment to
the earth. Mathew Fox has coined the phrase “creational spirituality” and even
initiated a new movement among the western churches. A deep awareness of God’s
gift and presence in creation is its hallmark. This spirituality is not in
conflict with liberational struggle. But it is stated as an Important ground
reality. “Awe is the starting point -- and with it; wonder. The awe of being is
part of this amazing universe... The awe is not of a pseudo- mysticism about a
state or a political party but of our shared existence in the cosmos itself. 5
In
the Buddhist tradition, greed and acquisitiveness are identified as the source
of bondage. Material progress is to be tempered by non-acquisitiveness and
sharing. Aloysius Pieris wrote: “In the Asian situation, the antonym of
‘wealth’ is not poverty, but acquisitiveness and avarice, which make wealth
anti-religious. The primary concern is not eradication of poverty but struggle
against Mammon -- that undefinable force that organises itself within every
person, and among persons, to make material wealth anti-human, anti-religious
and oppressive”.6 Unfortunately, in its development, Asian spirituality become
preoccupied with individual moral behaviour or with forming an exclusive
community -- a spiritual aristocracy. In both the cases, the spirituality of
non-acquisitiveness lost its neighbourly thrust.
The
spirit of non-acquisitiveness, of sharing, of harmonious relationship between
humans and nature -- these are the hallmarks of true Asian spirituality.
This
is also the spirituality of the poor, derived from their closeness to the earth
and the sea, and their communication mode of existence. It sustains them in
their struggle. How else can we explain the staying power of the marginalised
and oppressed who are being continuously crushed by the onslaught of violent
forces? Alas, in our activist mode we pay little attention to this and learn
from it.
Therefore,
today a conscious effort should be made to express the biblical insights on
creational spirituality. Materials for Bible study, worship and Christian
education that help us celebrate, learn God’s design for creation and human
responsibility should be made available. “Steward” images that emphasis our responsibility,
accountability and answerability ought to be studied. Many psalms praise God,
the creator. Prophets see the vision of Shalom as the fullness of creation
where harmony is the characteristic mode of existence -- beasts and humans
dwell together, the lion and the child play together, swords are turned into
plough shares. All these establish a connection between social justice and
ecological degradation.
We
should learn from our Lord himself: his closeness to the earth, asking us to
learn from the birds of the air, lilies of the field; his own commitment to a
kingdom that grows as a seed that germinates and sprouts, his response to the
hungry, his breaking the bread and the wine -- finally, the salvation he
achieved includes the liberation of all and we hope for a new heaven and a new
earth. Yes, there are passages that talk about a complete destruction of all --
but they are spoken in a way which will help us turn to God and to reject,
renounce our ways of violence towards one another and to the earth. To read in
a fatalistic way is to miss the central thrust of the Gospel.
A
New Scale of Values
An
ecological perspective on theology and spirituality challenges us to adopt a
new scale of values. A revaluation of the presently held value system is called
for. A WCC Consultation on “Sharing of Life;” asks us to commit ourselves to
the following, accepting a fundamentally new value system:
· to the marginalised taking the centre of all
decisions and actions as equal partners.
· to identifying with the poor and the
oppressed, and their organized movements.
· to mutual accountability and power.
In
adopting a new value system, we need to follow two important guidelines.
Decisive are the questions: whom are we listening to? Whose interest do we present?
In the case of the Narmada Valley project, are we listening to planners,
bureaucrats and technicians or to those poor tribals who are displaced? In the
fishermen’s struggle, are we carried away by financial wizards who tell us
about the importance of the export market and of competing with other
countries?
Secondly,
one of the basic elements in value formation is the use of power. In Jesus we
see that the power values are transformed into bonding values.
The
New Testament clearly shows that Jesus was confronted with two views of power
opposed to each other: self-aggrandising power and enabling power.
The
former is the power that dominates, manipulates and exploits. This is the power
of the autocrats; it can also be the power of the ardent crusader for the
Gospel; it is the power of the profit-conscious industrialist and it can be the
power of a party boss who strategises against the opposition; it can be the
power of an authoritarian bishop or clergy. Some use it blatantly, others
subtly. Some use it for ends which are evil, others use it to achieve
supposedly noble objectives. The latter is the power that serves, cares for
others and builds up people. Its strategy is an end in itself.
The
temptations of Jesus, his constant struggle with the disciples, the Last
Supper, the washing of the feet -- all these vividly show his own conscious
rejection of the power that manipulates and his willing acceptance of the power
that serves, the power that strengthens our bonds. The bonding values are
integral to the ecological view of reality.
Thirdly
values are expressed in life-styles, practices, and structures. While we cannot
agree upon a uniform life-style, a conscious and judicious rejection of
extravagant and wasteful use of natural resources should be priority and
possibility for all. We need to put a limit to our needs. A slavish acceptance
of all that the consumerist economy produces and what the market dictates would
be contrary to ecologically responsible living.
In
this connection, it is important to raise the question of the responsible use
of the Church’s own resources like property and investments. Property
development is an easy option to most of the urban churches. Here, we do not
seem to follow any guidelines that express our responsibility to ecologically
sound development. By this I do not mean the aesthetics of the building --
although in this area too we could do better! By commercially developing our
church property, are we not endorsing the logic and value system that governs
much of commercialisation which is ecologically harmful?
A
few years ago, at St. Mark’s Cathedral, Bangalore we addressed this issue.
Situated as it is in the heart of the city, many commercial developers had an
eye on this precious piece of land that belonged to the church. A lot of
pressure was brought to bear upon the pastorate committee. Naturally, we
decided to turn to architects and developers for advice. But, at that juncture
a colleague of mine suggested that we discuss the “theology of the building” as
well. His suggestion was received with derisive laughter by company executives
and business magnates of the congregation. Nevertheless, he made his point.
“What is our Christian witness when we enter into such an activity?” he asked.
“By the activity, he persisted, “can we raise any questions about the
exploitative mechanism that underlines commercialisation?” The ecological
dimension was not explicitly represented in the discussion. Perhaps today we
should add that too when we discuss our plans for the “development” of church
properties. The eviction of the poor for the sake of development even from
church properties is common. What is most surprising is that, in matters like
this, we seem to be uncritically accepting the logic of profit-oriented
developmentalism.
A
Concern of All Religious
Ecological
concerns should be taken up as a common cause of people of all faiths. To
protect our common home, we must mobilise the spiritual resources of all
religions. United Nations Environment Programme has called all religions to celebrate
together the “Environment Sabbath/Earth Rest Day” They have provided resources
for worship drawn from Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Sikhism and
Islam. It begins with declarations -- appropriately described as “The Assisi
Declaration” drawn up by representatives of different religions. They together
affirm that “the religious concern for the conservation and ecological harmony
of the natural world is our common heritage, our birthright and our duty.”
Listen
to some of the excerpts from the prayers:
Supreme Lord, let there be peace in the sky and
in the atmosphere, peace in plant world and in the
forests; let cosmic powers be peaceful:
Let Brahma be peaceful; let there be undiluted
and fulfilling peace everywhere.
-Atharvaveda
Supreme Lord, let there be peace in the sky and
in the atmosphere, peace in plant world and in the
forests; let cosmic powers be peaceful:
Let Brahma be peaceful; let there be undiluted
and fulfilling peace everywhere.
-Atharvaveda
May
every creature abound in well-being and peace
May every living being, weak or strong, the long and the small
The short and the medium - sized, the mean and the great
May ever living being, seen or unseen, those dwelling far
off,
Those near by, those already born, those waiting to be born May all attain inward peace.
-Buddhist Prayer
May every living being, weak or strong, the long and the small
The short and the medium - sized, the mean and the great
May ever living being, seen or unseen, those dwelling far
off,
Those near by, those already born, those waiting to be born May all attain inward peace.
-Buddhist Prayer
O
God! The creator of everything!
You have said that water is the source of life!
When we have needs, you are the Giver
When we are sick, you give us health
When we have no food, you provide us with your bounty
-Moslem Prayer
You have said that water is the source of life!
When we have needs, you are the Giver
When we are sick, you give us health
When we have no food, you provide us with your bounty
-Moslem Prayer
Be
praised, my Lord, for brother wind
And for the air, cloudy and clear, and all weather!
By which you give substance to your creatures!
be praised, my Lord, for our sister mother Earth,
who sustains and governs us,
and produces fruits with colourful
flowers and leaves.
-St. Francis of Assisi
And for the air, cloudy and clear, and all weather!
By which you give substance to your creatures!
be praised, my Lord, for our sister mother Earth,
who sustains and governs us,
and produces fruits with colourful
flowers and leaves.
-St. Francis of Assisi
All
these worship resources can be shared among people of different faiths. They
can unite on Environment Day in praying for the earth.
Worship
is not the only possible common action by different religions. They can unite
in measures that prevent ecological degradation -- such as deforestation,
pollution of lakes and rivers, and so on. Every congregation may be challenged
to undertake a specific programme on environmental protection in cooperation
with people of other faiths in the area.
Notes:
1.
Daniel Chetti (ed.), Ecology and Development, (Madras: BTE/SSC and Gurukul,
1991), p. 96.
2.
Jurgen Moltmann, The future of Creation, (Philadelphia Fortress Press, 1979),
p. 128
3.
Sally Mcfague, Models of God, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 13.
4.
Ibid., pp. 8-9.
5.
Matthew Fox; “Creation Spirituality” in Creation, Vol.2, No.2, 1986.
6.
Aloysius Pieris, Asia Theology of Liberation, (New York: Orbis, 1988), p. 75.
Viewed
83321 times.
