In a time when ecological doomsday and apocalypse is being resounded in every quarter, Eco-Theology for the Mar Thoma Church and the Christian Community at large promises to usher perspective and direction in confused times like this. The debates are rife as to how should the imminent looming danger be averted or at least delayed. Discourses of climate change, global warming agricultural crisis look too abstract and distant to pay attention upon. In a world obsessed with GDP and battered by recession, any mention of ecology would appear Don Quixotic. Developed countries resoundingly assert that they will not compromise on the economy for ecology. The Myopic and skewed economic paradigms have left us staring at the inevitable. The question to be asked is how long do we as community remain passive? The discourses and debates on eco-theology are binding upon our communitarian responses as Christians. We are beckoned to be partners with our Creator to help sustain the planet of ours. To be able to do that, we need to comprehend the complexity of the problem. For that, let us investigate what we mean by Ecology and the ensuing crisis.
Ecology and its Branches
There is a lot of confusion between ecology and environmentalism. Ecology is an integrating science which is an academic discipline. The term ecology or “Oekologie” was coined in 1866 by the German Biologist Ernst Haeckel to describe the study of the relationship between living organisms and their environment. Ecology is derived from the Greek word ‘Oikos’ which means house and ‘Logos’ which means knowledge. Ecology therefore is employed to describe all aspects of our dwelling in the Earth Household. Environmentalism is a popular response to the perceived threat to the natural environment. It is an increasingly important aspect of the popular culture, rather than an academic discipline.[1] So it becomes clear that when we deal with eco-theology, we are going to hold ecology in perspective. When we deal with ecology let us acquaint ourselves with five forms of ecological philosophy. They are: Deep Ecology, Social Ecology, Shallow Environmentalism, Gaia Hypothesis and Eco-feminism.
a) Deep Ecology. The Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess first coined the term Deep Ecology in 1973. He further proposed the term ‘Ecosophy’. It studies are place in the earth household and concerns itself with earth wisdom. It is inspired by the science of ecology and system theory. It draws on wider philosophical and religious traditions. The exponents of deep ecology are said to be deep because they look to the fundamental principles which are at the root of environmental crisis. Deep Ecology goes beyond the so-called factual science to the level of self and earth wisdom. It has sound environmental ethics. Deep Ecology seeks to understand and challenge the root causes of our planetary despoliation. The premises of Deep Ecology are the primacy of wilderness, a sense of place, opposition to stewardship, opposition to industrial society, focus on spirituality and self realization. Naess thinks that every religious movement from Buddhism to Christianity has some element with Deep Ecology.
b) Social Ecology. Social Ecology was first used by the American Ecologist, E.A. Gutkind in 1954. It describes the tendering within the green movement which seas the present ecological crisis as a result of the breakdown of the organic fabric of both society and nature. It is concerned with the green movement with democracy, community and co-operation. It has a realization that there exists social and political institution of domination and hierarchy that block the liberation of nature and humanity. Social ecologists believe in the ecological principles of unity in diversity. Social ecology sees balance and integrity of the ecosphere as an end in itself. It wants to create a dynamic social movement to transform the way we find our place within nature and to change our relationships with each other and the non-human world. Social ecologists challenge the fundamental premises of western civilization.
c) Shallow Environmentalism. Shallow Environmentalism is concerned with reservation and conservation. Man is the central focus of the Shallow Environmentalist. They believe humans are superior to other beings because they create values. Hence their welfare is of first priority. They are categorized into conservationists and preservationists. Here their approach is top-down and very compartmentalized. This approach is anthropocentric. Nature is valued in this due to human association. [2]
d) Gaia Hypothesis. Gaia Hypothesis by British Scientist James Lovelock. This hypothesis proposes the earth as a complex system which is ‘alive’ in the sense of ‘being auto poetic’ that is continually able to reconstitute and repair itself through a series of complicated feedback mechanisms which respond environmental changes. The Gaia hypothesis offers a view of the earth and the evolution of life from a holistic, inter-related perspective. It tries to offer remarkable insides on the nature of our planet. This hypothesis stimulate fascinating inter disciplinary discussions. According to Lovelock the entire earth, including the atmosphere is a delicately tuned interacting system. The atmosphere is part of the life system being created and sustained by life processes. Gaia-The Earth and its atmosphere is an independent life sustaining whole; it gives us a forceful image of growing awareness of the centrality of relationship as a defining characteristic of life. [3]
e) Eco-Feminism. In the light of Ecological Epistemologies, Eco-feminism holds huge promise and perspective. Eco-feminism is a radical ecology. Feminists contribute significantly to radial ecology which is provocative and meaningful from the ecological point of view. Here preference is indicated in favour of a more organic and holistic in approach. It does not make any discrimination between sexes or species. Conditions of oppression in patriarchal society are the specific reasons why the feminists become sensitive to the detrimental effects of hierarchy and domination. Eco-feminist’s practice is anti-hierarchical. Life on earth is not a hierarchy, it is an inter-related web. [4]
Vandana Shiva describes development without the feminine principle as ‘Mal-development’. She says “Mal-development is the violation of the integrity of organic, inter-connected and inter-dependent systems that sets in motion a process of exploitation, inequality, injustice and violence. It is blind to the fact that the recognition of nature’s harmony an action to maintain in it is pre-conditions for distributive justice. Nature and women are turned into passive objects, to be used and exploited for the uncontrolled desires of alienated man. From being the creatures and sustainers of life, nature and women are reduced to being ‘resources’ in the fragmented, anti-life model of mal-development. [5] She further contents that “The recovery of the feminine principle allows a transcendence and transformation of these patriarchal foundations of mal-development. It allows redefinition of growth and productivity as categories link to the production, not the destruction of the life.”[6]
Eco-feminism helps us to epistemologically locate eco-theology in the contemporary times.
Ecological Crisis
Here the authors do not wish to delve into the ecological crisis in detail, as the scope of the paper does not permit so. The Ecological crisis will be just mentioned in brief. Here we plan to deal with constructive definitions of ecological crisis.
a) Climate Change. A change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.[7]
b) Global Warming. It refers to an average increase in the temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and the oceans.[8]
c) Carbon footprint. This terminology is integral to the Kyoto Protocol. It is a measure of the greenhouse gas emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product, measured in units of carbon dioxide (CO2).[9]
Placing Eco-Theology.
John Dryzek contends that the awareness of ecological crisis arrived in the late 1960’s, along with dire warnings about global shortages and ecological collapse.[10] The relationship of theology to the modern ecological crisis became intense issue of debate at the same time in 1967, following the publication of article, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis” by Lynn White, Professor of History at the University of California at Los Angeles. White proceeds to fault Christianity for propagating an anti-ecological understanding of the relationship between humanity and environment. This was like a Copernican revolution for theology. But before we delve into this aspect, Historical development of Eco- Theology needs to be investigated as chronicled by Jurgen Moltmann. In the history of the Theological doctrine of creation, three stages can be distinguished. These have been determined by the relationship between theology and science at any given time.
a) In the first stage, the biblical traditions and the ancient world’s picture of universe were fused into a religious cosmology. In this fusion, pantheistic elements which glorified the cosmos and the Gnostic elements which disparaged it were both excluded. This in layman’s term is pre-scientific age.
b) The second stage is placed in the scientific age in the backdrop of the struggle between the church and the state. The Sciences emancipated themselves from theology while theology detached its doctrine of creation from cosmology altogether and reduced to personal belief in creation. The world views of ancient and medieval times were rejected as unscientific and biblical creation narratives were written off by historical criticism as myths. So all that remained was the reduction of the doctrine of creation for the personal faith which says that human beings have to put their trust in God the creator, not His creatures. In order to protect it from scientific attack the Protestant Theology of modern times explained faith in creation as an expression of the feeling of absolute dependence. In this second stage, science and theology were busy with their mutual demarcation. But it was peaceful co-existence on the basis of mutual irrelevance.
c) Today theology and science have entered a third stage in their relationship. Now they have become companion in tribulation under the pressure of the ecological crisis in the quest for new direction and horizon. It is only slowly the theologians are beginning to see that their continual attempts to draw dividing lines between theology and sciences are no longer necessary because sciences’ earlier unquestioning faith in itself has disappeared. Scientist are slowly beginning to discover the Christian theology is not conserving antiquated world views but realizes that it is a partner that deserves to be taken seriously, both in the sphere of cosmology and in the realm of social engineering .[11]
Paradigms of Eco-theology.
Eco-theology, like any inter disciplinary academic field, is full of dialectics and shifting paradigms. Lauren Kearns in the light of his 20 years researches in Eco-theology categorizes it into 3 paradigms that are not necessarily water tight compartments. They are Christian Stewardship, Eco-justice and Creation Spirituality. [12]
a) Christian Stewardship. The term Stewardship has been widely deployed in recent years to justify Christian involvement in environmental action. The key “Dominion” passage is used to justify stewardship as a model of responsibility towards the earth. The main trouble with stewardship is the fact that it is anthropocentric and it does not exhaust what the Bible and Christian Theology have to say about relationship between human beings and the natural world. The emphasis on our duties and responsibilities rather than our rights. Paradoxically, this may have the effect of undermining environmental responsibility; a bonded servant may fulfill his duties but may not feel responsible as a free employee would. But, it cannot be undermined that Christian stewardship as a paradigm is an important voice countering a wide spread strain of conservative Christianity that is anti-science with “creationist over tones”. [13]
b) Eco-justice. Advocates of this branch represent more mainstream and liberal Protestant and Catholic Social-justice understandings of Christianity in which God’s Kingdom of just relations between humans and with the realm of creation is to be worked here on earth by righting social wrongs. Here the source of authority is the example of Jesus and the Social Gospel Tradition. The stress on the marginalized sections of the society and the impact of Ecological degradation on them. They believe that when one talks of eco-justice, it is better to ask the question who is the sufferers of climate change, rising waters, agricultural crisis, global warming etc. and the answer is inevitably the marginalized. [14] One gets the impression that the eco-justice paradigm is heavily dependent on the liberation theology hermeneutics. This also is largely anthropocentric. But this approach has positively affected ecological activism.
c) Creation Spirituality. Creation Spirituality focuses on the wonder of the universe, and the cosmological story of its evolution, which reveals that humans are but a small part of the “Universe Story”. Proponents of this paradigm often come from the most liberal Protestant and Catholic groups that are open to a wide array of spiritual traditions, deep ecology, mysticisms, eco-feminism etc. In this approach, the revolution of the universe is considered to supersede the knowledge of most religious traditions. They embrace numinous or immanent sense of the sacred in the world. [15] This is in tune with sacramental world view of Christian Eastern Theology. But the problem is many practicing Christians find this approach very offensive as they feel it compromises on their basic faith. So the appropriate solution to counter this dilemma is to adopt the model of Mark I. Wallace. This will be added as the fourth paradigm for the sake of clarity of concept even though it can be included in the paradigm of creation spirituality.
d) Ecological Pneumatology. Mark I. Wallace is the proponent of this concept called Ecological Pneumatology. He says the Holy Spirit is best understood not as a metaphysical entity but as a healing life force that engenders human flourishing as well as welfare of the planet. This model understands the Spirit not as Divine intellect or the principle of consciousness but as a healing and subversive life form- as water, light, dove, mother, fire, breath and wind- on the basis of different biblical and literary figurations of the spirit in nature. A nature based Pneumatology challenges the conventional assumptions by figuring the spirit, in the economies of confronting violence and healing the earth, as a leaving embodied being who works for healthy communities within our shared planet home. An earth based understanding of the Spirit will not domesticate the spirit by locating her activity simply alongside nature rather nature itself in all its variety and diversity will be construed as the primary mode of being for the Spirit’s work in the world. Spirit forges unity among enemies and opposites by eradicating the dysfunctional differences that define personal and communal identity. To follow the Spirit’s revolutionary promptings is to risk leaving liminal existence vulnerable to attack by mainstream members of society who bitterly resist the mixing of opposite and crossing of cultural boundaries. Spirit gives us the prophetic role of being the bearers of Spirit’s nature based desire for integrity of all biotic populations that blur the human-non-human distinction an oppose distinctions that classify some life forms as valuable, pure and sacred and others as worthless, unclean and profane. [16] It would be better to locate the responses of the church and the Mar Thoma Church in specific from the Ecological Pneumatology-Paradigm.
Responses of Churches .
Though our focus is on the Mar Thoma Church, the authors would use the more inclusive word Churches as one realizes that a joint effort from all the churches is necessary. This crisis rings bell for a wider ecumenism where the Spirit according to Wallace unites us. The environmental crisis is both an enormous opportunity and also a strong challenge to today’s churches. Oelschleger (1994)in his book ‘Caring for Creation’ points out that church is our last, best chance to enter into the environment and work for the welfare of the universe, because Church is rooted and commissioned in the realms of the Eco-system propelled by the Holy Spirit.
1) To Join Hands with Persons in Ecological Movement.
In our country, in the national level and regional level there are lot of organizations or movements which are working with ecological concerns. As a church committed to the people and environment, we should join hands with the ‘Green Groups’ for keeping the integrity of ecosystems.[17]
2) Promotion Of the Idea of ‘Green’ through Seminars and Activities.
The church enjoys a special facility to reach out to millions of people all over the country. Empowering them to take on responsibility for earth should be a priority for the church. The Yuvajana Sakhyam should be oriented with systematic seminars, discourses, and group discussions. The Sunday School curriculum should be modified in tune with new biblical hermeneutics regarding eco-theology. Since mothers have a vital role in attitudinal formations of the children, Sevika Sanghom should be sensitized about the practical trends in ecological conservations.
3) Practice of Eco – Spirituality.
This suggests a way of life that celebrates our eco – friendly vision. In this approach we have to praise God for the beauty of the creation and the wonder of our being. Celebrations like World Earth Day(April 22), World Environmental Day(June 5) etc. should be celebrated in our churches with various activities in connection with ecology. New Earth – Friendly Liturgies need to be created, with songs to capture the beauty of the Earth and all its mysteries.[18]
4) To Create a forum for Eco – Theology.
A forum for eco – theology in a church should mainly include the presence of ecological authors and theologians from various branches that support ecological restoration. Reinterpretation of biblical texts is necessary in congruence with the concept of Ecological Pneumatology.
5) Engagement with the Panchayat Raj
In the Indian context, Panchayat Raj plays a decisive role, but the church has not seriously engaged with it. The schemes of Panchayat Raj programmed through local administrative bodies can be discussed in the core groups in the parish level.Therefore, the members of the group can invariably and voluntarily participate in the activities and execute eco-friendly projects. This type of engagement focuses upon the development of human resources instead of the reliability on nature and its resources in the perspective of instrumentality. [19]
6) The Challenge of Preaching and Teaching.
Our preaching and teaching should mention the environment and God’s Creation regularly. It should be part of the natural life of all Christian congregations, not just a task for a few specialists. All congregations of all denominations should give special attention to these questions. The chasm between abstract ecological crisis and its practical manifestation should be bridged. This task needs a lot of commitment as people should be able to connect with it. The problem is that today specialists deal with jargons that people feel have no relevance to their lives. Church as a forum should use all its resources to inculcate “Eco-sensitivity”. [20]
7) Participation in Rain Water Harvesting and Waste Water Treatment.
A church can implement waste water treatment programmes in church premises and in the houses of Church members. This will help in the biological removal of dissolved solids from water , which can be used for house hold activity. Rain Water Harvesting is one of the main techniques of conserving water, one which has great potential to solve the water crisis across the globe. Rooftops, compounds, rocky surfaces or hill slopes or artificially prepared land surfaces can be used for this. A church can easily involve in these areas to reduce the water crisis.[21] Feminist theology and eco – feminism are, in fact, two interrelated streams of thought that deal with proper relation between humanity and the rest of the creation.[22] One of the fundamental thrust of eco – feminism is that there is a natural – nexus between women and nature.[23]
8) Making paradigm shifts in the attitude of the church members
Churches have always concentrated on villages when the debate for ecological restoration arose. But it is time Church challenges the middle class section to come out of their comfort zones and envisage an ecologically sustainable lifestyle in urban settings. Small steps like water conservation, low electricity consumption, promotion of concepts like car pools and bike pools, minimal usage of AC’s etc. should be inculcated.
Conclusion
One viewing of Al Gore’s Oscar winning documentary “The Inconvenient Truth” makes us realize that the earth clock is ticking. We believe that in our quest through Eco-theology, we are encountering a struggle to find God in a world scarred by violence, destruction, chaos and mayhem. For us the struggle to believe in God in the face of strong and troubling evidence to the contrary is the sign of Church being a Covenant Community. Our conviction of Being God’s creation beckons us to respond in a time like this. Let the famous quote of Rachel Carson the author of “Silent Springs” give us perspective and inspiration. She wrote to her friend this way “The beauty of the living World I was trying to save has always been uppermost in my mind. That, and anger at the senseless, brutish things that were being done. Now I can believe I have at least helped a little.” Ecological Pneumatology construes humankind and other kind as members of a common ecosystem in which no one species is more valuable and worthy of protection than the other. This premise, if adopted by the Church, will hold promise for the much awaited ‘Renewal of the Creation’.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dryzek, John. S. , The Politics Of The Earth.Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2005
Kearns,Lauren. “The Context Of Eco - Theology”. In The Blackwell Companion To Modern Theology.
Edited by Gareth Jones.New York : Blackwell Publications, 2004
King, Caroly M. Habitat of Grace. Australia : Australian Theological Forum, 2002
Kurian. M (ed). Ecology : Responsibility Of The Church. Kottayam : Kerela Council Of Churches, 1990
Lersson, Per. Your Will Be Done. Hongkong : Christian Conference Of Asia, 2004.
Lovelock, James . “Gaia : A new look on life on Earth”. In Classics in Environmental Studies. Edited by
Nico Nellisen, Jan Van Der Straaten and Leon Klinkers.New Delhi : Kusum Publishing, 2001.
Mattam, Joseph and Jacob Kavunkal, (ed). Ecological Concerns. Bangalore:NBCLC,1998.
Moltmann, Jurgen. God In Creation – An Ecological Doctrine Of Creation. London SCM Press Limited,
1985.
Murli, J. Global Mitigation Strategies To Address Climate Change. Kolkata : WWF, 2008
Sarkar, R. L. The Bible, Ecology and Environment. New Delhi: ISPCK,2000
Shiva, Vandana “Staying Alive : Women, Ecology and Development”. In Classics In Environmental
Studies. Edited by Nico Nellissen, Jan Van Der Straaten and Leon Klinkers. New Delhi : Kusum Publishing, 2001.
Wallace, Mark I. Fragments Of The Spirit : Nature, Violence and Renewal Of Creation.
Harrisburg : Trinity Press International, 2002.
Prepared by the students of: Mar Thoma Theological Seminary, Kottayam.
[1] R.L. Sarkar, The Bible, Ecology and Environment (New Delhi: ISPCK,2000), 59.
[2] Ibid, 65-67
[3] James Lovelock ”Gaia : A new look on life on Earth”, Classics in Environmental Studies, edited by Nico Nellissen, Jan Van Der Straaten and Leon Klinkers(New Delhi : Kusum Publishing, 2001), 243 – 248.
[4] Sarkar, op.cit.,71 – 73.
[5] Vandana Shiva “Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development”. Classics in Environmental Studies, edited by Nico Nellissen, Jan Van Der Straaten and Leon Klinkers(New Delhi : Kusum Publishing, 2001),287 -289.
[6] Ibid
[7] J. Murli, Global Mitigation Strategies To Address Climate Change(Kolkata : WWF, 2008), 32 – 34.
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid
[10] John. S. Dryzek, The Politics Of The Earth(Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2005), 5
[11] Jurgen Moltmann, God In Creation – An Ecological Doctrine Of Creation(London SCM Press Limited, 1985),33 - 34
[12] Lauren Kearns, op.cit,.477
[13] Ibid, 478
[14] Ibid
[15] Ibid
[16] Mark I. Wallace, Fragments Of The Spirit : Nature, Violence and Renewal Of Creation(Harrisburg : Trinity Press International, 2002), 2 - 5
[17] Joseph Mattam & Jacob Kavunkal, ed., Ecological Concerns (Banglore : NBCLC, 1998), 142
[18] Ibid
[19] Carolyn M. King, Habitat Of Grace (Australia : Australian Theological Forum, 2002), 159.
[20] Ibid., 163
[21] Per Larrson, Your Will Be Done On Earth(Hong Kong: Christian Conference of Asia,2004),93
[22] Joseph Mattam and Jacob Kavunkal, ed.,Ecological Concerns(Bangalore:NBCLC,1998),69.)
[23] Per Larrson, op.cit., 94
No comments:
Post a Comment