Nature and the Environment in Contemporary Religious Contexts [1 ed.] 9781527512078, 9781527505308

Citation preview

Nature and the Environment in Contemporary Religious Contexts

Nature and the Environment in Contemporary Religious Contexts Edited by

Muhammad Shafiq and Thomas Donlin-Smith

Nature and the Environment in Contemporary Religious Contexts Edited by Muhammad Shafiq and Thomas Donlin-Smith This book first published 2018 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2018 by Nazareth College, Hickey Center for Interfaith Studies and Dialogue All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-0530-8 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-0530-8

Dedicated to the sweet memories of Doris Hickey and all those who have worked to build bridges in our world.

The Hickey Center is thankful to Mary Van Keuren and Anastasia Tahou for editing and assisting in publishing of this book.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................................................................ xi Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Part I. Our Human Contexts within Nature Chapter One ................................................................................................. 7 Ecologies of Diversity: Beyond Religious and Human Exceptionalism Katherine Keller Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 19 Measured Ecological Humanism of the Qur’an and International Development: A Comparative Look M. Ashraf Adeel Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 37 Modernity, Secularism, and the Exclusion of Nature: Why Religion Matters Hussam S. Timani Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 53 Animal Talk: What Ethical Lessons do Animals Teach on Aggadic Midrash about the Environment? Daniel Maoz Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 67 A Vast Net of Interconnected Diamonds: Buddhist View of Nature Tatjana Myoko V. Prittwitz Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 85 Dietrich Bonhoeffer as an Ecological Theologian Jamison Stallman

viii

Table of Contents

Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 101 Pope Francis’ Encyclical and Catholic Magisterial Statements on Ecological Ethics Nancy M. Rourke Part II. Imperatives from Sacred Texts and Traditions Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 123 Who Will Inherit God’s World? The Righteous of Sura 21 and Psalm 37 Barbara Pemberton Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 145 Interreligious Encounter in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament: Models for the Anthropocene Richard C. Salter Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 165 Green Book: Qur’anic Teachings on Creation and Nature Fatih Harpci Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 183 The Protection of Nature and the Environment: A Case for Restoring ‘Dharma’ in the Hindu World Narwaraj Chaulagain Part III. Practicing the Imperatives Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 205 Pope Francis, Care for Creation, and Popular Movements Marvin L. Mich Chapter Thirteen ...................................................................................... 225 Three Sages: Conversations on Ecology Monica Weis Chapter Fourteen ..................................................................................... 235 Prospects for Dialogue between Russian Orthodox and Muslims on the Environmental Crisis Andrii Krawchuk

Nature and the Environment in Contemporary Religious Contexts

ix

Chapter Fifteen ........................................................................................ 251 The Flowering of India: A Mughal Manifesto for Environmentalism Michael D. Calabria Chapter Sixteen ....................................................................................... 273 Deforestation in the Congo Basin and Global Climate Change: An Ethic of Environmental Responsibility based on African Spirituality Leocadie Lushombo Chapter Seventeen ................................................................................... 291 ‘That We May Sow Beauty’: Reading Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Classics for Interreligious Dialogue about the Environmental Crisis Elizabeth Adams-Eilers Contributors ............................................................................................. 311 Index ........................................................................................................ 315

PREFACE

There was no interfaith dialogue when I was a student in the 1970s at Temple University’s Department of Religion. However ecumenical dialogue was well established and the department had an ecumenical library where I worked as a fellow under the guidance of Professor Leonard Swidler. It was a great opportunity for me to read and learn about ecumenism, gaining an understanding of how Christian communities had struggled to overcome their differences. I learned about the significance of dialogue, a gateway to understanding difference, building bridges, reconciling, and cooperating for a greater cause. My exposure led me to participate in ecumenical meetings and conferences. But the discussion and papers presented there were about Christian theology and denominational differences. Jews, Muslims, and others had little space. When I enquired about this from my Jewish friend, I was told that it was still good to participate. When Jews, Muslims, and other faiths increased in number, the doors would open. The doors were opened in the middle of 1980. Ecumenical experts began to discuss amongst themselves the words interreligious and interfaith dialogue. Soon the words interfaith dialogue became more known in the communities and gradually replaced ecumenical dialogue. I came to Rochester, New York in 1989 and was engaged in an interfaith forum representing more than twenty-five faiths. I think Rochester may be the first interfaith city to form interfaith commissions and signed inter-community agreements to foster relations. The CatholicJewish agreement was signed in 1989, the Christian-Muslim commission formed in 1994, the Commission on Jewish-Muslim Understanding in 1997, and the Catholic-Muslim Agreement in 2003, resulting in the Muslim-Catholic Alliance (MCA) to combat hate and stereotyping. Rochesterians considered the interfaith movement to be the second civil rights movement, supporting the mission of the first civil rights movement and expanding on racial justice to include religious, ethnic, and cultural justice and harmony. As educational institutions responded to the first civil rights movement by emphasizing the teaching of African and African American studies as well as women and gender studies on college campuses, it was essential to expand it to global and interfaith studies to meet the challenges of our contemporary world.

Preface

xii

In 1999, representatives from the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist religions in Rochester came together to establish an academic center for interfaith studies to teach and train people of all faiths to stand against hate and build bridges of respectful understanding. From this effort, the Center for Interfaith Studies and Dialogue (CISD) found its home at Nazareth College on November 28, 2001, shortly after the September 11 tragedies. In 2004, the Center was integrated academically and, in 2011, was renamed the Brian and Jean Hickey Center for Interfaith Studies and Dialogue in honor of two of the Center’s most dedicated longtime supporters. At the same time the Interfaith Studies Chair was created through the generous support of the International Institute of Islamic Thought in Herndon, Virginia. The Hickey Center for Interfaith Studies and Dialogue promotes scholarship, skills, and strategies for living justly in a religiously diverse and pluralistic world. The Center fosters this capacity through: increasing religious literacy; teaching skills for individual and community-wide communication on matters of religion, faith, and spirituality; and contributing to the growing scholarship of interfaith studies. Our strategies, both locally and globally, are: •

• •

to establish safe environments conducive to understanding the diversity of faiths in our world and our community through hospitality and open dialogue; to provide educational resources and to create scholarship that will help establish an environment of understanding and equality; to inspire individuals, communities, and institutions to live and communicate more effectively with those from other religions and faith backgrounds.

In fulfilling the goals associated with our youth and our community, we came to realize a need that has been present with us from our birth at the beginning of the 21st century: the need to study the interfaith movement as it has blossomed in recent years. This study occurs when we gather experts from diverse disciplines together with professors of religion and theology to discuss topics of importance to the interfaith movement. At first, these gatherings resulted in a great deal of creative and critical talk among the participants but little publication of what was said. At the suggestion of the participants and many others, we began the Sacred Texts and Human Contexts series of conferences and publications. The purpose of both is to bring together experts in interpreting the traditions of the world’s religions to examine common issues.

Nature and the Environment in Contemporary Religious Contexts

xiii

The series provides a forum for the interfaith movement to express new ideas and offer critical reflection on old ideas in order to stimulate the intellectual life of a global society. We had our first conference, which dealt with the sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on dividing and uniting humanity, in June, 2013 at Nazareth College. More than 250 religious studies professors and religious professionals participated and more than 70 academic papers were presented. The peer reviewed papers resulted in a publication of twenty-six chapters titled Sacred Texts and Human Contexts: A North American Response to A Common Word Between Us and You. Our second international conference, which dealt with the topic of wealth and poverty, was held at Fatih University in Istanbul, Turkey in 2014. The peer-reviewed papers were published as Poverty and Wealth in Judaism, Christianity and Islam by McMillan Palgrave in 2016. The conference committee then decided to include all faiths in future conferences. Therefore, our third international conference was on nature and the environment in religions and was held in May of 2016. The peer-reviewed papers were submitted to Cambridge Scholars for publication. Our next conference is on women and gender in religions and is scheduled for July 30-Aug.1, 2017 at Nazareth College. No institution can thrive without collegial and financial support. The Hickey Center is blessed with an abundance of support from Nazareth College by President Daan Braveman, Esq.; Vice-President of Academic Affairs, Dr. Andrea K. Talentino; Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Dr. Dianne Oliver; the Religious Studies Department – especially Dr. Susan Nowak, S.S.J., its chair, and Thomas Donlin-Smith, advisor to the Hickey Center; Brian and Jean Hickey; the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) at Herndon VA; and countless members of Nazareth’s administration, faculty, and staff. The discernment of the scholarly needs of the interfaith movement and designing of the programs to meet these needs would not have been possible without a team of committed religious leaders, professionals, and academics, all dedicated to the common cause of respectful tolerance and peaceful coexistence among faiths. The Hickey Center is fortunate to have Dr. Nathan Kollar, chair of the Center’s advisory board, who worked diligently during all these years. We are thankful to all members of the conference committee including Dr. David Hill, Oswego State University of New York; Dr. Mustafa Gokcek, Niagara University; Dr. Richard Salter, Hobart and William Smith Colleges; Dr. Etin Anwar, Hobart and William Smith Colleges; Dr. Matthew J. Temple, O.Carm., Nazareth College; Dr. Nancy M. Rourke, Canisius College; and of course, Dr. Thomas Donlin-Smith, co-editor of this scholarly endeavor.

xiv

Preface

An entity such as the Hickey Center for Interfaith Studies and Dialogue is always in need of institutional bonds of interfaith ideals and friendship. When the bond is evidenced by participation and financial support, the ideals become realized in shared programs and research. Our institutional colleagues are found in the Department of Religious Studies at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, cosponsors of this conference; the Dialogue Institute of Temple University with the support of my teacher, Dr. Leonard Swidler; the Department of Religious Studies at St. John Fisher College with the support of Father William Graf; Bediüzzaman Said Nursi, chair in Islamic Studies, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, John Carroll University, with the support of Zeki Staritoprak; and the College of Arts and Sciences and Department of History at Niagara University with the support of Mustafa Gokcek and others. In addition to all those mentioned above I must mention my family. Their understanding is amazing especially that of my grandchildren who are so often disappointed that their grandpa is busy with college work at home and can hardly spare enough time to play with them. Thank you to all my family for their patience and their support of this most important work of interfaith. The Hickey Center is indebted to its founders and the community leaders and individuals who give us hope for the future and support our mutual quest for respectful religious and cultural dialogue and peaceful coexistence. Thank you, Muhammad Shafiq, PhD Hickey Center, Nazareth College

INTRODUCTION THOMAS DONLIN-SMITH1

This volume is the third collection of essays gleaned from three Sacred Texts and Human Contexts conferences sponsored by the Hickey Center for Interfaith Studies and Dialogue since 2013. These conferences have created an expanding community of interfaith scholars from around the world who enjoy the intellectual and spiritual challenges of honest and focused conversation on topics of common concern. Even as I compose this introduction to the book, the fourth conference (on issues of sex and gender in the religious traditions) is just a few weeks away, and I am increasingly excited at the thought of reconvening our conversation partners once again for a new exploration of our religious traditions and their varied expressions in diverse human contexts. The central question posed by this book is: “What do our sacred texts and religious traditions say about the human relationship and responsibilities to the earth and its nonhuman species?” Although this single question animates the book, the scholars answering the question come from four continents, focus their attention on aspects of six different religious traditions, and apply a variety of academic disciplines and interpretive methods to their work. Such diversity is the source of the profound intellectual thrill and moral value we experience in interfaith

 1

Dr. Thomas Donlin-Smith is a professor of religious studies at Nazareth College. He teaches courses in biomedical ethics, ethics of the professions, religion and politics, religion and science, comparative religious environmental ethics, Christian ethics, and religious studies theories and methods. Dr. Donlin-Smith’s research interests include theory and method in the study of religion, religious ethics, and the relationships among religion, science, and politics. He directs the Nazareth College interdisciplinary program in ethics and is an advisory board member of the Brian and Jean Hickey Center for Interfaith Studies and Dialogue. He has served on numerous institutional ethics committees, human subjects research committees, and institutional animal care and use committees. He received his B.A. from The Ohio State University, M.Div. from Wesley Theological Seminary, and Ph.D. from the University of Virginia.

2

Introduction

conversation, but it can also present a challenge when it comes to weaving the threads of thought into a single, coherent volume! Some essays cover overlapping themes or materials and are therefore closely related to each other; others are more distinctive in material or approach. Some essays focus on traditional scriptures while others are based on a more elastic understanding of “sacred texts” and examine texts, stories, and thinkers from the wider history of the religious traditions (e.g., Bonhoeffer and Merton). Furthermore, the range of traditions under examination has been expanding over the three volumes of this series from an initial focus on the three prominent Abrahamic religions to a consideration in this book of religions originating in South Asia and Africa as well. We trust that the adventurous reader will enjoy this sprawling journey into the thoughtworlds of diverse cultures and scholars as we address together the crucial environmental issues of the twenty-first century. For persons committed to any of these religious traditions and concerned about contemporary environmental issues, the guiding question of the book is of obvious importance. However, it is fair to ask whether this question has any significance for individuals or organizations whose assumptions are more secular. There are at least three reasons to answer affirmatively. First, as any member of a diverse society should understand, there is great humanistic value in understanding our fellow citizens. As any participant in interfaith dialogue could tell you, understanding religious texts and traditions is understanding people, the people with whom we will debate and create a common future. Religion remains, for better or worse, a powerful shaper of persons’ worldviews and values and to ignore it is to self-inflict a diminished capacity to relate successfully to others. Second, although much foolishness and cruelty have been perpetrated in the name of religion, the scholars represented in this volume are interested in gleaning the profound wisdom of the ages also present in the religious traditions. Religious texts and traditions compile some of the best of human thought and aspirations from across billions of people and thousands of years. Why would we deny ourselves such a resource when facing the formidable challenges of our environmental crisis? Finally, religion has indeed been complicit in environmentally destructive human beliefs and behaviors; these too need to be understood. At least as far back as Lynn White’s famous essay, it has been well understood that religion’s record on the environment (as on every significant human issue) has been decidedly ambiguous. It benefits us all—religious and secular alike—to understand ways in which religion has functioned contrary to ecological health so we may avoid such mistakes not just in religion but in our secular ideologies as well.

Nature and the Environment in Contemporary Religious Contexts

3

Any attempt to apply religious sources to a contemporary social issue inevitably runs into the epistemological question of the relationship of religion to various other sources of wisdom. In particular, in this case, there is the question of how religious guidance relates to the insights from biological science. The reader of this volume will soon see that, for most of the scholars here, there is very little sense of conflict between religion and science. Most of the authors take for granted the scientific consensus that we are indeed living in a period of unprecedented human-caused environmental crisis. The human context from which they consult their religious texts and traditions is one of serious ecological peril although experienced in different ways and to different degrees in different parts of the world. Religiously-inspired climate science denial might be a significant phenomenon in some quarters, but the scholars contributing to this volume are interested not in denying, but in making use of, the best of human knowledge from all sources. They have little desire to argue scientific points from a nonscientific basis: they leave scientific questions to the scientists. However, not all questions are scientific questions. What these scholars of religion can provide is insight into religious persons’ worldview assumptions, guiding stories, motivating role models, ways of reasoning, and moral principles, and thereby clues into ways of inspiring more environmentally responsible behavior in the future. Although, as noted above, it is a challenge to organize such wideranging material, and some essays might have been placed elsewhere in the book, the volume is arranged into three parts. Part One, “Human Contexts Within Nature,” introduces the general issue before us: that all our diverse human social contexts are contained within the context of nature and that this global natural context is suffering unprecedented stress. Authors writing from Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist perspectives whet our appetite by reviewing our planetary situation in the new Anthropocene Age, analyzing some of the attitudes and behaviors that have brought us to this point, and identifying images and themes from their traditions that might help us move into the future more constructively. Part Two, “Imperatives from Sacred Texts and Traditions,” provides examples of scholars discerning and interpreting moral imperatives regarding the environment from sacred texts. Whether the source text is the Bible, the Qur’an, or the DevƯ MƗhƗtmaya, the authors of these essays are working the hermeneutical circle. In each case, the scholar brings the concerns of their contemporary context to texts deemed to have sacred authority yet reflecting human contexts of other times and places in order to distill insights and moral imperatives of value for their current situation.

4

Introduction

This dynamic conversation across time and place is inevitable in anything that can be called a tradition. It entails a complicated process of determining which aspects of that tradition are most useful for the present environmental context, and the stakes are especially high when one regards these traditions as sacred and that present context as dire. The essays of Part Three, “Practicing the Imperatives,” while providing further examples of discernment of moral norms from religious texts and traditions, also describe action inspired by the imperatives. They tell us of religiously informed people engaging in sacred art, interreligious dialogue, community organizing, and environmental activism as they work to bring about positive change for our imperiled planet. In keeping with the broad scope of the book, the examples come from different continents, centuries, and religious contexts, but the common theme is recognition of the value of other-than-human nature and a commitment to act upon that recognition. Although this volume was developed around the concept of “sacred texts” engaging diverse “human contexts,” there really are no simply human contexts. The human, social, or cultural is always enmeshed in the natural, environmental, or biological. Realizing that there is no pulling them apart is an example of the kind of shift of consciousness required by life in the twenty-first century. Our age of unprecedented eco-social urgency requires a dramatic reconsideration of many of our fundamental concepts and assumptions. People who are committed to the world’s religious traditions face this challenge the same as anyone else, but with the additional complication that some of those concepts and assumptions are not only fundamental to their worldview, but also regarded as divinely validated. The scholarly work reflected in this book contributes to this reconsideration effort. In so doing, we participate in what Thomas Berry called the “Great Work” of our time, the dramatic shift of human thought and behavior to forms more conducive to a future for the biosphere of our beautiful planet earth.

PART I OUR HUMAN CONTEXTS WITHIN NATURE

CHAPTER ONE ECOLOGIES OF DIVERSITY: BEYOND RELIGIOUS AND HUMAN EXCEPTIONALISM CATHERINE KELLER1

Abstract: If the climate crisis must now be treated not as a set of exceptional emergencies but as an inescapable emergence, it belongs at the center of religious, and therefore interreligious, concern. Theology as political can contribute to the struggle for a just and sustainable planetary future, but only inasmuch as it exposes and exceeds a secularized political theology of sovereign power. Such sovereignty comes dominated by a series of exceptionalisms: religious, national, economic, and anthropic. A theology of ecosocial justice will have multiple religious sources; here, for instance, a Christian struggle beyond anthropocentrism takes invaluable cues from an ecological Islam.

It is heartening in this multiply stressed moment of planetary existence to be thinking together about the living context of the world religions. The world—our environment, at multiple scales—is being invited to come out of the background and into the focus of religious sensibility. The Protestant theologian Jürgen Moltmann formulates the challenge concisely: “The so-

 1

Catherine Keller is professor of constructive theology at the Theological School of Drew University. In her teaching, lecturing, and writing, she develops the relational potential of a theology of becoming. Her books reconfigure ancient symbols of divinity for the sake of a planetary conviviality—a life together, across vast webs of difference. Thriving in the interplay of ecological and gender politics, of process cosmology, poststructuralist philosophy and religious pluralism, her work is both deconstructive and constructive in strategy. Note: I thank my research assistant, Winfield Goodwin, for his invaluable editorial help.

8

Chapter One

called great world religions will only prove themselves to be ‘world religions,’ when they become earth religions and understand humanity as an integrated part of the planet earth.” 2 Of course the world religions, particularly in their Abrahamic modes, have often been nervous about their own earthiness, fearing it could lead to idolatrous nature-worship, pantheist naturalism, modern reductionism, atheism, materialism. But thank God (by whatever name you call upon him, her, or it) in the context of a conversation on “Nature, Environment and the World Religions,” I do not have to make a case for the deep earthiness of our faiths. We can think from the shared presumption that the planetarity of a world religion no longer refers simply to its universal outreach or truth claim. Planetarity now, as always, signifies at the same time our ecological responsibility. I do not therefore have to take time to persuade the participants in a conversation on religion’s living context that the earth—as the context of us all, as the world that we humans coinhabit alongside all those nonhuman others with which we are intimately interrelated—is characterized by a rapidly mounting crisis. Even before the great political pivot against all environmentalism, we knew we were in trouble. As the ice melts and the seas rise, as the oceans get poisoned, the forests burn, and the droughts intensify, as the food supply decreases and we continue exponentially to increase, as humans—and disproportionately the human communities that have been systematically disadvantaged by our global socioeconomic practices—become subject to increasingly devastating displacements, and face therefore new levels of violence, every religious resource we can muster will be needed. Even before the new wave of potentially fascist anti-immigrant politics became manifest, we realized that migration, poverty, race, and xenophobia—particularly Islamophobia—cannot be understood in abstraction from the effects of climate change. Participants in this conversation knew already that we were facing a new kind of emergency situation before its stunning political acceleration. There are really just three points I want to make in this paper. I offer them in the hope that they help us communicate with each other about this planetary crisis. By talking together we hope to get and to give hope. Hope for a collective planetary future that is worthy of the earthly hopes of each

 2

Jürgen Moltmann, “Eine gemeinsame Religion der Erde (A Common Religion of the Earth): Weltreligionen in ükologischer Perspektive (World Religions in Ecological Perspective),” in Verlag Otto Lembeck 10/1605, “Okumenische Rundschau” (2011), 26 (my translation). As discussed in my Cloud of the Impossible: Negative Theology and Planetary Entanglement (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014), 279-80.

Ecologies of Diversity: Beyond Religious and Human Exceptionalism

9

of our traditions. Those hopes come encoded in our sacred texts—particularly in the prophetic, messianically energized eschatological traditions. Hope of course is itself a deeply and problematically religious idea, one that is all too easily abstracted and diverted from our earth future. Hence the phrase: hoping against hope. My first point here is that the coming climate emergency should not be treated as a state of exception but as a now inescapable emergence. The legal notion of the state of emergency is driven by a politics, indeed a political theology, centered in an emergency power defined as the power of the exception. However, multiple, distinct, historical exceptionalisms— the racial exceptionalism of White Anglo-Saxonism, the nationalist exceptionalism of United States power, the economic exceptionalism of contemporary regimes of global capitalism—in fact propel the current emergency. And, exceptions end up proving their rule. Given our conference topic, I will focus upon a very old, very theological, and very unexceptional interplay between a human and a Christian exceptionalism. My second point will be that an alternative political theology is needed. It requires an alternative to the sovereign power of the exception. But it would need to be an alternative capable of rising to the occasion of coming catastrophe. The key to this alternative is what I have elsewhere called “entangled difference.” Here difference itself is to be read not as separation but as inseparable relation. In the midst of our differences, we may exclude or ignore the depth of our relations. But the vital truth is that we do not thereby become ontologically independent of those relations or of that depth. If we are constituted in and by relations—good ones, toxic ones, and unknown ones—then our very differences form the interlinkages that make us up. This is true of individual, economic, ethnic, and of course species diversity. And in this conversation we attend particularly to this truth as manifest in religious diversity, whether we respect our differences or practice a barbaric indifference. In our interfaith reflection on nature, we may begin to consider that just as all creatures develop interdependently, so too, naturally, do our religions. This is the ecology of the creation: we are all in it together. This insistence may help us to face planetary catastrophe, in order to prevent it as much as possible, and to adapt to it non-barbarically when it cannot be averted. So then catastrophe itself can here and now become a catalyst for transformation. That allows me to state my third point in one sentence: if we ask what can turn catastrophe into a catalyst, the answer must begin with “hope.”

10

Chapter One

(1) Let us consider the first thesis, then: that this unprecedented emergency should not be treated as a state of exception but as a nowinescapable emergence. Just what will emerge is unpredictable. It will involve catastrophe, no doubt, but how extreme that catastrophe will be depends on global human response. Is the right image of the human response so far that of a car speeding down a mountain toward a cliff with still time to brake? Or rather, as many environmentalists now say, are we already going off the cliff? Climate change will intensify all manner of already existing conflicts and inequalities. It does not so much cause them as it inflates them. The example of Syria and the rise of ISIS is telling (even Prince Charles told it in Paris). In the context of five years of unprecedented drought and Assad’s repressive response, the refugee crisis has become dire. At the same time, a broader anti-immigrant affect drives the electoral successes of right-wing parties in Europe. And now we face the trumping of democracy in the United States, in the election of an anti-immigrant and climate-denialist president. Does this all suggest a merely accidental connection between Islamophobia and environmental catastrophe? These totally different issues require a range of political responses. But it may be crucial to think them together, in relation one to another. I would suggest one possible approach to doing so. It draws upon what is called political theology, a current discussion in political philosophy much more so than in theology. It considers the major concepts of modern politics to be secularizations of theology. Sovereignty itself is modeled upon divine omnipotence. Political theology gets largely defined by the German legal theorist Carl Schmitt’s work from the 1920s on. It centers in this proposition: “Sovereign is he who decides in the exception.” 3 The exception is kin to the miracle—a novum that interrupts business as usual, a power that makes the rules but need not play by them. A medieval model of divine sovereignty thus is secularized in the Western form of political exceptionalism. In other words, it is a sovereignty derived from a presumption of Christian supremacism. That dominant theological legacy draws its force from the theology of a single, exceptional incarnation. It is then a Christian exceptionalism that sanctified modern secular models of imperial sovereignty. If we had time, we could track the particular forms of Anglo-Saxon racial exceptionalism, of United States exceptionalism, its American dream and its manifest destiny, and then of

 3

Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, translated by George Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 5.

Ecologies of Diversity: Beyond Religious and Human Exceptionalism

11

the hypersecularized exceptionalism of neoliberal global capitalism.4 But given our interreligious focus, I would draw attention particularly to the way this exceptionalism unfolds in a thousand-year arc of crusades. It begins with Pope Urban II in 1096, with an aggression meant to bring European powers to a new unity. This papal power play exemplifies Schmitt’s politics of friend versus foe. Fast-forward to Bush II invading Iraq almost a millennium later, declaring thereby a new crusade. 5 He powered up a coalition of the willing, united Islamophobically in the interests of big oil and the sovereignty of neoliberal capital. As Giorgio Agamben argues, the state of exception—suspending the applicability of international law concerning prisoners—insidiously became the rule.6 He recalls the camps, the lager, of the second World War, and he gestures simultaneously toward the proliferation of new camps: the massive refugee camps dotting the political landscape of Europe today. 7 But neither Agamben nor the other leftist interpreters of political theology analyze the ecological context of these current dehumanizations. Nonetheless, once one perceives the link of various waves of Islamophobia—waves both religious and secular—to a founding Christian exceptionalism, one might wonder: does climate change not remain peripheral to it? Or might one begin to recognize that what is enabling climate catastrophe is at root another effect of the same Christian exceptionalism? This time it is taking the form of our human exceptionalism: the notion of the human as not just different from other creatures, not just uniquely talented, but as the supreme exception—the

 4

For an incisive analysis of the history of White supremacy and American exceptionalism in the context of contemporary instances of violence against people of color in the United States, see Kelly Brown Douglas’s Stand Your Ground: Black Bodies and the Justice of God (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2015). See also William Connolly’s The Fragility of Things: Self-Organizing Processes, Neoliberal Fantasies, and Democratic Activism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013), and Joshua Barkan’s Corporate Sovereignty: Law and Government under Capitalism (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2013). 5 For an extended discussion of this legacy of exceptionalism in the case of political crusades in the distant and not-so-distant past, see “Crusade, Capital, and Cosmopolis: Ambiguous Entanglements” in my Cloud of the Impossible, chapter 8. 6 Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception, translated by Kevin Attell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005). 7 Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998).

12

Chapter One

denaturalized creature who transcends the material interdependencies of the earth. (2) Creaturely interdependence forms the content of the alternative that I propose to the politically theological exceptionalism. Isn’t this human exceptionalism, however, based on the very first chapter of what for many of us is sacred text—on Genesis, with its creation of the human in the image of God? For decades, Christian ecotheology has been returning over and over to that chapter. Some come to question the sacrality of Gen 1.26-28 as it grants special status, dominion, to humanity to fill up and subdue (kabash in Heb) the earth. Certainly the text has been used to justify the modern Western domination project. But other ecotheologians argue that if the text is read in context, dominion can only mean environmental responsibility. After all what God declares “very good” is not the exceptional human but rather “everything that God had made” [1.31]. The entire Genesis collective, what Lynn White in 1966 called “the democracy of all God’s creatures.” If “to except” means originally “to take out,” the imago dei does not then mark us as the exception to the creaturely collective; rather, we arise as its communicative exemplification. Our distinctiveness is indubitable: we are created in imago dei, to partake of God’s creativity, called to exercise our creativity with stewardly care. As the papal encyclical reminded us of Genesis 2.15: “to till and to keep the earth,” not to exploit and to waste it. And so certainly the Christian counter-tradition that heeds “the cry of the poor, the cry of the earth” has at least evolved a minority alternative to the economic, political, and anthropocentric exceptionalism of western civilization.8 And, as far as I can discern, the theologies that emphasize the gift of creaturely diversity tend also to recognize the gift of religious diversity. Interfaith relations and ecological relations both express a deep—an ontological—relationalism, as is clear in the half-century traditions of process theology, for example, and of ecofeminism. A main reason I chose to study with a process theologian, John Cobb, is that he taught that it is not just secular liberalism calling Christians to be open to learn from other religions. It is Christ calling us. Not just to the conversion of others, not just to conversation, but to mutual transformation. Cobb’s focus was on

 8

Pope Francis, Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home, Papal Encyclical Letter (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2015).

Ecologies of Diversity: Beyond Religious and Human Exceptionalism

13

Buddhism. And much recent comparative theology moves between Christianity and Hinduism. But we pluralist Christians have not gone far—if I may risk choosing an example particularly relevant to this conversation—not far, that is, in recognizing how much we may need to learn from our sibling religion Islam precisely to help us overcome the Christian anthropocentrism. The 2015 Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change offers an apt and timely entry point: “If we each offer the best of our respective traditions, we may yet see a way through our difficulties.”9 Consider this citation it offers from the Qur’an: “No living creature is there moving on the earth, no bird flying on its two wings, but they are communities like you” [6.38]. The elegant evocation of the importance of animal communities does not contradict the bible; it adds something of crucial importance: birds, bees, bears; these are not just creatures, but communities, like ourselves. This lends them a specific register of relational complexity, and therefore of social dignity. And this: “Surely the creation of the heavens and the earth is something greater than the creation of humankind, but most of humankind do not know [this truth]” [40.57]. I know of no sacred text of Christianity that in this way directly and pointedly names the whole cosmic context as at once greater than the human and also largely unknown to be such. This sense of cosmological mystery does not diminish human distinctiveness—the point is not to blur difference. Instead, the text beautifully undermines human exceptionalism. And it forges a new sense of tawhid, a unity of peace that is not sameness but honors difference, what Abdul Asiz Said and Nathan Funk call “peace in Islam” as “ecology of the spirit.”10 Ibrahim Ozdemir and other Muslim environmentalists stress the following remarkable passage: “Don’t you see that it is God Whose praises all beings in the heavens and on earth do celebrate, and the birds with wings outspread? Each one knows its own mode of prayer and praise. (And God knows well all that they do.)” [24:41-42]11 May I respond: and do we not see how this text says something terribly fresh? It echoes old Hebrew psalms of trees clapping their hands, of all the

 9

http://islamicclimatedeclaration.org/islamic-declaration-on-global-climate-change/ Abdul Aziz Said and Nathan C. Funk, “Peace in Islam: An Ecology of the Spirit,” in Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed Trust, Richard C. Foltz, Frederick M. Denny, and Azizan Baharuddin eds. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003). 11 Ibrahim Ozdemir, “Toward an Understanding of Environmental Ethics from a Qur’anic Perspective,” in Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed Trust. 10

14

Chapter One

earth worshipping the Lord, but the Islamic text makes explicit that all beings pray. This simple acknowledgement undermines our sense of being the exception before God, and it frees prayer itself from anthropocentric talktalktalk into a form of cosmic attunement. Such cosmic attunement as we might want to relearn from the birds now, as we spread our wings to face the consequences of our species’ predatory self-destruction. Put more abstractly, the alternative to sovereign exceptionalism can be couched as “entangled difference.” Our differences do not get diminished. Rather, they get emphasized—sometimes exaggerated, sometimes opposed —within our entanglements. This relationality echoes that of quantum entanglement, the physics that attests to the instantaneous “intra-activity” (Barad) of all things, at the most minimal material level of the electron, across any measurable distance whatsoever.12 Recognizing that all relations are relations of difference—that however much we differentiate, decide and separate, we can never quite extricate, that indeed at the most basic material level we remain ontologically non-separable from the universe of relations—keeps us thinking, perhaps even praying, cosmically. And the cosmos turns us always in our time back to our own planet and its ecology of badly frayed relations. Entangled difference applies as much to interfaith exchange as it does to intercreaturely integrity. Do I become less Christian if I learn more from Islam? No. My Christianity just gets more complicated—folded together with the faiths of others. It was folded together with Judaism and with Hellenism from the start. Every new dialogue is an enfolding. Not a homogenization. In Christianity this critical insight seems to have been embodied in the early Renaissance by Nicholas of Cusa, who studied the Qu’ran and called for a religious peace based on awareness of divine mystery. In Cloud of the Impossible, I borrow from him a mystical language of enfolding and unfolding: the divine complicatio and explicatio. No one, and no one religion, cognitively masters God; the divine infinity is everywhere, and therefore unfolds in different ways exemplified in diverse religious Ways. I find Cusa’s argument from 1453—forged then in the face of the catastrophe of the Ottoman defeat of

 12

Karen Barad, “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28, no. 3 (Spring 2003): 801-831. For an extended discussion of Barad’s work and more generally of the entanglement of quantum physics and negative theology please see “Spooky Entanglements: The Physics of Nonseparability,” in my Cloud of the Impossible, chapter 4.

Ecologies of Diversity: Beyond Religious and Human Exceptionalism

15

Constantinople—still oddly credible. It lends ancestral help in constructing an interreligiously apt Christology. Christ is then not the supreme exception but the great exemplar, the embodiment of a love that seeks to materialize in all ways, in all creatures, in all prayers. So it helps us who are Christians to challenge the notion of the single, ontologically exceptional incarnation. We can have recourse to the medieval tradition of Christ the exemplar. It is arguably more faithful to the sacred texts than any Christian exclusivism. Even of John 14.6, the bane of religious pluralism: “I am the way, and the truth and the life.” This gets routinely mispronounced as, I am THE way, THE truth . . . In context, however, the text has nothing to do with other religions. He was saying to his disciples, who were expressing fear of losing their way if he dies, that he had already entangled them in his life, in his way. We might say now that Christ is for his followers of course the way. He leads us on a path of radical hospitality and respect for the stranger, and therefore in later terms to interfaith exchange, and beyond, to the shared work of the earth. That is the work of resistance to the approaching barbarism: the work of a just love.13 It is perhaps not far from the way of an ecological tawhid. Which is not to say it is the same: The point is not to impose homogeneity upon diversity, but again, to connect our differences intentionally. If we can systemically interweave our religious diversity with our remaining ecological diversity—that is, if we can entangle our very human religious diversity with an attention to the nonhuman heaven and earth—our species may just have a chance of a viable future. Of course, it is a chance to be yanked from the jaws of emergency. So then let us insist on a new collective emergence. It would be the way of a political theology of the Earth. (3) This at least is the hypothesis of my final point, which responds to the question: How do we shift climate catastrophe into catalyst? Hope, I claimed above. Not optimism, not denial, not despair. Without hope, nothing—nihil, nihilism. We will surrender to the seductions of consumerism, the intensities of more immediate crises or the paralysis of despair. But what does hope hope for? Hope as a normative value arises from the biblical text. It comes from the prophetic tradition of the novum, in Isaiah: “I am about to do a new thing, now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?” So the novum must not be confused with the exception,

 13

Isabelle Stengers, In Catastrophic Times: Resisting the Coming Barbarism, Andrew Goffrey trans. (London: Open Humanities Press, 2015).

16

Chapter One

which will only prove the hopeless rule of the same old sovereignties. This hope is for a transformation of the heavens—hashamyim—the atmosphere and the earth, a radical renewal of everything, of the genesis collective. The great textual danger those of us who have some voice among the Abrahamisms must address may be the tendency to a passive reliance on omnipotent power either to intervene as the miraculous exception or just to control it all. The latter means that when we trash the earth, it must be God’s mysterious will. Then our hope is just for a supernatural heaven, not the renewed heavens and earth. Such exceptionalist hope is the very hope we must hope against. For as the great theologian of hope Moltmann puts it, “We have no need to leave this world behind in order to look for God in a world to come. We only need to enter this world with its beauties and terrors, for God is already there. God waits for us through everything that God has created, and speaks to us through all of the creatures.”14 The ancient prophetic writings of hope all took place in the face of historical crisis. The book of Revelation may be the most extreme. The image of the whore of Babylon, indeed much of the text, trends misogynist. But John’s hallucinogenic vision at the same time outs the total destructiveness of a power-hungry world empire, offering in great detail the economics of its global trade: the “cargo of gold, silver jewels, horses and chariots, slaves….” The apocalyptic trauma however does not end, as rumor would have it, with the end of the world. “The end of the world” is not a biblical production but a later discursive reduction. The book actually ends with a renewed, urban planet: “Let everyone who is thirsty come. Let everyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift.” (In our epoch of expanding drought and of the poisoning of the waters of the earth, this has new meaning. We may now hear the reverb with another ecoreligious register, the chants of Standing Rock Sioux demonstrators: “mni wiconi, water is life.”) The text itself is not gift but poison if it supports fatalism, antagonism, and human helplessness. Perhaps catastrophe can become catalyst only if we read our apocalypses through the prophetic tradition of justice, mercy, of tawhid. Then, even amidst the terrors of the earth, we know ourselves awaited. The prophetic tradition works beyond theism, as in for instance the text of Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate. Like Pope Francis, Klein shows the double jeopardy of environmental and economic depredation:

 14

Jürgen Moltmann, The Living God and the Fullness of Life (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015), 171.

Ecologies of Diversity: Beyond Religious and Human Exceptionalism

17

The double jeopardy of social injustice and global warming should not discourage us. Climate change, with its rising flood waters could become a galvanizing force for humanity, leaving us all not just safer from extreme weather, but with societies that are safer and fairer in all kinds of other ways as well . . . It is a matter of collectively using the crisis to leap somewhere that seems, frankly, better than where we are right now.15

The relation she envisions between ecological and economic struggles is hopeful indeed. And what is that galvanizing force of which she speaks but the hopeful catalyst that can shift emergency into creative urgency? An analogous relation obtains between climate change and religious difference. It is a relation that has the toxic potential, a potential that has all too frequently become actual in history, to fuel the fires of planetary apocalypse. Alternatively, in an interconnectivity raised to mindfulness, we can claim our interreligious and our intercreaturely solidarity. This broad coalitional possibility will, as the papal Encyclical demonstrates, necessarily involve political resistance to predatory capitalism. So then a catastrophic triple jeopardy becomes a triple hope. This is the way that a political theology of the earth remains political, theological and earthly: it reveals the entangled differences of our texts and our contexts. In the face of a catastrophe that exposes our delusions of independence and control as self-deception, new modes of earthly collaboration might just be possible: of cooperation among and beyond religions, of earthly conviviality among and beyond the human. The Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change concludes with a HadƯth related by Abu Sa’Ưd Al-KhudrƯ: “We bear in mind the words of our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): The world is sweet and verdant, and verily Allah has made you stewards in it, and He sees how you acquit yourselves.”16 And as Saffet Catovic, one of the co-authors of the Declaration, recently put it in aptly down-to-earth language: “With this climate change issue, especially these last two years, religious leaders around the world are not praying against each other, they’re praying with one another for a common cause. Because the realization has set in that we’re gonna have

 15

Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2014), 7. 16 http://islamicclimatedeclaration.org/islamic-declaration-on-global-climate-change/

18

Chapter One

nothing left.”17 In the hope of creative interaction between our faiths, and for the sake of our common home, I pray with you today.

 17

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-12-30/muslim-environmentalists-give-their-religionand-their-mosques-fresh-coat-green. I report with great pride that Imam Catovic is currently a student in Drew University’s Graduate Division of Religion.

CHAPTER TWO MEASURED ECOLOGICAL HUMANISM OF THE QUR’AN AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: A COMPARATIVE LOOK M. ASHRAF ADEEL1

Abstract: This paper compares three of the leading Western theories of environmental ethics, i.e., ecological humanism, individualistic biocentrism, and holistic biocentrism. The Qur’anic view of nature and its implications for environmental ethics and international development are then dealt with and it is argued that, despite some differences, the Qur’an’s attitude toward nature is more in accord with ecological humanism than with biocentrism. Ecological humanism, I argue, is a more practicable view because, while insisting upon judicious use of nature’s benefits for man’s sustenance, it does make room for such use by not making man and the rest of un-selfconscious nature equal in value with man. Measured ecological humanism of the Qur’an is similar in this respect although it provides a metaphysical basis for gradations in existence. In contrast, biocentrism places man and the rest of the nature at the same footing in terms of their value. The crucial point argued, however, is that the Qur’an does not allow individual or collective imbalance when it comes to man’s use of natural resources. Its ethical principles imply a balanced or “measured” use of resources while working in “harmony” with nature rather than in conflict with it.

 1

M. Ashraf Adeel is a professor of philosophy at Kutztown University of Pennsylvania. He has held a senior visiting fellowship at Oxford, a professorship at University of Peshawar, Pakistan, and was the founding vice-chancellor of Hazara University in Pakistan. He specializes in contemporary philosophy of language and science as well as contemporary Islamic thought.

20

Chapter Two

Introduction Environmentalism is an important trend of thought that has originated as a reaction to a ruthless exploitation of nature by the so-called technological civilization of our times. Since, however, all civilizations of the world have been affected by various kinds of environmental degradation and hazardous technologies, it is no surprise that environmentalism has turned out to be a global movement. Views of nature and man’s relation to it are being explored from the point of view of all the major cultural traditions of the world. The purpose, generally, is twofold: (a) to underscore what was wrong with the modern Western notion of “development through exploitation of nature,” and (b) to uncover fresh metaphysical and ethical insights that could be brought to bear on the issues involved in man’s relation to nature. In this brief essay I confine myself to casting a look at some of the recent trends in environmental ethics in the Western philosophical tradition, namely, ecological humanism, individualistic biocentric ethics, and holistic biocentric ethics.2 It is argued that ecological humanism is an ethical position with better claim to philosophical credibility. The Qur’anic view of nature and its implications for environmental ethics and international development are then dealt with. It is argued that the contemporary state of development in the world violates the Qur’anic principles of balanced development for all human communities as well as harmony between man and nature in all developmental work. Contemporary state of development is both lop-sided and has produced conflict between man and nature in the form of environmental crisis.

1. Ecological Humanism Ecological humanism is the name adopted by Andrew Brennan for his own position in environmental ethics as he develops it in his Thinking about Nature: An Investigation of Nature, Value, and Ecology3. Brennan wants to avoid the extremes of so-called shallow and deep ecological ethics and presents ecological humanism as a middle of the road position.

 2

I am not able to discuss environmental virtue ethics in this short paper. However, given the fact that the Quranic ethics is a virtue ethics primarily, I believe an environmental virtue ethics can be derived from the Quran and relates to ecological humanism of the Quran. 3 Brennan, Andrew. Thinking about Nature: An Investigation of Nature, Value, and Ecology. (Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 1988).

Ecological Humanism of the Qur’an and International Development

21

Before I explain Brennan’s viewpoint, it seems worthwhile to make a few remarks about the difference between shallow and deep ecology. In his article “Recent Positions in Environmental Ethics Examined,” Sprigge explains the difference in the following words: By a shallow eco-philosopher . . . we may understand one who is concerned at the pollution of our environment and the exhaustion of resources, at the destruction of rain forests and so forth. But his concern is solely with the threats to human welfare now and in future generations posed by such things. For him nature matters as a resource for human needs, basic, scientific, and recreational, not as having some value independent of what there is in it for humans. The deep eco-philosopher, in contrast, believes that nature, understanding by this primarily ‘wild nature,’ must be respected as valuable in itself.4

Brennan wants to avoid both shallow and deep ecological ethics and, hence, argues for ecological humanism. Ecological humanism is based on the idea that human identity, individually or as a race, largely depends on man’s place in the larger bio-system. He says: “My current experiences… would not be what they are were I not living at this time, in this society, of this species and carrying within me a distinctive history of previous experiences . . . The other side of the same coin, however, is that my experiences and doings essentially involve the social and physical world that I inhabit.” 5 This intrinsic linkage between man and nature makes human good inseparable from that of nature. Therefore, in order to promote the good of man, we must concern ourselves with the good of nature. Brennan wants to argue that nature is neither simply a resource for man nor is it intrinsically valuable independently of man. Identity of man and value of nature are integrally linked with each other. He says: “The ecological history of a mountain range involves an account of the species which have over time grown on it, grazed it and quarried it. We can leave our marks on mountains and a chalk cliff is little more than a pile of skeletons. But such things likewise leave their marks on us: as challenge to climbers, providers of desolation to ramblers, objects of beauty and awe to observers.” 6 He continues this line of thought by saying that “[o]bjects systems, even the land forms around me, deserve my respect, deserve

 4

Sprigge, T.L.S. 1991. “Some Recent Positions in Environmental Ethics Examined.” Inquiry, 34:107-28 (1991), 108. 5 Brennan. Thinking about Nature, 180. 6 Ibid., 196.

22

Chapter Two

ethical consideration simply by being what they are, where they are and interacting with other items in the way they do.”7 Apparently this is an interesting position. However, in order for this position to live up to the demands of being a genuine ethical theory, it must clarify as to why normal people would be motivated to act upon it. An ecological humanist can appeal to the issue of the survival of the human race in order to bring out the motivational force of his/her theory. He/she can argue that if the current exploitation of nature continues, we as a human race will not be able to survive in any desirable way. In destroying nature we destroy the context of our own identity and moral worth. However, whether or not such reasoning will appeal to deniers of an environmental crisis is an open question. Such deniers question the very premise that there is an environmental crisis. They question the idea that nature is being disrupted by human activity to a point where survival of the human race is or is going to be at stake. Available evidence, according to them, is simply insufficient to imply such a conclusion. In a way these deniers reject the very presence of ecological evil in our contemporary world. For them, therefore, there is no motivation to try to avoid it and actively pursue its opposite, i.e., various ecological goods. How can an ecological humanist, then, persuade such critics of the environmental movement that they have a moral responsibility to save nature as the context of human identity and survival? Obviously one recourse that an ecological humanist can have against such deniers is to point to the overwhelming scientific evidence for the existence of a contemporary environmental crisis. But the critics already declare that as insufficient. The only other recourse that one can think of here for the ecological humanist is an appeal to Pascal’s wager. Whether or not the current scientific evidence points to an environmental crisis is a “momentous question.” Even if the probability that it does is low (by the deniers’ lights), believing in the existence of an environmental crisis cannot be harmful. If a crisis actually exists, we’ll be saving the human race a tremendous amount of harm by having and acting on such a belief. On the other hand, if such a crisis turns out to be non-existent, the comparative losses of a false belief in its existence are going to be hugely less harmful. Therefore, it appears that ecological humanism is not without rational motivational force even for the deniers of environmental crisis. Let us turn now to some other approaches in environmental ethics.

 7

Ibid., 198.

Ecological Humanism of the Qur’an and International Development

23

2. Individual Biocentric Ethics Paul Taylor’s ethical position in his Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics can be described as individualistic biocentric ethics. 8 He points out that in the past ethics has been exclusively concerned with human behavior toward each other. According to Taylor, both humanistic ethics and biocentric ethics deserve equal legitimacy and are appropriate in their respective areas. Biocentric ethics is based on respect for all living things. It recognizes each living thing to possess intrinsic value. Taylor says: The biocentric outlook on nature also includes a certain way of perceiving and understanding each individual organism. Each is seen to be a teleological (goal-oriented) center of life, pursuing its own good in its own unique way. This, of course, does not mean that they all seek their good as a conscious end or purpose, the realization of which is their intended aim. Consciousness may not be present at all, and even when it is present the organism need not be thought of as intentionally taking steps to achieve goals it sets for itself. Rather, a living thing is conceived as a unified system of organized activity, the constant tendency of which is to preserve its existence by protecting and promoting its well-being.9

So all living things are of equal value, according to biocentric ethics. The fundamental requirement of this ethics is that humans should attach equal importance to the good of all living things. Sprigge sums up Taylor’s position in the following words: …[I]t [each living thing] has its own good which it is better that it should realize than fail to realize, and reflection shows that every living thing has equal, or rather an identically absolute, inherent worth, i.e., it is no more and no less important for one living thing (be it animal, plant, or even bacterium) to reach its good than another. An enlightened moral agent will, therefore, feel the same duty to act in ways respectful of the pursuit by other things of their good, of whatever specie they may be. It matters not whether the living thing in question be conscious or not. Just as humans have no more inherent worth than non-human animals, so do animals have no more inherent worth than plants. One must not say that the fact that they are not conscious puts plants on a lower moral plane than animals. The most that one can say is that there are certain goods which

 8

Taylor, Paul W. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. 25th anniversary edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press (2011). 9 Ibid., 44-45.

24

Chapter Two have no place in the life of plants, since they can only pertain to conscious beings.10

The fundamental point of Taylor’s biocentric ethics, therefore, is that all living things are centers of “teleological drive” and, hence, deserve equal respect. Consciousness or sentience is not made the touchstone of value by Taylor. Taylor and other deep ecologists believe it to be sheer elitism to confine moral worth to conscious beings alone. Taylor is not a through and through deep ecologist, however. Most deep ecologists are holist in their outlook insofar as they hold communities of individuals to be more primary than the individuals. Taylor does not countenance such a position. His biocentric ethics is explicitly individualistic. It emphasizes the inherent worth of each individual living thing and the respect for its pursuit of its own good. He says: All organisms, whether conscious or not, are teleological centers of life in the sense that each is a unified, coherently ordered system of goal-oriented activity that has a constant tendency to protect and maintain the organism’s existence. Under this conception of individual living things, each is seen to have a single, unique point of view. This point of view is determined by the organism’s particular way of responding to its environment, interacting with other individual organisms, and undergoing the regular, law-like transformations of the various stages of its species-specific life cycle.11

His central idea here is that individual organisms are the locus of value because they fulfill their own good through their individual drive. As Sprigge puts it: “Total eco-systems only matter because individuals find their good within them; there is no overall value of the whole, since the whole (it is claimed) is pursuing no good of its own. Nor do species as such have any value.”12 Therefore, it is the individual organism, and not the eco-systems or species as such, which is the locus of moral worth. This individualism of Taylor contrasts sharply with the holism of Holmes Rolston III.

 10

Spriggs. “Some Recent Positions in Environmental Ethics Examined.” 116. Taylor, “Respect for Nature,” 122-23. 12 Sprigg, “Some Recent Positions in Environmental Ethics Examined,” 117. 11

Ecological Humanism of the Qur’an and International Development

25

3. Holistic Biocentric Ethics Rolston III, in his Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World, agrees with the general elan of Taylor’s biocentric ethics.13 He agrees with Taylor that all living organisms possess moral worth. Each organism, he says, has its own good to pursue because it is a system that processes information. Information is processed by it, however, to reach the goal of its own good. To make its good contingent upon consciousness, therefore, is nothing more than a prejudice in favor of human and animal considerations. Rolston believes that traditional humanistic ethics has suffered from this prejudice. He says: “Kant knew something about others, but . . . the only others he could see were other humans, others who could say ‘I.’ Environmental ethics calls for seeing nonhumans, for seeing the biosphere, the Earth, ecosystem communities, fauna, flora, natural kinds that cannot say ‘I’ but in which there is formed integrity, objective value independent of subjective value.”14 This way of putting the matter really brings the basic point into sharp focus. Ethical sensitivity, Rolston insists, must be able to recognize “others” other than human others. Otherwise it stands the danger of becoming subjective and parochial defeating the very purpose of morality.15 Rolston, however, is not an individualist in his biocentrism. His environmental ethics takes species and ecosystems as primary as far as values and worth are concerned. The good of the individuals is important in itself, but it is much more so as a moment in the life of the species or the eco-system. He says: ...[L]ife is a sacred thing, and we ought not to be careless about it. This applies to life not only with the capacity for experience, but to the lesser zoological and botanical species. Species enter and exit the natural theater but only over geologic time, to fit evolving habitats. Individuals have their intrinsic worth, but particular individuals come and go, while that wave of life in which they participate overlaps the single life span millions of times.16

From this holistic point of view, therefore, the preservation of species and eco-systems matters in itself. Rolston insists, therefore, that human

 13

Rolston III, H. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988). 14 Ibid., 340. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid., 309.

26

Chapter Two

beings should act responsibly and ensure that “fecundity of nature in producing new species is not reduced.” But as the above quotation shows Rolston does not ignore the intrinsic worth of individuals either. Therefore, he seems to be looking for an ethical sensitivity that attends to all the different levels of values and is also free of any prejudice in favor of sentience. The three philosophical positions detailed so far are Western in their origin. However, as noted earlier, environmental concerns have become global concerns in our day and time. They need to be explored, therefore, from the point of view of other cultural tradition as well. Here, I give a brief critical evaluation of ecological humanism and individualistic and holistic biocentrism before presenting what I take to be the Qur’anic attitude toward nature. Our fundamental objection to biocentric ethics of both types is based on what biocentricists refer to as prejudice in favor of consciousness. It doesn’t seem either scientifically or metaphysically appealing to ignore consciousness as a factor in allowing for intrinsic value gradation in the biological world. Plants, animals, and humans belong to different grades of life and while they all possess intrinsic value, it makes little scientific or philosophical sense to accord them all an equal status in the matter without an eye to the levels of their sentience. If nothing else, the nature of the socalled “teleological drive” is different in different grades of organisms; and quality of this drive is definitely related to consciousness and various levels of it. So consciousness needs to be taken into account while introducing gradations of intrinsic value in nature. So instead of bestowing a blanket equal value on all living things, biocentrism might as well view the situation in terms of various grades of sentience-related values conferrable on various grades of life. This will be realistic and will do justice to lots of empirical facts of the biological world as well. Taylor’s position regarding the equal intrinsic value of things natural is quite explicit. For example he says: “The killing of a wildflower, then, when taken in and of itself, is just as much a wrong, other-things-beingequal, as the killing of a human.”17 Rolston, however, does allow for gradation of value in nature but delinks it from consciousness or sentience. About gradation of value he says:

 17

Taylor, Paul W. “In Defense of Biocentrism.” Environmental Ethics, 5 (1983), 242.

Ecological Humanism of the Qur’an and International Development

27

Perhaps the intrinsic value of plants lies on the attenuating slope of a curve somewhat like those encountered in physics, where an actual field of force, measurably present at some location, falls off rapidly with distance and soon in practice vanishes, although it never in theory reaches zero. A small magnet has in theory an infinite field: in practice, the field is insignificant twenty centimeters away. Combining such curves for several groups would produce descending differential value curves along gradients, gradual or steep, with the general picture that the intrinsic value of sentient animals would be lower than that of humans, that of insects still less. The value of plants would be practically nil, a barely usable idea in ethics. Nature crosses various thresholds of emergent values.18

However, Rolston goes on to clarify the basis of his view of intrinsic values of things in nature by saying that “some values are already there, discovered, not generated, by the valuer because the first project here is really the natural object, nature’s project: the principal projecting is nature creating formed integrity. Beside this, the human projecting of value is an epiphenomenon.”19 This goes to show that as far as intrinsic value goes, all things in nature possess it independently of consciousness, even for Rolston. The same criticism can be leveled against ecological humanism as well, though from a slightly different angle. In linking up the identity of man and the value of nature with each other, the ecological humanist also ignores the question of the primacy of status between man and nature. It seems to be true that man’s identity, individual or collective, cannot be understood without an essential reference to his natural context. It seems also to be true that value and worth of nature cannot be understood without taking man into account. However, to leave matters at that general level is not very discriminating philosophically. The character of the relationship between man and nature will be placed in a much better relief if arguments for their equal or non-equal status are made obvious. Brennan seems to ignore this important issue and, therefore, ecological humanism also suffers from a blanket approach regarding the question of values in the world insofar as it ignores the primacy of levels of consciousness. However, the strength of ecological humanism vis-à-vis biocentrism lies in its refusal to bestow independent value on nature. The notion that nature possesses intrinsic value independently of consciousness is an intractable one. Even when one takes proper care to avoid making values

 18 19

Rolston, Environmental Ethics, 119. Ibid., 117.

28

Chapter Two

entirely subjective, and acknowledges their objective bases, one doesn’t find it very illuminating to make them entirely independent of consciousness. Our mental attitude of favor or disfavor toward objects is one of the prerequisites for the emergence of value. Biocentric ethics, therefore, seems to lack proper sensitivity for this connection between sentience and value; and that is what appears to turn ecological humanism into a better option.

4. Measured Ecological Humanism of the Qur’an The Qur’an has a definite view of nature and its relation to God as well as man. Such a view, obviously, has implications regarding the correct religious, moral, and scientific attitude of man toward nature. Environmental ethics in Islam is based on some of these implications of the Qur’anic view of nature and man. Here we look into only some of the most fundamental features of this view. It may be noted here that Muhammad Iqbal is one of the earliest 20th century thinkers of Islam to have realized the pivotal significance of the Qur’anic view of nature for the culture of Islam. His discussion on the subject is scattered in different lectures of The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. 20 In our times, a penetrating and comprehensive treatment of the subject has been undertaken by Fazlur Rahman in his Major Themes of the Qur’an.21 In my remarks below I generally follow these two thinkers as far as my rough outline of the view of nature is concerned, although the deductions about environmental ethics and development are my own responsibility. In the Qur’anic scheme of things nature, like man, is a created system (2:117, 3:47) and hence is not completely independent. On the one hand it is related to God, its creator, and on the other, man, its primary beneficiary. The Qur’an does not, therefore, place everything in the universe at the same metaphysical and moral plane and appears to be firmly committed to the principle of gradation in its metaphysical and axiological outlook. While primacy in the ultimate sense belongs only to God, for nothing else is completely self-sufficient, man is more primary than nature. This is so because nature, according to the Qur’an, has “surrendered itself to God’s will” (3:83), i.e., is “Muslim,” while man has



20 Iqbal, Muhammad. The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. (London: Oxford University Press, 1934, 2000). 21 Rahman, Fazlur. Major Themes of the Quran. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2009).

Ecological Humanism of the Qur’an and International Development

29

been given the “Trust” or freedom of choice to obey or disobey (33:72). This freedom of choice is, of course, connected with man’s consciousness.22 In other words man’s consciousness is what places him at a higher plane visà-vis nature. Having said this, however, it must be quickly clarified that the Qur’an insists on the causal autonomy of nature. The Qur’an says: “Verily, all things we have created in proportion and measure” (54:49). “And there is not a thing but its (sources and) treasures (inexhaustible) are with Us; but We only send down thereof in due and ascertainable measure” (15:21). Commenting on these verses, Fazlur Rahamn says that “[i]f things should break their laws and violate their measure, there would be not an ordered universe, but chaos.” 23 Nature, therefore, has its own laws or measures which cannot be violated without creating chaos. Hence, though created by God, it has been made completely autonomous as far as its laws are concerned. Of course, the ultimate significance of natural processes is to be understood only through a divine and human reference. Value of nature comes from the divine plan for man in the context of his/her life in nature. It is not independent of man. Related to this autonomy of nature is the Qur’anic idea of regularity and balance in the universe. The Qur’an says: “He who created the seven heavens, one above another: no want of proportion will thou see in the creation of The Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: Seest thou any flaw? Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out” (67:3-4). Everything, in the scheme of nature, therefore, is well regulated and completely proportionate. All processes of nature, and all events and objects, therein fit into each other with perfect neatness, in the Qur’anic view. Now the Qur’an declares this gigantic and well-regulated universe to be an aya or “sign” of God for man. In other words axiological significance of nature is related to man. Also, again and again the Qur’an refers to the utility of nature for man. “Do ye not see that Allah has subjected to your (use) all things in the heavens and on earth?” (31:20). This places nature in a subordinate position to man. Man’s individual and collective identity, however, is also not independent of nature. Man, according to the Qur’an, has been created from clay. The Qur’an says: “And We did certainly create man out of clay from an altered black mud.” (15:26). Another verse says: “Who perfected

 22 23

Cf. Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Chapter Four. Rahman, Major Themes of the Quran, 67.

30

Chapter Two

everything which He created and began the creation of man from clay.” (32:7). There are other verses to the same effect. Verses also point to the process of procreation, saying, for example: “Indeed, We created man from a sperm-drop mixture that We may try him; and We made him hearing and seeing.” (76-2). The point of these verses seems to underscore the linkage between man and nature. Foundation of man’s identity is in nature. Man as an individual and as species is connected with “clay”—-a basic metaphor for nature—-as well as the natural process of procreation. In summary, nature in the Qur’anic view is a created, causally autonomous, perfectly balanced, and useful system which should serve as a “sign” for mankind. It has been created with a serious purpose (21:1617) and is not to be taken lightly. Man’s identity is to be understood in the context of this autonomous and balanced nature. It is this position that I call measured ecological humanism. Given this view of nature and man, the central Qur’anic ethical principle also turns out to be linked with regularity and balance in nature. The Qur’an says: “The sun and the moon follow courses (exactly) computed; And the herbs and the trees both (alike) bow in adoration. And the Firmament has He raised high, and He has set up The Balance (of justice), in order that ye may not transgress (due) balance” (55:5-8). The same idea of “balance” has been underscored at other places in the Qur’an. The point to be emphasized in the context of our discussion on environmental ethics is that the above verses talk of balance in nature and then immediately relate it to balance in human actions. This obviously means that man cannot transgress the limits of balance in his actions toward either man or nature. Therefore, any exploitation of nature or man that upsets the balance in nature or history is an ethical crime. All transactions of man with nature and man must be regulated by a consideration of maintaining the balance of nature and society as best as we can understand. This broad Qur’anic principle regulating man’s actions in relation to nature and societies in history immediately implies that various ecosystems in the world must be preserved and its bio-diversity protected. This also implies that societies must stand in a balanced and just relation with each other. This is so because destruction of certain eco-systems or species definitely upsets the balance of nature. In the Qur’anic view such destruction is a form of “corruption” on earth. I must hasten to add that here the Qur’an seems to take a utilitarian view of the situation. When ecosystems and species are destroyed, the utility of nature for man is jeopardized. Nature is not the property of a few generations. The Qur’an relates its utility to all mankind. Therefore, no single generation can and

Ecological Humanism of the Qur’an and International Development

31

should arrogate itself to exclusive ownership of various subsystems of nature. Destroying any one of them smacks of such arrogance. It upsets the utility of nature for the coming generations and is, therefore, blatantly unethical. Another way of looking at this matter is through the lens of humanity’s collective ownership of the earth. In his Global Political Philosophy Mathias Risse formulates this idea in the following words: Suppose the population of the US shrinks to three, but they control access through border-surveillance mechanisms. Nothing changes elsewhere. Surely these three should permit immigration since they are grossly underusing their area. We can best explain this view by the fact that all of humanity has claims to the earth. The resources and spaces of the earth are valuable to and necessary for all human activities to unfold, most importantly to secure survival. Moreover, to the extent that resources and spaces have come into existence without human interference, nobody has claims to them based on any contributions to their creation. If we assume that the satisfaction of basic human needs matters morally, it follows that all humans have some kind of claims to original resources and spaces (resources and spaces that have come into existence without human interference) that cannot be constrained by reference to what others have accomplished.24

Given this collective and inter-generational ownership of the earth and its resources, there can be no question that the use of these resources is open to individuals and societies only insofar as they do not deprive other human individuals and societies from a similar use. If they do so, they would be violating the ethical balance that the Qur’an insists upon in regard to such use. Another related but fundamental principle of the Qur’anic environmental ethics, in my opinion, has to do with the notion of the causal autonomy of nature. Given the fact that natural processes are causally autonomous, man cannot but work in collaboration with them rather than against them. The whole modern idea of “exploitation” or “conquest” of nature for progress and development is fundamentally flawed from this point of view. The robust autonomy of nature in its causal laws requires that we should seek ways to work in “harmony” with nature rather than trying to conquer it or exploit it or enter into conflict with it. The Qur’an would insist that man must learn to respect the autonomy of

 24

Risse, Mathias. Global Political Philosophy. (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), 33.

32

Chapter Two

nature. Also an adversarial relation or attitude toward nature is not in the spirit of the Qur’an from the point of view of an overall balance between all sub-systems and species. Our current environmental crisis in its various manifestations appears to be reflective of such an adversarial attitude towards nature. Pollution, global warming, overpopulation, natural resource depletion, waste disposal problem, climate change, loss of biodiversity, deforestation, ocean acidification, ozone layer depletion, acid rain and water pollution etc. are some of the things pointing to huge disharmony and conflict caused by our current ways of pursuing development. As the foregoing remarks show, the two related key principles of Islamic environmental ethics: (a) maintaining the balance of nature and balance between societies according to our best understanding, and (b) respecting the causal autonomy of nature and working in harmony with it rather than against it are conceived in view of man’s attitudes and relations with nature. In other words, the Qur’an, unlike biocentrism, does not bestow value on nature independently of its relation to man as a conscious being. For the Qur’an there is an integral link between consciousness and value. Our mental attitudes of approval or disapproval, along with the properties of objects we take interest in, play a basic role in bestowing value on objects, natural and otherwise. Also, after having linked up consciousness and value, the Qur’an doesn’t seem to accord equal value to man and nature. Man, for the Qur’an, is more ultimate than nature because of his freedom of choice or the “Trust” of acting morally reposed in him. This distinguishes the Qur’anic measured ecological humanism from Brennan’s ecological humanism. A word needs to be added here about the inculcation of the above principles in human character. The Qur’an expects and exhorts humans to develop character traits or virtues that ensure that his/her actions respect and maintain balance in nature/society and also respect the causal autonomy of nature and work along with it rather than against it. This points to the virtue-based spirit of Qur’anic ecological humanism. Let us turn now to the Qur’anic idea of nature as “sign” of God for man. The Qur’an continuously exhorts man to study nature and derive systematic knowledge for his/her benefit. In the process man bestows value on various natural phenomena. Man’s study of nature, however, is a process that takes place in the context of History, which is another field of human knowledge in the eyes of the Qur’an (see 27:52, for example). Nature and History are linked together. Therefore, an eye to the wholesome and balanced growth and development of societies in History is absolutely required while studying nature or using it for human benefit.

Ecological Humanism of the Qur’an and International Development

33

This dovetails with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where Article 25 says: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health or well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.” Epistemic or developmental use of nature, therefore, cannot be allowed to disrupt balance of either nature itself or History—-viewed as an intergenerational vehicle for the life of human communities. From this point of view our contemporary world is completely skewed. Thomas Pogge gives the shocking picture of imbalance of development among global human communities in the following words: Freedom from severe poverty is among the most important human interests. We are physical beings who need access to safe food and water, clothing, shelter, and basic medical care in order to live well—indeed, in order to live at all. Very poor people lack secure access to sufficient quantities of these basic necessities. This sentence presupposes a narrow, absolute, and somewhat vague definition of severe poverty which suffices for this essay. Even on such a narrow definition, which corresponds roughly to the World Bank’s ‘$2 per day’ benchmark, nearly half of all human beings alive today are living in severe poverty, with many of them falling far below the threshold. Specifically, 2,735 (out of 6,150) million human beings are reported to have lived on less than $2 per day in 2001.25

Pogge’s data is from 2001 and recently, in the revised edition of his book One World, which he now calls One World Now, Peter Singer relates improvement in the state of severe world poverty. “The good news is that the number of people in extreme poverty has been declining since 1990 (when it was 1.95 billion) and the rate of decline has increased since 2000, so that by the end of 2015, the number was estimated at 702 million.”26 But as Peter Singer goes on to acknowledge, poverty in developing countries is measured in absolute in relation to basic needs like food, shelter, clean drinking water and medical facilities etc. rather than relative terms as in affluent societies. He says: “Worldwide, despite the positive trends, 795 million people are chronically undernourished or hungry, 2.5 billion lack access to improved sanitation (with one billion of them



25 Pogge, Thomas, ed. Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 11. 26 Singer, Peter. One World Now, (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2016), 98.

34

Chapter Two

defecating in the open), 1.8 billion drink water from a source contaminated with faeces, and hundreds of millions have no access to soap and water to wash their hands.”27 That almost one third of humanity is without access proper food, shelter, clothing, clean drinking water or medical facilities is a telling indictment of the state and direction of the current state of international development. The primary beneficiaries of the current approach to development are the technologically advanced and politically powerful northern societies. This violates the collective and inter-generational rights of humanity over nature and its use. Nature cannot be allowed to be exploited or destroyed for the so-called interests of a single generation or society, no matter how technologically advanced. It is linked with human History throughout the times to come, and this link can be broken only at our own peril.

Conclusion Of the three Western positions discussed above, ecological humanism seems to be a more practicable approach insofar as it does not place all life at an equal footing, as biocentrisms of both varieties do, and allows for consciousness-related gradations of value in nature. The Qur’an takes a similar position despite placing man at a higher plane than the rest of nature. Therefore, there seems to be an overlap between one of the Western environmental theories and the Qur’anic measured ecological humanism. The key ethical principles that follow from this Qur’anic view require that developmental use of resources of nature should take place in a balanced way for all human communities on the globe. These principles also require that all use of natural resources should be carried out in “harmony” with the balanced structure and autonomy of nature and should avoid causing conflicts and disruptions in nature. The current state of international development appears to violate both of these principles.

 27

Ibid., 99.

Ecological Humanism of the Qur’an and International Development

35

Bibliography Brennan, Andrew. Thinking about Nature: An Investigation of Nature, Value, and Ecology. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 1988. Iqbal, Muhammad. The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. London: Oxford University Press, 1934. Pogge, Thomas, ed. Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Rahman, Fazlur. Major Themes of the Qur’an. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2009. Risse, Mathias. Global Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press., 2012. Rolston III, H. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988. Singer, Peter. One World Now. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2016. Sprigge, T.L.S. “Some Recent Positions in Environmental Ethics Examined.” Inquiry, 34:107-28. 1991. Taylor, Paul W. “In Defense of Biocentrism.” Environmental Ethics, 5: 237-243. 1983. —. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. 25th anniversary edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011. Yousaf Ali, Abdullah. The Meanings of the Holy Qur’an. Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1997.

CHAPTER THREE MODERNITY, SECULARISM, AND THE EXCLUSION OF NATURE: WHY RELIGION MATTERS HUSSAM S. TIMANI1

Abstract: This chapter discusses modernity’s impact on nature and explores how religion may provide guiding principles on the relationship between nature and culture. Modernity and secularism, on the other hand, have contributed to the exclusion, deterioration, and exploitation of nature. This chapter provides an overview of the claims that modernity, secularism, science, and technology are to blame for the ecological crisis of our modern world and that religion is better equipped and more committed to responding to environmental changes. This chapter does not focus on one particular religion or scripture; rather, it addresses the topic from the theological perspectives of two of the world’s major religions: Islam and Christianity.

In Man and Nature, Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes: “[t]oday, almost everyone living in the urbanized centres of the Western world feels intuitively a lack of something in life. This is due directly to the creation of an artificial environment from which nature has been excluded to the

 1

Hussam S. Timani is an associate professor of philosophy and religion and codirector of the Middle East and North Africa Studies Program at Christopher Newport University. He is the author of Modern Intellectual Readings of the Kharijites (2008) and Takfir in Islamic Thought (forthcoming) and the co-editor of Strangers in this World: Multireligious Reflections on Immigration (2015).

38

Chapter Three

greatest possible extent.”2 This chapter discusses modernity’s impact on nature and explores how religion may provide guiding principles on the relationship between nature and culture. Because nature is a major theme in almost every religious tradition, faith-based communities not only developed some basic principles and ethics in regard to nature and the environment, but also constructed a theology of ecology that made nature and culture intertwined, interdependent, and linked together to their creator. Modernity and secularism, on the other hand, have contributed to the exclusion, deterioration, and exploitation of nature. This chapter provides an overview of the claims that modernity, secularism, modern science, and technology are to blame for the ecological crisis of our modern world and that religion is better equipped and more committed to responding to environmental changes. This chapter does not focus on one particular religion or scripture; rather, it addresses the topic from the theological perspectives of two of the world’s major religions: Islam and Christianity. These two religions were selected because together they comprise more than half of the world’s population. Therefore, a look at their theological perspectives toward nature and the environment is a stepping stone for further dialogue and collaboration on how to reduce environmental problems all over the world. This chapter first explores the impact of modernity, modern science, and secularism on nature, second, it demonstrates how the religious ethics and the theologies of ecology in Christianity and Islam are essential to bridge the gap between nature and culture, and then concludes with a discussion on how Christians and Muslims have failed to implement the guidelines presented in their respective scriptures on the environment.

Nature vs. Culture Religious scholars have contended that the environmental crisis of the contemporary world is due to modern Western civilizations’ behavior and attitude towards nature. In an article entitled “Islam and the Environmental Crisis,” Nasr argues that the modern West is to blame for the environmental crisis that has been thrust upon the whole of mankind.3 He

 2

Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Man and Nature: the Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man (London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1968), 17. 3 Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “Islam and the Environmental Crisis,” in Spirit and Nature: Why the Environment is a Religious Issue, Steven C. Rockefeller and John C. Elder, eds. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1992), 87.

Modernity, Secularism, and the Exclusion of Nature

39

contends that Western cultural, scientific, and technological ideas have encroached on native, indigenous cultures and stripped them of their laws, customs, and traditions that have kept them in harmony with nature until recent times, and that much of the world has succumbed to the onslaught of “secular science that is based upon power and domination over nature and a technology which devours the natural world with no respect for the equilibrium of nature.” 4 Nasr adds that the destruction of nature is the result of the “modern attempt to view nature as an ontologically independent order of reality, divorced from the Divine Environment without whose liberating grace it becomes stifled and dies.”5 39-44 has also played a role in the destruction of nature as well as in the alienation of culture from nature. The secular modern world not only has divorced itself from religious ethics and norms that provided guidance on how to live in harmony with the earth but it has also created its own rules and regulations that serve its earthly needs at the expense of nature. Humanity has never been more dangerous to nature than it is today. With modernity and secularism, humans have given themselves power and dominion over earth. Nasr claims that Western civilization has idolized earthly man and created a centerless culture and art. Thus, by creating a centerless humanity, Western civilization, according to Nasr, has “absolutized” earthly man who is defined only by rationalism and humanism and who has developed a technology and “science based upon the domination and conquest of nature, who sees nature as an enemy, and who continues to plunder and destroy the natural environment always in the name of the rights of man, which are seen as absolute.”6 Furthermore, modern Western culture has created a humanism that glorifies humanity at the expense of nature. In other words, Western humanism excluded nature from the human conscience, gave itself absolute right of dominion over the earth, and promoted the absolutization of, in Nasr’s words, the “Promethean and Titanic man” and “the total secularization of nature.”7 Nasr adds that the success of the modern man in exploiting nature “has itself become a major danger.”8 Nasr also blames modern science for contributing to the destruction of nature. He writes: “Somehow, something has gone wrong in the application of a science that

 4

Ibid. Ibid., 89. 6 Ibid., 95. 7 Ibid. 8 Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Sufi Essays, 2nd ed. (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1991), 153. 5

40

Chapter Three

purports to be an objective knowledge of nature shorn from all spiritual and metaphysical considerations.” 9 Thus, according to Nasr, not only secularism and modernity are to blame for the destruction of nature, but also the application of modern science, which has aided “in destroying its very object.”10 Modernism and modern science have played a key role in separating people from God, a separation that has given men the freedom to rule over earth without any divine restrictions. Like Nasr, Philip E. Hughes contends that God gave the world to man to master it in accordance with God’s rules and guidance, but modernism separated man from God and gave the former a free reign over nature. In Hughes’ words: “God . . . gave man the world to master, but to master to the glory of the Creator, by whom man himself, to be truly human, must first be mastered.”11 For many scholars, theologians, and religious practitioners, secular science and technology have undermined the sacred quality of nature and, therefore, led to the devastation of the globe. Thus, from a religious perspective, the solutions to the ecological and environmental problems may only come to fruition when religious guidance and values are fully implemented in a culture.

Nature and Culture in Islam Islamic studies scholars point to Islamic values and teachings as a model for saving nature from further destruction and abuse by the secular man. For instance, the Qur’an regards the creation of nature as equal to the creation of the human being and that nature is not the natural enemy that should be conquered and subdued. Rather, nature is an integral part of this universe. The Qur’an does not draw a clear line of demarcation between the world of man and the world of nature. The Qur’an depicts nature as God’s revelation through which God reveals himself to man. From a Muslim perspective, God is the ultimate nature that surrounds and encompasses humanity. Therefore, Islam attempts to view the natural environment as an ontologically dependent order of reality not divorced from the Divine. Humans are immersed in the Divine Environment, and to remember God is to remain aware of the sacred quality and reality of nature. The Muslim view is that, “the natural environment is based on this

 9

Ibid. Ibid. 11 Philip E. Hughes, The True Image: The Origins and Destiny of Man in Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 61. 10

Modernity, Secularism, and the Exclusion of Nature

41

inextricable and permanent relation between what are today called the human and natural environments and the Divine Environment which sustains and permeates them.”12 The Qur’an contains numerous verses on nature, the role of human being towards nature, and the relationship between nature and people (or cultures). For instance, nature is ontologically Islamic because “Everyone in the heavens and earth submits to Him” (Q. 3:83).13 Everything in this world was created “muslim” and will remain as such except for human beings who may deviate from Islam (submission to God’s will). For this reason, nature is always in harmony with God as well as with its surroundings until man interferes and upsets this balanced relationship. The Islamic teachings emphasize the role of man as God’s vicegerent (khalifat Allah) on earth as the Qur’an asserts that God has put “a successor [khalifah] on earth” (Q. 2:30). Being a servant of God, man must preserve and protect what God has entrusted him with and restrain from exercising dominion and power over nature. In Nasr’s words, “nothing is more dangerous for the natural environment than the practice of the power of vice-gerency by a humanity which no longer accepts its place as God’s servant, obedient to His commands and laws.”14 Thus, for Nasr, the secular man, who is guided by science and technology and believes that he owes nothing to anyone or anything, is exercising a dominion over nature that is devoid of the care that God displays towards all His creatures. The question remains: If the Qur’an has established a relationship between nature and man and demanded from man to have respect for nature, why is there abuse of nature in Muslim lands? The Muslims’ failure to implement the Islamic teachings regarding nature and the environment, the argument goes, was due to the global domination of the West that has secularized Muslim societies. Thus, Muslim scholars clearly link the deterioration (and the exclusion) of nature to the secularization of culture, which lacks the religious guidance. They also argue that the West has made man a deity who determines the value and norms of things, who deals with nature based on self-interest. In this regard, the Westerner sees nature as the enemy to be conquered. Therefore, the revival of religious values in man gives birth to a human being who loves and respects nature. Nasr argues that, “no amount of

 12

Nasr, “Islam and the Environmental Crisis,” 89. The translation of M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, the Qur’an (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) will be used throughout this essay. 14 Nasr, “Islam and the Environmental Crisis,” 93. 13

42

Chapter Three

clever engineering based on the current secular science of the natural order will be able to avert the catastrophe created by the applications of this science.”15 Muslim scholars have also argued that although all religions serve as a compass for right conduct toward the environment, Islam, however, can serve as a guiding principle in this journey. In an article titled “Islamic Environmental Stewardship,” Munjed M. Murad argues that all religions share a similar approach to the environmental crisis and that Islamic philosophy “serves as the lens through which these sacred qualities of nature are observed.”16 Murad summarizes Islamic teachings in regard to maintaining the balance and harmony between God and his creation, on the one hand, and between humans and nature, on the other. 17 Murad writes that the Qur’an demands humans to be stewards of the earth. By returning to God, humans maintain a divinely set harmony.18 “Within this harmony,” Murad adds, “the natural world is in constant state of prostration to God. Nature’s constant worship of God serves as a foundation to its peaceful harmony.” 19 Thus, nature is preordained to worship God, and therefore has no choice but to maintain its peaceful harmony. Only humans, using their free will and acting out of their best interest, can disrupt the peaceful harmony of nature. Thus, it is not “flora or fauna that wreaks havoc on earth, but rather humans.”20 Several verses in the Qur’an describe heaven and paradise in terms used for earth, nature, and the environment. For instance, the Qur’an refers to Heaven as a pristine piece of nature, a garden. In the Qur’an, the Arabic word Janna, or Garden, is used in reference to Heaven. Heaven is a garden where rivers are flowing and fruits are available (Q. 2: 25). This Qur’anic heaven resembles nature on earth. Thus, the Qur’an establishes a link between sacredness and nature. The Qur’anic message is that “nature is regarded as sacred territory whose mistreatment is impermissible.” 21 In addition, the Qur’an emphasizes the role of nature as a transcendental entity that points to the Divine and serves as God’s sign (aya, plural ayat)

 15

Ibid., 102. Munjed M. Murad, “Islamic Environmental Stewardship: Nature and Science in the Light of Islamic Philosophy,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 63 no. 1-2 (2010): 147. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., 148. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid., 149. 16

Modernity, Secularism, and the Exclusion of Nature

43

for humans. In the Islamic tradition, Jesus’ miracles, the Qur’an, and nature are called signs of God. “Nature, then, is an emblem of God; it is a means through which God communicates with humanity.”22 For this very reason, Adam and his wife were destined to earth before they were committed their transgression. In the words of S. Nomanul Haq, “Life on Earth is here an integral part of the very concept of the human being, not a punitive fall from glory; the human being does not exist in a state of disgrace in the world of nature, nor is nature in any sense unredeemed.”23 Thus, the Qur’an emphasizes the relationship of nature to the Divine as well as the role of the human being towards nature as a sacred entity. In Muslim Shi’i theology, nature is obedient to God. It bestows its blessing on human beings not out of feeling pity on humans or inclination towards them, nor for any good which they expect from the humankind. Rather, nature bestows its benefit because God commanded it to do so. God uses nature as a punishment or reward for the deeds of His creatures. For instance, according to Nahj al-Balaghah (“The Peak of Eloquence”),24 God punishes evildoing by “decreasing fruits,” causing famine through years of drought and thirst, and the sending of rain is one of the most cherished blessings of God.25 The praying for rain, according to Nahj alBalaghah, goes as the following: “O my Allah! Do pour on us Thy mercy, Thy blessing, Thy sustenance and Thy pity, and make us enjoy a drink which benefits us, quenches our thirst, produces green herbage . . . With it plains may be watered, rivers may begin flowing, plants may pick up foliage and prices may come down.”26 Nahj al-Balaghah praises the “wonderful creation” of God and informs us that God created creatures without any example, and that “His creation was completed by His command, and bowed to His obedience. It responded (to Him) and did not defy (Him). It obeyed and did not resist.”27 The example Nahj al-Balaghah gives about God’s “delicate production, wonderful creation and deep sagacity”28 is the creation and production of bats, peacocks, birds, ants, gnats, serpents, and elephants. Nahj al-

 22

S. Nomanul Haq, “Islam and Ecology: Toward Retrieval and Reconstruction,” in Daedalus 130, 4 (Fall 2001), 146. 23 Ibid., 147. 24 A collection of sayings attributed to the fourth caliph ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (d. 661). 25 Abu al-Hasan al-Musawi, Nahj al-Balaghah (Tehran, Iran: World Organizations for Islamic Services, 1980), 290. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid., 311. 28 Ibid.

44

Chapter Three

Balaghah praises God for providing wonderful creations including the “living, the lifeless, the stationary, and the moving.”29 It tells us that God has established such “clear proofs for His delicate creative power and great might that minds bent down to Him in acknowledgement thereof and in submission to Him.” 30 It is worth noting that Nahj al-Balaghah emphasizes nature and the environment to point out God’s perfect and complete creation. The example of a perfect creation is nature and what it entails rather than the human being. The link the Shi’i theology of ecology has established between a perfect creation and nature speaks to the fact that nature not only is sacred but is also imperfect and incomplete if it is exploited for the benefit of man. In Islam the solutions to the problems of the environment are found in Sufism (Islamic mysticism). Islamic sciences, according to Nasr, did not create a secular science separate from a spiritual vision of the world. In other words, Islam has guarded the proportions between things and has given the spiritual and the material their dues so the Qur’anic middle way and the avoidance of extremes can be maintained thus “preserving in mind the hierarchy of being and knowledge, whereby the integration of the sciences of nature into a wisdom transcending all discursive thought was maintained.”31 What makes Islam, and Sufism in particular, instrumental to the question of the conquest of nature is the development of Islamic “discursive and analytical sciences always in the bosom of the contemplative vision of nature.”32 The Qur’anic and Islamic teachings of harmonizing the relationship between nature and culture are also well laid out in the Bible, as we shall see in the following section.

Nature and Culture in Christianity Christian theologians and scholars have argued that human behavior ought to be determined in the actions people take toward their God. For instance, in his Resurrection and Moral Order, Oliver O’Donovan argues for a “creation ethics,” in which the “way the universe is, determines how man ought to behave himself in it.”33 He claims that, “[m]an’s monarchy

 29

Ibid., 335. Ibid. 31 Nasr, Sufi Essays, 160. 32 Ibid. 33 Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 17. 30

Modernity, Secularism, and the Exclusion of Nature

45

over nature can be healthy only if he recognizes it as something itself given in the nature of things, and therefore limited by the nature of things . . . but if man imposes his rule upon nature from without, then there would be no limit to it.”34 Thus, for O’Donovan, a “philosophy bred by a scientism liberated from the discipline of Christian metaphysics”35 has contributed to the ecological crisis, and a creation ethics based on Biblical wisdom can impose limits on human behavior towards nature. Biblical wisdom, according to Douglas J. Moo, is “the practical ability to discern the nature of things from a divine perspective.” 36 The Biblical wisdom of the New Testament, Moo adds, “calls on the believer . . . to treat all things in accordance with their divine reality.”37 Some scholars have argued that the modern environmental crisis is rooted not only in Christianity but also in most of the world’s major religions. Todd Jared LeVasseur, for instance, argues that most of the world’s major religions are anthropocentric. While he acknowledges that there is an ideology of anthropocentrism that influences the way we relate to, and interact with, nature, he refutes the claims that this ideology is rooted in religious beliefs and teachings. He rather contends that it is the product of modernity that emphasizes a culture of consumerism. LeVasseur writes: “Indeed, the competing responsibilities of earning a paycheck, living in a consumer culture, and an economic ideology shared by both Liberal and Conservative alike that the economy must grow, most likely conspire to keep American citizens, religious or not, from taking environmental practice seriously.”38 LeVasseur, however, is optimistic about the role of religion in environmental issues. He argues that recent polls show that, “religious ideology is strongly merging with environmental ideology,” and that is an indication that religion is making a “bottom-up impact on American society.”39 Another important point LeVasseur makes is that religion in

 34

Ibid. Ibid. 36 Douglas J. Moo, “Nature in the New Creation: New Testament Eschatology and the Environment,” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, 3 (September 2006), 486. 37 Ibid. 38 Todd Jared LeVasseur, “The Environment Contains no ‘Right’ and ‘Left’: Navigating Ideology, Religion, and Views of the Environment in Contemporary American Society,” in Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, vol. 11, 33 (Winter 2012): 80. 39 Ibid. 35

46

Chapter Three

America is going through an Ecological Reformation. What he means by Ecological Reformation is that there is a reevaluation of religious values in light of modern environmental concerns. In other words, people are reinterpreting their religious teaching and practice from the standpoint of modern environmental ideology. For LeVasseur, this means that religion “is a social construct” that responds to environmental changes. Since the environment is changing largely for the worse, this is “prompting some members of American society to bring environmental concerns into how they are constructing their religious beliefs, practices, and identities.”40 Like LeVasseur, Nasr finds the thesis that Christianity is to blame for ecological crisis quite problematic. He contends that while many secularists blame the Judeo-Christian tradition for the present ecological crisis, “neither Christian Armenia, nor Ethiopia, nor even Christian Europe gave rise to the science and technology.”41 While Nasr is reluctant to make Western Christianity responsible for the ecological crisis, he blames Christians in the West for their inaction when it comes to environmental issues. For instance, Nasr contends that Islam has placed a greater emphasis upon the “question of the spiritual and metaphysical significance of nature” than Western Christianity and has always emphasized teachings that have become forgotten in the Judeo-Christian tradition of the West.42 Nasr adds that Western Christianity’s failure to emphasize the spiritual significance of nature in the face of humanism, secularism, and rationalism, has led to the “successful development of a secular science and technology which have forgotten the sacred quality of nature. . . .”43 Christian eschatology has also been a contributing factor in the deterioration of the environment. For instance, Douglas J. Moo attributes Christianity’s failure to construct environmental ethics to eschatology. He argues that eschatology has been a key factor for Christian inaction in environmental issues. Moo writes, “[w]hile rarely rising to the level of an explicit emphasis, and never the chief concern in and of itself, the world of nature is an integral component of God’s new creation work.” 44 Moo argues that Christians failed to integrate nature in God’s new creation because of eschatology. “Eschatology in the narrow and popular sense of the word is often cited as a reason why Christians are not . . . concerned

 40

Ibid., 81. Nasr, “Islam and the Environmental Crisis,” 96. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Moo, “Nature in the New Creation,” 482. 41

Modernity, Secularism, and the Exclusion of Nature

47

about the environment.”45 Moo contends that Christian eschatology should stimulate us to preserve the environment, and Christians can do that by the conviction that “this world is destined for renewal rather than destruction.” 46 Thus, one may argue that in Christianity there exists a theology of ecology that would save the environment from the vile approach of secularism and science toward nature. The ecological problems, therefore, are not rooted in Christian teachings or in the Bible for that matter, but in a Western Christianity that has defined and situated itself in a culture that values science and technology and has put less emphasis on the spiritual significance of nature. Some scholars have argued that while the Bible is sympathetic to domesticated nature, many biblical passages depict the wilderness as a wasteland, desolate, and dangerous. For instance, in “The Bible vs. Biodiversity,” James A. Nash writes that the agrarian wisdom found in the Bible focuses “on an anthropocentric and instrumental goal: agricultural sustainability, rather than a comprehensive commitment to ecological integrity.”47 In the Bible, the wilderness is a place where the sins of the people are carried away, Nash contends. It is a place where the Israelites may have wandered for forty years and “apparently did not have pleasant memories of the experience. . . .”48 Although the wilderness has a negative image in the Bible, the text does not promote its exploitation. The negative image may be used to repel the people from taming the wilderness and transforming it into a domesticated nature. A domesticated nature is no longer a perfect nature; but, a wasteland, a desolate land, and a dangerous land is nature. Real or perfect nature creates and shapes cultures, whereas a domesticated nature is a human construct. Thus, the negative image of the wilderness in the Bible does not degrade nature; rather, it contributes to its preservation as a perfect, undomesticated nature. Science, modernity, and secularism, according to some scholars, not only excluded nature or elevated the human above it, but also created a new relationship between humankind and nature. Dee Carter, for instance, argues that Darwinism has rooted humanity in nature, thus merging the

 45

Ibid., 483. Ibid., 484. 47 James A. Nash, “The Bible vs. Biodiversity: The Case against Moral Argument from Scripture,” in Journal of Science, Religion, Nature, and Culture 3, 2 (2009): 219. 48 Ibid. 46

48

Chapter Three

two together as opposed to making the human above or outside nature.49 This paradigm shift––rendering human beings natural––was not good news for nature or for human beings.50 This pantheistic view of nature marked the triumph of science over religion, and, theologically, was the “the real threat of Darwinism . . . as an all-encompassing dogma . . . alternative to the doctrine of providence.”51 How do the Darwinian views on the relationship between humankind and nature impact nature? According to Carter, nature, in the Darwinian sense, replaces God; nature becomes the agent and has power.52 “In this secular view of things,” Carter adds, “God is not required to be invoked as legitimization…. The secular world has replaced and displaced God.”53 Thus, for Carter, the ecological crisis is a crisis of the Western, secular world, of modernity, science, and technology. In the age of modernism, secularism, and industrialization, the human civilization has taken a new role toward nature. For instance, Sam Mickey has argued in a recent monograph on religion and ecology that “the dominant form of human civilization was severely damaging its own land base. . . .” 54 What Mickey means by “the dominant form of human civilization” is none other than modernity, secularism, and industrialization that have replaced and displaced God’s dominion over earth. For instance, in the conclusion of his work he writes: “Since the industrial technology and dreams of human domination spread around the globe in the modern period, there is now no place on Earth that does not bear the impact of some human presence.”55 In response to the modern human dominion over earth, Mickey introduces new ways of thinking of the earth community, “contemplating the entangled environments, societies, and subjects of earth through perspectives of religion, ecology, and philosophy.” 56 In a recent book titled Learning Love From a Tiger, Daniel Capper argues that “intellectual elements from the Reformation, the scientific revolution, and the Enlightenment” emphasized the importance of human being over

 49

Dee Carter, “Unholy Alliances: Religion, Science, and Environment,” in Zygon, vol. 36, 2 (June 2001): 365 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid., 366. 52 Ibid., 367. 53 Ibid. 54 Sam Mickey, Whole Earth Thinking and Planetary Coexistence (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), 5. 55 Ibid., 144. 56 Ibid., 149.

Modernity, Secularism, and the Exclusion of Nature

49

nature.57 Capper tells us that the Reformation not only chased the saints from the congregation but also banished their animal friends from the churchyard. Modern science, Capper adds, “transformed with the aid of technology into a quest to conquer nature . . . and the natural world became a universe of soulless objects.”58 Like Carter and Mickey, Capper sees that God’s dominion over nature has been turned over to the human beginning with the rise of modern science and technology.

Religious Responses to the Environmental Crisis Christian, Jewish, and Muslim theologians have responded to the environmental changes and offered some solutions based on the theology of their respective traditions. For instance, a study of Christian history reveals that Christian theologians have expressed concerns about the erosion, exploitation, and exclusion of nature. As a result they developed a theology of ecology to help preserve the environment. As early as the 1950s, H. Richard Niebuhr, the Protestant theologian, spoke of “loyalty to the community of life.”59 In the 1960s, the Lutheran Joseph Sittler spoke of “a theology for the earth.”60 In his works, Sittler rejects the pantheist views that the world was God; rather, he emphasized that the world is God’s. And being as such is “sufficient to unite theology and ecology in grace.” 61 Also, in the same period, Richard Baer, another Protestant theologian, attempted to formulate an eco-theology by emphasizing that the world belongs to God. 62 A decade later, in the 1970s, Protestant theologians produced a number of influential works examining the theology of the environment and emphasizing that, “the Kingdom of God embraces nature as well as man and that social justice must include the natural as well as the human world.”63



57 Daniel Capper, Learning Love from a Tiger: Religious Experiences With Nature (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2016), 58-59. 58 Ibid. 59 H. Richard Niebuhr, The Purpose of the Church and Its Ministry (New York: Harper & Row, 1956), 38. 60 Joseph Sittler, The Care of the Earth and Other University Sermons (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964), quoted in Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Religion and the Order of Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 193. 61 Ibid. 62 Quoted in Nasr, Religion and the Order of Nature, 193. 63 Ibid., 193-194.

50

Chapter Three

Roman Catholicism has also engaged with environmental issues and offered their response to the ecological crisis. For instance, the response of Catholicism to the environmental problems can be seen from the landmark document “The Columbia River Watershed: Caring from Creation and the Common Good” (February 2001). The document––drafted by twelve Catholic bishops from the United States and Canada––declared that the Columbian River is threatened with environmental degradation and that the river had been irresponsibly polluted and exploited. The document not only expressed the Catholic concerns over the environment but also offered a solution rooted in the Christian doctrine of creation. 64 The document states that, “Stewardship is the traditional Christian expression of the role of people in relation to creation. Stewards, as caretakers for the things of God, are called to use wisely and distribute justly the goods of God’s earth to meet the needs of God’s children.”65 This Christian theology of ecology, which emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, contributed to turning environmentalism into a religious concern during that era. For instance, some Christians and non-Christians alike not only advocated bestowing rights on nature, but also turned to Oriental religions as a way to see the Divine in nature. Prime examples are the American poet Gary Snyder and the well-known writer on Oriental religions Alan Watts, who appealed to Zen to create a new attitude toward nature. Likewise, the Christian thinker Thomas Merton turned to Eastern traditions to “recapture and integrate into the Christian view the Zen and Taoist attitudes toward nature.”66 Eco-feminism––one of the strands that sought to combine the concern with nature with feminism––identifies the subjugation and exploitation of nature in Western civilization with the suppression of women. A prime example is Sallie McFague who, in The Body of God, has developed “metaphorical theology” or a new model of God that would encourage new attitudes toward nature and avoid distancing God from the World. 67 McFague also “seeks to harmonize liberation theology, eco-theology, and feminism, and she relates the domination of nature to the domination of the poor by the rich and also women by men.”68



64 Alister E. McGrath, The Reenchantment of Nature: The Denial of Religion and the Ecological Crisis (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 40-41. 65 Quoted in ibid., 41. 66 Quoted in Nasr, Religion and the Order of Nature, 195. 67 Ibid., 196. 68 Ibid.

Modernity, Secularism, and the Exclusion of Nature

51

Like Christian theologians, Jewish thinkers have also expressed their concerns with the environment and looked for answers to the environmental problems in traditional Jewish sources. For example, Ismar Schorsch, in “Learning to Live with Less,” highlights Jewish teachings against consumerism and materialism that are the immediate causes for the destruction of nature.69 Similarly, Eric Katz, a Jewish author, emphasizes that nature is “one in which man must exercise responsibility in accordance with God’s laws.”70 Talmudic scholars contend that man is the caretaker of the natural world and Judaism is against the destruction and domination of nature.71 Muslim responses to the environmental crisis were not different from Christian and Jewish ones. For instance, in the last two decades, Muslim scholars have made attempts to provide an Islamic response to the evergrowing problem of the environment on the basis of the Shari’ah, or Islamic law. These scholars have been fully aware that the application of the “values” of modern science and technology is responsible for the environmental crisis. They emphasize that Islam possesses “monotheistic solutions” to the crisis as they point to Islamic principles as necessary for providing an Islamic response. These Islamic principles include tawhid (unity that also implies interrelatedness), amanah (trust and stewardship), shari’ah (law and ethics), ‘adl (justice), and i’tidal (moderation).

Conclusion This chapter has demonstrated that modernity and secularism have contributed to environmental problems, whereas religions have provided guidance and values to protect nature. Scholars have argued that secularism removed God from human conscience and provided humans the privileges to have a direct contact with nature, thus creating an attitude that is hostile to the environment. The religious model, however, restricts the relationship between man and nature. According to theology of ecology, humans relate to nature through God, and the way humans respond to God will determine their relationship with nature. This means that religion provides guidelines and ethics that help nature create culture. When man is not free but rather bound by his Creator in how to relate to

 69

Ibid., 206. Ibid. 71 Ibid. 70

52

Chapter Three

nature, the latter then assumes and enjoys its natural place as a sacred entity that points to the Divine.

Bibliography Capper, Daniel. Learning Love from a Tiger: Religious Experiences With Nature. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2016. Grim, John and Tucker, Mary Evelyn. Ecology and Religion. Washington, DC.: Island Press, 2014. Jenkins, Willis, et al., eds. Routledge Handbook of Religion and Ecology. London and New York: Routledge, 2017. Mickey, Sam. Whole Earth Thinking and Planetary Coexistence. London and New York: Routledge, 2016. Whitney, Bauman. Religion and Ecology: Developing a Planetary Ethic. New York: Columbia University Press, 2014.

CHAPTER FOUR ANIMAL TALK: WHAT ETHICAL LESSONS DO ANIMALS TEACH IN AGGADIC MIDRASH ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT? DANIEL MAOZ1

Abstract: Based on my own recent translational work in Aggadic Midrash and affirmed by standard ethical writings, the following study investigates ethical categories addressed in standard aggadic works dealing with animal communication as relates to the environment. Jewish aggadot engage in animal talk to communicate rabbinic ethical principles. At a popular level, these texts are considered children’s literature. But the contexts in which aggadic literary episodes appear give no indication that any but mature audiences were intended to engage in ethical discussion leading to right thinking and responsible environmental action.

First Animal Voices in Jewish Literature Jewish Scripture twice records animals speaking with humans in texts famously preserved by Christianity’s sacred scripture2 and Western civilization’s

 1

Dr. Maoz is vice president of the Canadian Society for Jewish Studies; professor of Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish scholar in residence at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario; and a research associate, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec. His publications include Aggadic Midrash I: Sample Reader (2012). He earned his Ph.D. from Strasbourg in 1986. 2 See, for example, Ingvild Sælid Gilhus, Animals, Gods and Humans: Changing Attitudes to Animals in Greek, Roman and Early Christian Ideas. London: Routledge, 2006; Robert M. Grant, Early Christians and Animals. London and New York: Routledge, 1999, which orients the reader to ancient debates over



54

Chapter Four

poetry. The first biblical reference to animal talk is that of a serpent who approaches Eve in the Garden of Eden, questioning her understanding of a divine proscription which warned of dire consequences if disobeyed: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”3 Later in the Torah,4 a prophet named Balaam is verbally confronted by his donkey after Balaam chose to speak with the king of Moab, also in spite of divine prohibition.5 In the former reference, the animal is viewed from a negative

 whether one should consider the well-being of animals based on their capability of speech and reason as argued by Plutarch and others (Stephen T. Newmyer, Animals, Rights and Reason in Plutarch and Modern Ethics. Routledge, 2013; “Speaking of Beasts: The Stoics and Plutarch on Animal Reason and the Modern Case against Animals.” Quaderni Urbinati Di Cultura Classica, New Series, 63, no. 3 (1999): 99-110) against the view of animals’ inability to speak and to reason (John Heath, “The Talking Greeks: Speech, Animals, and the Other in Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Stephen T. Newmyer, “Speaking of Beasts: The Stoics and Plutarch on Animal Reason and the Modern Case against Animals.” Quaderni Urbinati Di Cultura Classica, New Series, 63, no. 3 [1999]: 99–110). Western thought toward animals in general and carnivorous-based diet stems from Aristotelean conclusion: animals lack reason, leading to an early Stoic adage: “they don’t have syntax so we can eat them.” See Richard Sorabji, Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the Western Debate. Cornell Studies in Classical Philology; The Townsend Lectures, v. 54. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993. 3 Research and discussion of the serpent in the garden has been narrated in detail over the centuries. Further, the serpent theme has taken on a life of its own, especially though not exclusively in Jewish mystical thought as well as in other genre categories of Jewish literature (see, for example, Simon Jacobson, “Beware the Serpent-Rider,” Kabbalah Online [adapted from //meaningfullife.com., The Meaningful Life Center, 2008; http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid /2036976/jewish/Beware-the-Serpent-Rider.htm; accessed January 27, 2016]; R. Shimon bar Yochai, “Sovereignty and the Serpent,” [Zohar II, p. 28a; based on Ohr Yakar; translation and commentary by Moshe Miller http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/621296/jewish/Sovereignty-andthe-Serpent.htm; accessed January 27, 2016]). Samples from Western civilization’s vast corpus of poetry that engage the biblical serpent as a primary character; among the most famous one would have to cite Dante Alighieri, Divine Comedy: Inferno (Canto 25), 1320; Other poets have sought to redeem the pejorative stereotype of the snake: see, for example, D. H. Lawrence, “Snake,” Taormina, 1923; Emily Dickenson, “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass,” 1865; E. E. Cummings, “when serpents bargain for the right to squirm,” 1954. 4 Numbers 22-24. 5 In Judaism, Balaam is identified as one of seven non-Hebrew prophets portrayed in the Torah (b. Bava Batra 15b) who gained a reputation among non-Jews equal to



Animal Talk

55

perspective while in the latter it is perceived positively. These two examples aside, the Hebrew Bible remains silent on the matter of animal cognition and speech apart from an obvious supposition that God communicates with all creatures in a manner that they understand what their roles are within God’s divine plan. But sacred Jewish literature consists not only of Torah and Tanakh; many targums and midrash collections, two talmuds, and a never ending production of codes and responsa complete the list of traditional authoritative Jewish voices. In considering just one aspect of one of these genres, namely aggadic midrash, we are able to listen in on early rabbinic accounts that include animals in communication not only with humans but also and especially with each other. Some of these feathered or furry voices are set in contexts that predate even the earliest setting of Adam and Eve in the garden. I base the following study on these imaginative texts.

Animal Talk in Aggadic Midrash The Torah begins with the words, “In the beginning,” a time in which “God created the heavens and the earth,” and all that is in them.6 After five creative days, an enigmatic revelation states: “Then God said, ‘Let us make humanity in our image.” In response to the obvious question of whom God was including with the pronoun “us,” Hirsch explains that God, who had just made everything in heaven and on earth except humans, consulted with all created beings in order to gain their input into what sort of being would be delegated to protect, preserve, and conserve7 not only

 the status of Moses among Jews (Bemidbar Rabbah 20). Committed to not curse Israel, he nonetheless sought to gain from an offer by the King of Moab, becoming characterized as an inveigler. Were it not for his donkey’s favorable response to angelic mediation, Balaam’s life would have ended right there and then. In Christianity, Balaam is portrayed as a false prophet condemned to God’s judgment (see 2 Peter 2.15; Jude 1.11; Revelation 2.14). In Islam, Balaam is not mentioned in the Qur’an but, as generally agreed, is alluded to in Sura 7.175-76 as one who strayed from God, inclining instead to earthly and selfish desire. 6 Genesis 1.1ff. 7 Sacks rightly points out that Genesis 2.15 employs two Hebrew verbs, indicating service (ʤʣʡʲʬ) and guardianship (ʤʸʮʹʬ), verbs that elsewhere in Torah indicate stewardship and not ownership, for a steward “must exercise vigilance in its protection and is liable for loss through negligence.” R. Jonathan Sacks, “Environmental Responsibility (Shoftim 5775),” August 21, 2015



56

Chapter Four

the air, the land and the sea but also to act responsibly on behalf of all creatures of the air, of the land, and of the sea. 8 Elsewhere, in the documentary The Talmud and the Scholar, while engaging in dialogue with an emu at the Jerusalem Zoo, Reb Adin Steinsaltz, of beloved memory, explains why animals are so enticing and familiar to humans— after God finished creating all other creatures, God took a bit of each and formed humans out of the composite. Both Hirsch’s and Steinsaltz’s perspectives provide a basis as to why early rabbinic authorities produced aggadic midrash texts that engaged animals in conversation to advance human moral and ethical sensitivity and responsibility. Knowing that humans were intended to determine the destiny of all created beings, the animals summoned by God would have a vested interest in what counsel they gave.9 And so, based on their counsel, God created the first humans accordingly. God dutifully conveys the animals’ advice to the first human beings: “They ask you to regard all living things as God’s property. Destroy none; abuse none; waste nothing; employ all things wisely . . . Look upon all creatures as servants in the household of creation.”10

 [http://www.rabbisacks.org/environmental-responsibility-shoftim-5775/#_ftn10; accessed January 27, 2016]. To trace the notion of stewardship set against the common yet incorrect allegation of ownership, see Daniel Maoz, “Singing the Songs of the Lord in a Strange Land: Forced Exile versus Chosen Exile in Early Jewish History,” in Strangers in This World: Multireligious Reflections on Immigration, Hussam S. Timani, Allen G. Jorgenson, and Alexander Y. Hwang, eds. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 81-92. 8 “The same regard which you show to man you must also demonstrate to every lower creature, to the earth which bears and sustains all, and to the world of plants and animals.” Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Nineteen Letters. Karin Paritzky, trans. Nanuet, NY: Feldheim Publishers, 1995 (original, 1836), letter 11), as cited in Sacks, “Environmental Responsibility.” In the same vein of thought to that of Hirsch, Sacks adds, “Because man alone would develop the capacity to change and possibly endanger the natural world, nature itself was consulted as to whether it approved of such a being. The implied condition is that man may use nature only in such a way as to enhance it, not put it at risk. Anything else is ultra vires, outside the remit of our stewardship of the planet.” 9 “And God blessed them; and God said unto them: ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creeps upon the earth.’” Genesis 1.28. 10 Hirsch, The Nineteen Letters, letter 11.

Animal Talk

57

What we understand from this tradition of thought is two-fold: 1) God and animals dialogued with each other before humans were created; and 2) at God’s request, animals advised God as to what manner of environmentally sensitive, moral, and ethical creatures human beings should be. In other words, we humans owe our highest inner sense of environmental responsibility to all other living beings.11 But humanity has historically demonstrated a strong inclination to wander and err from what we know to be proper and just. There is sufficient evidence within the study of human psychology to argue that humans have not categorically evolved beyond the maturity level of our inner child, although this can be a positive thing in itself when our inner child is understood as our higher self, or in Jungian terminology, our transcendent self. It is, perhaps, for this reason that early Jewish literature is replete with references to animal-talk intended to convey moral and ethical values to humans—things that a child would readily understand; stories that would fully capture a child’s imagination; obligations that a child would unhesitatingly act out—involving a talking serpent in a mystic garden12 or an angel-enchanted donkey proclaiming wise advice.13 And so, in line with this way of thinking, one aggadic midrash14 tells of a conversation between a foal, an ass, and a sow.15 According to R. Hanan ben Hana, the scene takes place during one of three ancient Roman commemorations, Calends, an eight-day festival following the winter equinox.16 The gist of the conversation between this unweaned foal and her mother centres around the amount of daily food apportioned to them in calculated measure by a farmer who pours out unmeasured amounts of

 11

Jews have constantly returned to ethical and spiritual principles found in Scripture, reorienting biblical lessons by means of Aggadic Midrash to align with constantly changing environmental and social constructs. See H. Schwartz, Reimagining the Bible: The Storytelling of the Rabbis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 5. For this reason, the reorientation of Jewish ethical thought toward environmental concern, when framed in terms of animal talk in this study finds apt setting. See further, Daniel Maoz, “Haggadic Midrash and the Hermeneutics of Reveal-ment,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 37.2 (2007) 69-77. The latter work demonstrates the reason for reinvention within Jewish ethics, providing suitable and effective antidote against future culture shock being among the foremost of reasons. 12 Genesis 3.1. 13 Numbers 22.30. 14 The Vilna edition of Esther Rabbah 7.1. 15 A foal (ʤʧʩʱ), an ass (ʤʸʥʮʧ), and a sow (ʤʸʩʦʧ). 16 Bavli, Avodah Zera 8a.

58

Chapter Four

food to a sow that lodges with them. When the foal realizes that the excessive amounts of food given to the sow was to fatten it for slaughter, the foal not only ceases to complain about the relatively smaller daily amount of ‘measured’ food the farmer gives it, the foal also completely ceases to eat, fearing similar repercussions. Understanding her progeny’s fear, the foal’s mother consoles her offspring with an apt moral lesson: ‘My daughter, it was not food that caused her death.’17

Ethical Basis of Judaism Unlike non-Jewish codes and ethical systems—whether expressed within a framework of metaethics, moral philosophy, normative ethics, deontology, or public ethics—Jewish ethics concerns itself centrally with the matter of self-improvement. Telushkin encapsulates the goal of Jewish life as improvement of one’s character. Even monotheism is trumped by ethical conduct to the point that a person may not believe in the God of Judaism though their “confession” is correct.18 It is the primary obligation of every Jew to self-correct, to self-critique, and to self-improve one’s character. Or, in words traditionally ascribed to the prophet Eliyahu, “When the Holy and Blessed One gave the Torah to Israel, was it not given as wheat to be turned into fine flour and as flax to be turned into cloth for fine garments?” 19 and otherwise expressed in a more familiar aggadic text, Bereishit Rabbah, wherein we learn that “(T)he Torah’s commandments were not given to humanity for any purpose other than to refine people.”20 Such a view of ethics necessarily affects one’s life, one’s world, and those within one’s world; though the focus of the individual remains self-



17 Esther Rabbah (Vilna) 7:1, as translated by and cited in Daniel Maoz, Aggadic Midrash I: Sample Reader (The Edwin Mellen Press, 2012), 32. 18 Joseph Telushkin, A Code of Jewish Ethics Volume 1 You Shall Be Holy (New York: Bell Tower, 2006), 38. Telushkin bases his understanding of Jewish ethics on self-betterment: “If we must restrict ourselves to a single principle defining how we should behave, then this is the appropriate guideline.” [Referring to the first part of Hillel’s summary of the Torah ‘on one foot’ b. Shabbat 31a: “What is hateful unto you, do not do to your neighbor.”], ibid. 10. See also Nachum Amsel, The Jewish Encyclopedia of Moral and Ethical Issues (Jason Aronson Inc., 1994) and Lawrence Kushner, Jewish Spirituality (Jewish Lights Publishing, 2001). 19 Eliyahu Zuta 2; in Maoz, Sample Reader, 29. 20 Bereishit Rabbah 44.1, an aggadic collection composed by or based on teachings of an eleventh century aggadist, Moshe ha-Darshan of Narbonne, France.

Animal Talk

59

oriented, the net result is tikkun olam, repair of the world in which we live. By this I mean to say that another person’s ethic is not the business of a Jew who is under obligation to self-betterment. Perhaps Telushkin captures the personal nature of Jewish ethics with clarity of expression by signifying its private societal impact: “(W)hile popular culture defines heroism as prevailing over others, the Rabbis define it as prevailing over oneself.”21

Ethical Basis of Aggadic Midrash As I have noted elsewhere, “Judaism’s aggadic corpus ranges from the second century BCE to the thirteenth century CE, addressing the path one walks (halakha) from an ethical vantage. Earliest aggadic compositions are Targums (interpretive translations / paraphrases of Hebrew Scripture), although some scholars point out that one can see aggadic passages earlier than this in the Hebrew Scriptures themselves. Single collections of ethical stories (pl., aggadot) containing original narratives ceased to be composed by the end of the thirteenth century CE; instead, patchwork collections of previously written stories with little, if any, original aggadic content were compiled. Fantastic in nature and imaginative in spirit, aggadic texts engage animals in conversation, embellish biblical narrative, and otherwise create discussion of important matters of life in order to imbed spirituality into the halakhic bodies of legislation that obligate observant Jewish life.”22 Within the context of the entire Judaic corpus of sacred literature, the aggadot have unfortunately come to be relegated as a menial servant to halakhah in a non-binding manner. However, ethics should not and, from my vantage, cannot be separated from halakhah while still retaining a vibrant faith, any more than the human spirit can be separated from its body while still retaining life. For this reason I have insisted that Judaism is at its best when halakhic and aggadic hermeneutics perform supportive roles with and for each other, much as ancient aggadists insisted that humans and all other creatures co-inhabit the same spatial-temporal context in harmonious coexistence to ensure mutual benefit and maximum

 21

Telushkin, Code, 54. Daniel Maoz, “Compassion as Jewish Fabric,” in Thriving on the Edge: Integrating Spiritual Practice, Theory and Research, Angela E. Schmidt, Thomas St. James O’Connor, Michael Chow, and Patricia Berendsen, eds. (Oakville: Canadian Association for Spiritual Care Southwestern Ontario, 2016), 212-13.

22

Chapter Four

60

efficacy. “Although non-binding, the aggadot provide the mortar to hold the building blocks of legally binding rulings in place. Without the aggadot, halakhot transmit coldly, insensitively, and to a large extent ineffectually to a diverse community of individualistic members. And far too many interpretations derived from the aggadot exist that have, throughout the centuries, traditionally clarified various halakhot matters for us to deny the aggadot their rightful hermeneutic place in Judaism proper, thus demanding a more supportive role with fellow halakhic cast members.” 23 The early rabbis appreciated the value of valuing both halakhah and aggadah equally.

Animal Talk’s Environmental Basis24 As we now turn to midrashic engagement with the environment, it will be helpful first to take a brief step back to consider an antecedent yet everprevailing Zeitgeist that apprises all passages considered in this study, both informing and contextualizing the aggadot. The Creation account in Jewish Scripture contains three divinely pronounced blessings, one to water and air creatures, one to humans, and one to a day of rest. Each blessing is environmentally-based: Blessing one: And God said: “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creeps, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”25

Blessing two: And God blessed them (the first humans); and God said unto them: ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have

 23

Daniel Maoz, “The Chimes of Freedom Clashing,” in The Journal for the Society of Textual Reasoning 7.1 (March 2012), online publication [http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/tr/volume7/number1/index.html; accessed January 27, 2016]. 24 In this sub-section I draw largely from sources provided by Sacks, “Environmental Responsibility.” 25 Genesis 1.20-22.

Animal Talk

61

dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creeps upon the earth.’26

Blessing three: And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it He rested from all His work which God in creating had made. 27

The mandate to all creatures, including humans, as indicated in the first two blessings, begins in similar manner, diverging only on the point of the final injunction to consecrate the earth. Here the Hebrew word ʥʠʬʍ ʮ˒ ʑ ଉʘ indicates performance of a sacred trust, as in Ezekiel 43.26 where the identical verb form occurs: “Seven days shall they make atonement for the altar and cleanse it; so shall they consecrate it (ʥʠʬʍ ʮ˒ ʑ ଉʘ ).” It is the solemn obligation of human beings to tend the earth in such a manner as to consecrate it. Consecration of the earth has implications for the creatures of the earth. Another Torah text explains one of the primary benefits of agricultural rest on a weekly basis. “On the Sabbath all agricultural work is forbidden, ‘so that your ox and your donkey may rest’.”28 Humans are mandated to care for the well-being of all created beings that effectively voted humans onto the island in the first place. By observing sabbatical and jubilee years, humans provide the earth with rest similar to that which they and all creatures receive periodically.29 The Torah expands on many other ways in which humans are to serve and guard the well-being of all Creation,30 including avoidance of culling a species.31

 26

Genesis 1.28. Genesis 2.3. 28 Exodus 23.12. 29 To deny the earth sabbatical and jubilee rests elicits the potential of exile so that ‘(T)hen the land shall make up for its sabbatical years throughout the time that it is desolate and you are in the land of your enemies; then shall the land rest and make up for its sabbath years’ (Leviticus 26:34). For an explanation of how the earth benefits from laying fallow periodically, see Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, III: 39. 30 See Torah prohibition of (1) crossbreeding livestock; (2) planting a field with mixed seeds; (3) wearing a garment of mixed wool and linen. Such statutes (Heb., chukkim) were understood to be laws that respect the integrity of nature by Maimonides’ son. Nahmanides (a.k.a. Ramban), Commentary to Lev. 19.19, as cited in Sacks, “Environmental Responsibility.” 31 Only twice are humans given commands by God with a promise attached “that your days may be long on the earth.” As we might expect, the two commands are 27



62

Chapter Four

Another familiar midrash, Kohelet Rabbah, summarizes the great concern God has planted in the human heart and mind: When God made man, He showed him the panoply of creation and said to him: “See all my works, how beautiful they are. All I have made, I have made for you. Take care, therefore, that you do not destroy my world, for if you do, there will be no one left to mend what you have destroyed.”32

Therefore, the backdrop to aggadic texts recording conversations with animals is soundly grounded on environmental responsibility and sacred duty, namely, consecration of the earth and all that is in it.

“In Defense of Geese” A modern midrash, which centrally addresses a core ethical value relating to contemporary environmental concern, demonstrates what we might expect to gain in the form of ethical lessons for human benefit if we were to apply the ancient practice of stringing together of principled thought in application to a contemporary theme, thus empowering the aggadot once again to ethically guide us by setting it free to speak in its own voice. The modern midrash is titled, “In Defense of Geese,” and was first presented in a public celebration for an outgoing academic dean who had galvanized a reputation over his years of service for social justice in the context of public ethics but also, less honouring, he was known to display an excessively negative view toward geese—in particular, the Canada geese on whose grounds we share a campus at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.33 The midrash contains ten ethical source portions. Listen carefully and see if you can identify all ten. The geese thought they were the most misunderstood birds, perhaps the most misunderstood creatures in the entire world. “Do people not know

 related to parent/offspring matters. Deuteronomy 22.6 prohibits one who comes upon a nest that has a mother bird with her young or with her eggs from taking both generations, thus effectively eliminating the family line; Exodus 20.12/Deuteronomy 5.16 prohibits one from dishonoring their father and mother, with the same promise of long life on earth—a reminder again for humans to serve and conserve (Sacks, “Environmental Responsibility”). 32 Kohelet Rabbah 7.13. 33 Daniel Maoz, “In Defense of Geese,” presented to Dr. David Pfrimmer, Principal Dean, Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, Wilfrid Laurier University, July 2015.

Animal Talk that everything has its place in the world; even creatures that seem to be ugly, hateful, painful, and harmful, such as insects, snakes, and scorpions, were created by God and serve His will34 and on the day of their creation declared ‘very good,’ for they too, without qualification, serve the One Above,”35 they pondered. “The Holy and Blessed One extends His mercy even to the smallest gnat36 for nothing is superfluous.37 Then why do we receive such unrighteous judgment from many humans?” the geese continued. Sadly, one gander recalled, even the most righteous of humans seem to have forgotten: Whoever has compassion for other creatures is shown compassion from Heaven; whoever does not have compassion for other creatures is not shown compassion from Heaven. 38 “In a world so mechanized that time is running backwards for us all, turning some of the best of us into responders and reactionaries instead of the reflecting beings and thinkers we were created to be, even some of us geese have turned to attacking humans instead of acting upon what we know, that only one per cent of them are hoarding wealth, unfairly partitioning the earth’s goods, and making merchandise of everything they can to their own greedy advantage. It is not we geese alone that receive this unjust treatment—they do it to themselves!” another goose rejoined. “Yes, but what about those who are strong activists of social justice among their own people? There are those among them that also hate geese, are there not?” another goose protested. “Yes, it is true,” came a wise reply, “but they are aware only of the divine mandate to humans. Perhaps they do not know the full mandate from the Holy and Blessed One, Just as the Holy and Blessed One has mercy upon human beings, so does He have mercy upon animals.”39 “What we as geese are to conclude then is this,” offered a more judicial gander in the gaggle, “that we ourselves must heed the same mandate as we would expect of them.” This was as if to say: Just as you wish us to have mercy upon them, in keeping with the verse, ‘For His mercy is upon all His works,’40 so you should [set an example of this by having] mercy upon us41 because the Holy and Blessed One sustains all creatures, from the horns of wild oxen to the eggs of lice.42 As we already

 34

Tiferet Yisrael, on Mishnah, Avot 4.3. Zohar III, Emor, 107a. 36 Zohar Hadash, Ruth 94b. 37 Midrash Bereishit Rabbah 10.7. 38 Bavli, Shabbat 151b. 39 Midrash Devarim Rabbah 6.1; similarly cf. Tanhuma 58.6. 40 Psalm 145.9. 41 Rashi, on Bavli, Ta’anit 16a. 42 Bavli, Shabbat 107b. 35

63

Chapter Four

64

know, The Lord saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good,43 including humans. On hearing this, one-by-one—from the oldest to the youngest—the geese waddled back to from where they came before this important council was called to order.

Several aggadic texts inform the ethical principles imbedded in this midrash.

Conclusion Rabbinic sensitivities to animal reason and communication first and foremost served local ethical purposes, that is, to support the notion that Jews were called to self-betterment as a basis for fulfilling the command of tikkun olam, repair of the world. Dietary boundaries were not based on whether animals could think, reason, or talk. But aggadic texts engaging animal talk to advance ethical values reveals rabbinic acceptance and acknowledgement that animals communicate rationally with cognitive capability. If Adam was authorized to name each animal and exercise dominion over them, such authority was preceded by God first asking the animals to provide their feedback on what should morally and ethically comprise a human being.

Bibliography Amsel, Nachum. The Jewish Encyclopedia of Moral and Ethical Issues. Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson Inc., 1994. Gilhus, Ingvild Sælid. Animals, Gods and Humans: Changing Attitudes to Animals in Greek, Roman and Early Christian Ideas. London: Routledge, 2006. Kushner, Lawrence. Jewish Spirituality: A Brief Introduction for Christians. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 2001. Maoz, Daniel. Aggadic Midrash I: Sample Reader. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2012. —. “Haggadic Midrash and the Hermeneutics of Reveal-ment,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 37.2 (2007) 69-77.

 43

Genesis 1.31.

Animal Talk

65

—. “Judaism as Compassion.” In Thriving on the Edge: Integrating Spiritual Practice, Theory and Research, edited by Angela E. Schmidt, Thomas St. James O’Connor, Michael Chow, and Patricia Berendsen, 209-216. Waterloo, ON: The Canadian Association for Spiritual Care—Southwestern Ontario Divisions, 2016. —. “Singing the Songs of the Lord in a Strange Land: Forced Exile versus Chosen Exile in Jewish History.” In Strangers in this World: MultiReligious Reflections on Immigration, edited by Hussam S. Timani, Allen G. Jorgenson, and Alexander Y. Hwang, 81-92. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015. Sacks, Jonathan. “Environmental Responsibility (Shoftim 5775),” August 21, 2015 [http://www.rabbisacks.org/environmental-responsibility-shoftim5775/#_ftn10; accessed January 27, 2016]. Schwartz, H. Re-imagining the Bible: The Storytelling of the Rabbis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Telushkin, Joseph. A Code of Jewish Ethics: Volume 1—You Shall Be Holy. New York: Harmony Publishers, 2006.

CHAPTER FIVE A VAST NET OF INTERCONNECTED DIAMONDS: BUDDHIST VIEWS OF NATURE TATJANA MYOKO V. PRITTWITZ 1

Abstract: “A vast net of interconnected diamonds: Buddhist Views of Nature” explores the Buddhist concept of internal and external nature as two intimately interwoven realms. Several Buddhist key concepts are explored such as Indra’s Net—an image of complete interconnection, global responsibility, the precepts, the Zen arts as a creative means of expressing the inexpressible, and empowerment. Hinging point is the no/self, realizing the identity with our environment. This text is a call for mindfulness and social action, and a prayer to stand together as one family, taking care of our Mother Earth.

Let us start with a thought experiment: Here I am writing to you, there you are, reading, different entities in space and time. We have names, titles, interests, bodies, clothing reflecting our tastes, body language, thoughts, labels identifying our identities. We believe in “I am,” “you are,” separate selves, at times in communication. We go about our ways, have our agendas, our ideas, opinions and plans. Now: Reflect on your clothes. Where do they come from? How were they handed to you? Where is the

 1‫כ‬

Tatjana Myoko v. Prittwitz, Buddhist chaplain and visiting assistant professor of the humanities at Bard College, NY. Ph.D. in comparative literature. Establishment of an archive on the history of exhibition since 1960 at the Center for Curatorial Studies, Bard College. Research on Joseph Beuys, and the intersection of the arts, spirituality, and ecology. Follows the Zen path of haiku, painting (sumi-e) and tea (chado).

68

Chapter Five

material coming from? Who cultivated the raw material, who put it together? How many people were involved from the first step of the fabrication of your trouser, blouse, skirt, shirt, shoes, jacket, etc. until now, enveloping your body? Who made it possible for you to be where you are? Think of the chair you are sitting on, the construction of your space, the delivery of the energy that lights your room. The material of all the things that surround you, and again their chain of fabrication. How did you get there? Envision the streets, cars, trains, planes. What provides shelter to you? What sustains you? Breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee, tea. In a country where the apple juice in a single bottle may consist of ingredients from nine countries (I quote from a label: “Contains concentrates from Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Argentina, Chile, Turkey, Brazil and the United States”) the line of the Buddhist meal gatha “seventy-two labors brought us this food” is far surpassed.2 Now reflect on who gave you your life. Your parents, your grandparents, your great grandparents, your ancestors, go back generation after generation. Neil Shubin in his stunning book Your Inner Fish shows effectively how our 3.5-billion-year history is reflected in the layout of our body.3 Finally, think of those who helped shape who you believe you are. Parents, siblings, peers, friends, teachers, spiritual leaders, inspiring books, touching songs, striking performances, a bird call, the love of a pet, the hug of a tree. In his book The Periodic Table, Primo Levi describes the journey of a carbon particle from a plant through the universe for hundreds of millions of years to right here now, to you.4 And this is the point I wish to make: our existence is dependent upon billions and billions of people, actions, and things. What we call a separate self is in fact a vast net of a complete and utterly mindboggling interconnection. The idea of a separate self turns out to be an illusion. To make sure, this is more than a thought experiment. As the Karmapa, one of the highest-ranking lamas in Tibetan Buddhism, declares: “A profound awareness of interdependence weakens our sense of separation and difference, and can ultimately eliminate it. This provides a powerful support for our efforts to transform attachment’s caring about self into compassion’s caring for the world.”5

 2

John Daido Loori, The Eight Gates of Zen (Mt. Tremper: Dharma Communications 1992), 249. 3 Neil Shubin, Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body, (New York: Vintage Books 2009). 4 Primo Levi, The Periodic Table (New York: Tandem Library). 5 Ogyen Trinley Dorje Karmapa, The Heart is Noble: Changing the World From the Inside Out, (Boston and London: Shambala Publications 2014), 96.

A Vast Net of Interconnected Diamonds: Buddhist View of Nature

69

The reality of complete interdependence is a central teaching in Buddhism. Most poignantly it is expressed in the image of Indra’s Net from the Flower Garland Sutra (Avatamsaka Sutra) and described by Tushun, a specialist on this text in the 5th century: Now the celestial jewel net of Kanishka, or Indra, Emperor of Gods, is called the net of Indra. This imperial net is made all of jewels: because the jewels are clear, they reflect each other’s images, appearing in each other’s reflections upon reflections, ad infinitum, all appearing at once in one jewel, and in each one it is so. . . . If you sit in one jewel, then you are sitting in all the jewels in every direction, multiplied over and over. Why? Because in one jewel there are all the jewels. If there is one jewel in all the jewels, then you are sitting in all the jewels too. And the reverse applies to the totality if you follow the same reasoning. Since in one jewel you go into all the jewels without leaving this one jewel, so in all jewels you enter one jewel without leaving this one jewel. . . . All the jewels in the ten directions are in the totality the one jewel``. . . . When one jewel is dotted, there are dots on all the jewels in all directions. Since there are dots on all the jewels in the ten directions, we know that all the jewels are one jewel.6

The image of Indra’s Net implies whatever action (thought including, bearing the reality of its manifestation) we execute, we influence the situation. 7 This codependence might be obvious with powerful actions such as initiatives that might lead to the Nobel prize, middle scale actions such as recycling or the conscious choice of buying a more sustainable product over another one that further feeds the endless cycle of, what we call the three poisons in Buddhism—greed, anger and ignorance—but is also manifested on a more subtle level such as how we train or influence our mind, as it is with our state of mind how we perceive and thus create the world in which we live. Another way to express this co-dependency is the so-called principle of paticca samuppada, dependent co-arising. When this is, that is; This arising, that arises; When this is not, that is not;

 6

Tu-Shun (557-640), “The Jewel Net of Indra,” in Dharma Rain: Sources of Buddhist Environmentalism, Stephanie Kaza and Kenneth Kraft, eds. (Boston and London: Shambala Publications 2000), 58-60. 7 With the recent visualization of gravitation waves and our world consisting out of atoms following complex rules of physics, we might have an actual close correlation of the advocated spiritual and physical realities.



Chapter Five

70 This ceasing, that ceases.8

Cause and effect. Because of the industrial revolution, because of the tremendous economical development, because of the rising standard of living (note: an American consumes “their average body weight (120 pounds) . . . in materials extracted and processed from farms, mines, rangelands, and forests” —every day!9) and materialistic expectations in many countries around the world, we have an increased amount of carbon dioxide and therefore we (which is mostly us from the Northern industrialized countries) are contributing to the rise in global temperatures with recent months being the warmest worldwide since temperatures were first recorded. What might appear to some as abstract data, is in fact our shared reality, which in turn is constituted by thousands and thousands of small decisions and acts. We humans are only one of over a million and a half species on this planet. Maybe the animals have a better claim to being the real owners of the planet. What makes us so sure that we should be in charge of it? Even if it were true that we owned the world, then we should also live up to the responsibility that ownership implies. Actually, if we analyze our situation carefully, we will recognize that we cannot be owners. At best, we can only be guardians, holding the planet in trust for future generations of all kinds of living beings. (Karmapa10)

Out of the realization of interdependence comes the imperative of global responsibility, which means to act consciously in accord to one’s possibilities, within one’s realm and scale of effect, depending on one’s skills and position. According to Buddhism, this brings not only a great sense of responsibility but also of empowerment. Because at that point it is not others that cause the current situation but actually us, and we therefore can reflect how we wish to influence the situation with awareness and foresight. For the realization of this compassionate interconnection, my deceased Zen teacher John Daido Loori Roshi used the analogy of two hands:

 8

Walpola Sri Rahula, What the Buddha Taught (New York: Grove Press 1974), 53. 9 Stephanie Kaza, “How Much Is Enough? Buddhist Perspectives on Consumerism,” in How Much is Enough? Buddhism, Consumerism, and the Human Environment, Richard K. Payne, ed. (Somerville MA: Wisdom Publications 2010), 40. 10 Karmapa, The Heart is Noble, 102.

A Vast Net of Interconnected Diamonds: Buddhist View of Nature

71

You take an ego and give it to each hand—give your left hand “left hand ego” and your right hand “right hand ego.” Now, if you put money in the left hand, the right hand wants to know how come the left hand always gets all the money, why doesn’t anybody put money in the right hand? If the left hand were to get caught in a fire—I’m throwing logs into the stove and my sleeve hooks and I can’t get the hand out and it’s screaming in pain—the right hand wants to help, but it may hesitate. Depending on whether the fire is too hot, it may decide to help or it may decide not to risk it. But when you enlighten these hands—when they realize that they are two parts of the same reality, me—then, when money is placed in the left hand, the right hand doesn’t mind. If the left hand has it, the right hand has. . . . If the left hand is burning, the right hand is burning. But it is true only if you realize they are the same thing.11

The hinging point is the self. Dogen, a great thirteen-century Zen master, summarized: To study the Buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by the ten thousand dharmas.12

According to Buddhism the self is a construct, anatman. Everything is empty in the sense that there is no fixed inherent quality. Everything is constantly changing and in a state of flux. We are not who we were ten years ago, one year ago, one hour ago, yes, not even one minute or one breath ago. In a Zen Buddhist Nenju service it says: “When this day has passed, our days of life will be decreased by one. Like fish in a little water, what sort of comfort and tranquility can there be? . . . Let us contemplate impermanence and not squander our actions.” Indeed, what “comfort and tranquility” can there be with rising water levels, floods, hurricanes, fires, droughts, and famines? We have to take the gift of this life as an imperative to dedicate our efforts to this interconnected no-self, for the benefit of all beings in this world. We start by studying ourselves, the root of all perception and action. Who am I? The more we look, the less solidity we can find. The idea of a separate self runs through the fingers like wet sand. In the process of spiritual practice, through meditation, chanting, visualization and other techniques, when we go deep and hold

 11

Loori, The Eight Gates of Zen, 22-23. Taizan Maezumi, Appreciate your Life: The Essence of Zen Practice, Wendy Egyoku Nakao and Eve Myonen Marko, eds. (Boston: Shambala Publications 2001), 126.

12



72

Chapter Five

still, the self disappears. We enter a mystical realm where the boundaries of the body disappear and the self fuses with the universe. Because in fact we are the universe. The prominent Vietnamese Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh recognized: We are imprisoned in our small selves, thinking only of some comfortable conditions for this small self, while we destroy our large self. If we want to change the situation, we must begin by being our true selves. To be our true selves means we have to be the forest, the river, and the ozone layer. . . . Real strength is not in power, money, or weapons, but in deep, inner peace. . . . Life is one. . . . when we look more deeply [at a flower], we see that everything in the cosmos is in that flower. Without all of the nonflower elements—sunshine, clouds, earth, minerals, heat, rivers, and consciousness—a flower cannot be. That is why the Buddha teaches that the self does not exist. We have to discard all distinctions between self and non-self. How can anyone work to protect the environment without this insight?13

What are the implications of this deep interpenetration for our relationship with this great earth? It means that the earth reflects how we care about ourselves. If we can drink from the river, either we have taken care of the river, or, most likely, it is an area that has been untouched by our exploitive, self-centered actions. Greed, anger, and ignorance have created great suffering for the earth, plants, animals, and people. It is time that we recognize this earth as our very own body that needs attention. The first precept in Buddhism is non-harming. In the Kalamata Sutta a poignant image is given for the search for the ultimate truth. In response to a group of people who were unsure as to which religious teacher and teaching to trust and follow, the Buddha said: “Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to harm and to suffering’—then you should abandon them.”

 13

Thich Nhat Hanh, “The Sun My Heart,” in Dharma Rain, 85 and 87-88.

A Vast Net of Interconnected Diamonds: Buddhist View of Nature

73

The bottom line is clearly expressed by the First Pure Buddhist precept: “Not creating evil.”14 This is the least we should do. The next step would be “Practicing Good” and then, after that, “Actualizing Good for Others.”15 But the most basic and important rule is to avoid actions that “lead to harm and to suffering.” According to Buddhism, removing the self as the center of egocentric actions can turn the three poisons into the three virtues: compassion, wisdom, and enlightenment. Instead of trying to get everything, we give generously. Instead of being upset, we act skillfully. Instead of turning away, we close the gap. What are the moments that nourish us? Think of the instances that make us feel whole, complete, and compassionate. Most likely you will think of moments of love or deep emotion, which might include sadness and sorrow. When we are in touch with our humanity, we can feel ourselves and thus can connect to others, to our environment, and to the nature that sustains us. “You take care of everything like you take care of yourself. In a way it is very selfcentered, except that the self now consumes the whole universe. Nothing is left out.” (Loori)16 In order to realize the actual interdependence of our being on this earth, we need to connect to the common ground that unites us all. This is clearly illustrated by the story of the Buddha and the mustard seed: A woman called Gotami lost her young son, and being full of sorrow, was unable to accept his death. With her dead son on her hip she finally went to see the Buddha: “O Exalted One, give me medicine for my son!” The teacher answered: “Go enter the city, make the rounds of the entire city, beginning at the beginning, and in whatever house no one has ever died, from that house fetch tiny grains of mustard seed.” As you can imagine, no matter how many houses she went to, death had visited that family in one way or another. She realized the deep inter-being, 17 brought her son to the burning-ground and said: “Dear little son, I thought that you alone had been overtaken by this thing which men call death. But you are not the only one death has overtaken. This is a law common to all mankind.” She was able to see beyond her own fate, connecting to the humanness of all



14 See chapter “The First Pure Precept: Not Creating Evil,” in The Heart of Being: Moral and Ethical Teachings of Zen Buddhism by John Daido Loori (Boston: Charles E. Tuttle 1996), 50-62. 15 See ibid., 63-81. 16 Loori, The Eight Gates of Zen, 22. 17 A term coined by Thich Nhat Hanh.



74

Chapter Five

sentient beings—“all things are impermanent.”18 We all suffer; we all are subject to old age, sickness and death. If only we could act from this base of connection. Separation, alienation and distance are the exact opposites of interconnection, compassion and love. But how do we turn the suffering into compassion in a world filled with hateful acts, great destruction and seductive addictions of all sorts that foster the sense of a separate self, spinning in thoughts and self-referential patterns? By stopping. In Buddhism it is called the backward step: holding still, observing, breathing. We were all born as small babies, innocent, vulnerable, and, according to Buddhist teachings, perfect and complete. Then conditioning happens: the influences and forming from our surroundings. The result may be a Gandhi or a Hitler. What if we stopped to see if we were going in the direction in which we were hoping to go? What if we were to reflect on how we affect others, with our words and actions, but also with our state of mind (“shin” in Chinese, means heart and mind at the same time). Does the mindful breathing of a hermit have an influence on this world? How couldn’t it? Yes, the power of a suicide bomber creates bad karma, which, according to Tibetan Buddhism, will result in a negative rebirth. But what are our choices? Give up, due to either ignorance or complacency? The only way to break out of the cycle of helplessness is to turn our suffering into motivation. To live a meaningful life as much as we can so when our time has come we have lived a full life. In Zen Buddhism we conclude the day with an Evening Gatha: Let me respectfully remind you Life and death are of supreme importance Time swiftly passes by and opportunity is lost. Each of us should strive to awaken, awaken, take heed, do not squander your life.19

According to Buddhist teachings, it is a great privilege to be born as human, because only then do we have the chance to liberate ourselves and others, to put an end to suffering. The realization of oneness comes from contemplation and meditation. Ultimately, the place of deep interconnection,



18 The teachings of the Compassionate Buddha, E. A. Burtt, ed.(New York: New American Library1982), 45. 19 Zen Mountain Monastery Liturgy Manual, John Daido Loori, ed. (Mt. Tremper: Dharma Communications 1998), 47.

A Vast Net of Interconnected Diamonds: Buddhist View of Nature

75

the falling away of body and mind in deep meditation, samadhi, is a place of no words. The Heart Sutra, chanted daily in many Buddhist temples, expresses this place of bottomless no-self: “[N]o eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; no color, sound, smell, taste, touch, phenomena. . . .”20 Deep in contemplation there are no definitions, barriers, or judgments. Out of this big negation the big YES is born. As we empty ourselves, the world can come in, with all its beauty and atrocities. The Tibetan Buddhists use a practice called Tonglen whereby practitioners visualize breathing in pain and suffering, and breathing out love and compassion. The point is that the world manifests itself the way we envision it. How would one be able to express the complexity of these allencompassing teachings in words? (And yes, there are plenty of words and sutras in Buddhism, but they are regarded as the finger pointing to the moon; the experience of the moon itself has no words.) The Buddhist arts are unique in that sense, expressing this whirling wheel of life and death constantly happening at the same time. Be it a Chinese landscape painting in which the scale of humans or houses disappear under the power of huge mountains,21 a depiction of laughing, free-spirited monks, or a stark enso in Zen Buddhism—the execution of a black ink circle, reflecting the state of mind of the artist, all and nothing at the same time—they all create an invitation to enter this unconceivable realm that goes beyond the worlds of oneness and duality. This is why the traditional Zen arts in Japan are called dǀ, the way (dao), as practicing them means being dedicated to one’s own and other’s liberation: calligraphy (the way of writing, sho-do), tea ceremony (the way of tea, cha-do), archery (the way of the bow, kyu-do) or ikebana (the art of flower arrangement, ka-do). Basho, the great haiku master, taught: When the Master said, “As for the pine, learn from the pine; as for the bamboo, learn from the bamboo,” he meant cast aside personal desire or

 20

Ibid., 27. “. . . I sometimes practice Ch’an meditation, that forgetfulness emptying thought and memory and knowledge away, emptying identity away to leave only Absence. This Absence in the midst of Presence appears, miraculously enough, in the fields of emptiness that open through Chinese landscape paintings, though not in their pictorial representation. Those fields of emptiness—lake and sky, mist and haze— are where such paintings move beyond the representational. . . . a Chinese landscape painting is not a rendering of something outside consciousness. It renders . . . the opening of consciousness itself . . . .” David Hinton, Hunger Mountain: A Field Guide to Mind and Landscape (Boston: Shambala 2012), 71. 21



Chapter Five

76

intention. Those who interpret this “learning” in their own way end up never learning. The phrase “learn” means to enter into the object, to be emotionally moved by the essence that emerges from that object, and for that movement to become verse. Even if one clearly expresses the object, if the emotion does not emerge from the object naturally, the object and the self will be divided, and that emotion will not achieve poetic truth. The effect will be the verbal artifice that results from personal desire.22

This merging into a world of oneness has been exquisitely captured by Basho in a haiku he wrote in 1686: furuike ya ྂụࡸ⺶㣕ࡧࡇࡴỈࡢ㡢 kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto

Many different translations exist of this haiku, most of them inaccurate due to the Western linear mind that is looking for a result. We have the image of an old, still pond, reflecting its surrounding without discrimination. The syllabus “ya” at the end of the first line juxtaposes the first image with the second, and also creates an inherent correlation between the two. (In the Western context often visualized with a dash.) The second image evoked is a jumping frog, an animal that in Japan is associated with the coming of spring and with a seated Buddha, due to the frog’s humorous appearance. Endangered on the ground, it seeks shelter in the pond. In the third line we hear the sound of water. However, nowhere it is mentioned that the water splash has been provoked by the diving frog—this fusion only happens in our imagination. Most translations state that the frog jumped into the water. The beauty and magic of this haiku however stems from its ambivalence, challenging us to enter the pond, the embodiment of all things. This haiku is about the individual seeking to come home, wanting to become one with the universe.23 As for Buddhist views of nature, there is no separation between inside and outside. This is true from the side of spiritual recognition but if you



22 Haruo Shirane, Traces of Dreams: Landscape, Cultural Memory, and the Poetry of Basho (Stanford: Stanford University Press 1998), 351. 23 For a detailed analysis of this haiku see: Tatjana Myoko v. Prittwitz, “Kreativität als allgemeines Menschenrecht!” Georg Jappe. Formen angewandter Ästhetik [“Creativity as human right!” Georg Jappe. Forms of applied aesthetics](Munich: Silke Schreiber, 2010), chapter on haiku.

A Vast Net of Interconnected Diamonds: Buddhist View of Nature

77

consider that we consist 60 percent of water, this is an actual manifestation of our natural state. And whatever our skill maybe, it is through creativity that we find a way of how to enter oneness. Basho again: Those who practice such arts follow the Creative and make the four seasons their friends. What one sees cannot but be cherry blossoms; what one thinks cannot but be the moon. When the shape is not the cherry blossoms, one is no more than a barbarian; when the heart is not the cherry blossoms, one is no different from an animal. Leave the barbarians, depart from the animals, follow the Creative, return to the Creative!24

The point is to feel and not merely conceptualize this interconnection, as we will only be able to inspire people when we reach them wholeheartedly, not just on an intellectual level, but through the embodiment of these holistic teachings. “What does it take for our ideas to move our heart?”25 In the end, all words, all appeals, all actions are the vehicle to reach another level of awareness, to inspire change, to make this world a better place. The Buddhist texts are seen as a way to support us on this path of transformation. In the Diamond Sutra, we read: Wang Jih-hsui says, ‘A raft is made of bamboo and is for crossing a river. Here it represents the truth. . . . The Buddha often told his disciples that his teaching was like a raft. Before you can get across, you have to have a raft. Just as before you understand the true nature of things, you need buddha dharmas. But once you’re across, you don’t need the raft. Just as once you understand the true nature of things, you don’t need buddha dharmas’.”26

Training is needed to get to the so-called other shore. However, according to Buddhism, we already are that Buddha whom we wish we or others were. The task is to realize and actualize this insight. And it all starts here, right now, with our exercise on interdependence. “Buddhahood is not a matter of transcendence or imminence, but of ‘Presence.’ . . . The True Self exists ‘here and now.’ Existing ‘here and now’ transcends space

 24

Shirane, Traces of Dreams, 260. See also the important book by John Daido Loori, The Zen of Creativity: Cultivating Your Artistic Life (New York: Ballantine Books 2004). 25 Karmapa, The Heart is Noble, 99. 26 The Diamond Sutra: Text and Commentaries, translated from Sanskrit and Chinese by Red Pine (New York: Counterpoint 2001), 127.



78

Chapter Five

and time—this existence is Presence, the true time.”27 This very moment, the only time we have. The proclaimed holistic world view in Buddhism, based on central principles of impermanence and karuna, compassion, out of the realization of no-self and complete interconnection, is of high relevance in a Western world characterized by personal disconnect, environmental destruction, and resource exploitation. In October 2015, fifteen Buddhist leaders including the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, the Karmapa, and the King of Bhutan, issued a Buddhist Climate Change Statement to World Leaders on the occasion of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris 2015: Our concern is founded on the Buddha’s realization of dependent coarising, which interconnects all things in the universe. Understanding this interconnected causality and the consequences of our actions are critical steps in reducing our environmental impact. Cultivating the insight of interbeing and compassion, we will be able to act out of love, not fear, to protect our planet. . . . Through our lack of insight, we are destroying the very life support systems that we and all other living beings depend on for survival. . . . We call on world leaders to recognize and address our universal responsibility to protect the web of life for the benefit of all, now and for the future. . . . The time to act is now.28

In an age of great global media exchange, we can no longer afford the luxury of pretending that we don’t know about the effects of our choices; we can no longer ignore the origin of our cell phone components, the massive scale of factory farming, or the increasing rate of plant extinction.29 What does it take to wake us up? We have to use our love for this life, the life of our children and grand children, and this beautiful earth to deeply engage. “True compassion translates directly into action.”30

 27

Shin’Ichi Hisamatsu, Zen and the Fine Arts, (Tokyo, New York: Kodansha International 1974), 50. 28 Global Buddhist Climate Change Collective (GBCCC): gbccc.org. See also: Interfaith Climate Change Statement to World Leaders, issued April 22, 2016. 29 “In modern globalized society, desire is central to economic function: desire for goods, desire for energy, desire of entertainment, desire for ‘a better life.’ Over a matter of a few decades, the economy of manufacture has been replaced by an economy of desire whose object is arousal, manipulation, and the creation of human want to serve profit-making ends. . . . consumerism promotes, rationalizes, and condones harming.” Stephanie Kaza, “How Much is Enough?” in How much is enough? 40 and 47. 30 Karmapa, The Heart is Noble, 94.

A Vast Net of Interconnected Diamonds: Buddhist View of Nature

79

Traditional tribes all honored the earth due to their realization of dependence on its sustenance.31 Be it Native American spirituality (Chief Seattle: “Our religion is the traditions of our ancestors, the dreams of our old men, given them by the Great Spirit, and the visions of our sachems, and is written in the hearts of our people.”32), shamanistic rituals fusing reality with the supernatural (“How would we need to change if we granted to a tree the kind of life what we usually reserve for so-called intelligent beings? 33 ) or Tibetan animistic beliefs that the landscape is saturated “through the connection with earthly deities, animals, and people”34—these all recognize our shared nature. We trust the transformative power of technological advancement but if we continue exploiting natural resources for our comfort the way we have done in the past hundred years, the depletion of our very source of life will be irreversible. We have to remember that every single material on this earth comes from this earth. Every metal, plastic, styrofoam cup ultimately originates from this earth, this earth that we trash instead of being grateful for its unreserved offerings. As environmental activist Julia Butterfly Hill says: “We throw things away. Where is away? There is no such thing as away.” 35 The enormity of the environmental problems we face seems insurmountable: 90 percent of the big fish in the oceans are gone, indigenous populations are threatened by fossil fuel drilling, vast landscapes degraded, animal and plant species disappear at an unprecedented rate, more and more natural

 31

See Returns: Becoming Indigenous in the Twenty-First Century, by James Clifford (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 2013). 32 Chief Seattle, from “Chief Seattle’s Speech” (reconstructed 1887 [1854]), in Environment: An Interdisciplinary Anthology (New Haven and London: Yale University Press 2008), 572-73. See also here: “Even the rocks that seem to lie dumb as they swelter in the sun along the silent seashore in solemn grandeur thrill with memories of past events connected with the fate of my people, and the very dust under your feet responds more lovingly to our footsteps than to yours, because it is the ashes of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch, for the soil is rich with the life of our kindred. . . . The white man will never be alone. Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not altogether powerless.” 33 Patrice Malidoma Somé, “Communion with Nature,” Mountain Record: Mystic Earth, vol. xx, no. 3, (spring 2002), 48. 34 Dan Smyer Yü, Mindscaping the Landscape of Tibet: Place, Memorability, Ecoaesthetics (New York: De Gruyter 2015), 58. 35 Julia Butterfly Hill, Disposability Consciousness, www.GlobalOnenessProject.org



80

Chapter Five

disasters strike due to the rising world temperatures. We are suffocating from our ignorance! The Buddhist teachings of nature offer a unique perspective on these difficult and existential times. Dogen, in his important Mountains and Rivers Sutra, writes: “Although mountains belong to the nation, mountains belong to the people who love them.”36 We have to open our heart, share our sorrow, in order to touch other people, who can then in turn move towards activism. “If you want to know the mountain road, you must be the man who travels on it.”37 We have to sensitize ourselves to hear the needs of the enfeebled environment. Depression is a rising national illness. Where does it come from? From a feeling of disconnect, emptiness, loneliness. We get stuck in a dark mind that recognizes no more purpose or hope. We have come to a place where we don’t see each other any longer as being part of nature, that very nature that can heal and nurture us. That very nature that we discard and reject. That nature from which we come and to which we return. If we want to change the situation, we must begin by being our true selves. To be our true selves means we have to be the forest, the river, and the ozone layer. If we visualize ourselves as the forest, we will experience the hopes and fears of the trees. If we don’t do this, the forests will die, and we will lose our chance for peace. When we understand that we inter-are with the trees, we will know that it is up to us to make an effort to keep the trees alive. . . . Because we inter-are with the trees, we know that if they do not live, we too will disappear very soon.38

Shakyamuni Buddha had his enlightenment experience under a tree. He called upon the earth as his witness and proclaimed: “I and all beings on earth together attain enlightenment at the same time.”39 We are in this TOGETHER. There is no separation between you and me and this great earth. And “[t]here’s really no distinction between ‘being’ and ‘doing.’ Being is an aspect of doing; doing is as aspect of being. Without an awareness of being, there can be no truly meaningful doing.”40 Our life is the very imperative to be used as a means of liberation and the alleviation of suffering.

 36

Dogen, “Mountains and Waters Sutra,” in Dharma Rain, 74. The Blue Cliff Record (Boulder: Shambala 1977), case 34. 211. 38 Thich Nhat Hanh, “The Sun My Heart,” in Dharma Rain, 85. 39 Zen Master Keizan, Transmission of Light: Denkoroku (Boston: Shambala 2002), 1. 40 Philip Kapleau, “Responsibility and Social Action,” in Dharma Rain, 242. 37

A Vast Net of Interconnected Diamonds: Buddhist View of Nature

81

The problem of the so-called advanced nations is that we have outsourced the suffering, be it the Chinese, Mexican or Indian slave worker, death managed in high-tech hospitals, or shunned neighborhoods. Most of us don’t feel the immediate impact of our consumer choices: we don’t live at that poisoned river, don’t breathe that polluted air, don’t have to sell our own children. However, fracking, Fukushima, and a contaminated Colorado River have brought these issues home. What if Right Livelihood were put at the center of economical life, as Emil Schumacher suggests in his influential 1973 article on Buddhist economics? What if we lived according to the Buddhist principles of non-harming? “To practice the precepts is to be in harmony with your life and the universe.”41 And this call for mindfulness might be explicitly cultivated in Buddhism, but can also be found in every world religion. In his book The Heart is Noble. Changing the World from the Inside Out, the Karmapa writes: I keep copies of the scriptures of each of the major religions of the world in my room. I have a personal practice of my own that I do with them. I take each scripture from the shelf and hold it in my hands as I make the aspiration: “Many millions of people have placed their faith and hope in the teachings contained in this scripture. May these teachings become a true vehicle for those who make their own aspirations through them. May these teachings be a vehicle that brings them happiness.”42

The question is: What does each of us have to offer? What can we do to save this beautiful earth? Isn’t it a miracle? So far we have not found any other planet in this universe with life. It took millions of years and an incredibly intrinsic course of evolution to create the circumstances that make our lives possible. We all come from that same pond, in fact, according to the Big Bang theory; all existence on this earth comes from the same material center. It took millions of years of evolution for us to be here. We need to wake up, be humble and grateful. We must bow to the wonder of life. Give thanks for those who enable our life—ancestors, plants, animals, the air we breathe, the water we drink. So much we take for granted! Buddhism teaches a path for putting an end to suffering. Our inclination is to move away from pain; we try to cover it up with all kind of remedies. This leads to self-indulgence not to liberation. Don’t we want to feel alive not numb? Smell that flower, hug that person, walk in the park, have our lungs expand in a fresh breeze?

 41 42



The Heart of Being, 115. (In the chapter: “The Precepts and the Environment”) Karmapa, The Heart Is Noble, 159.

82

Chapter Five

In the aforementioned Zen Buddhist Nenju service, the liturgist chants: “Let us practice diligently and eagerly as though extinguishing a fire upon our heads.” Indeed, our heads are on fire! However, few seem to recognize this urgency. The feeling of wanting to be held, protected, and loved only comes from the experience of closeness and intimacy. Thanks-Giving. What holds us back from striving for our shared dream? Fear, distance, ignorance, agony, helplessness? There have been great ambassadors of peace. This is a crucial moment of change. How do we want to live and how do we want others to live? The awareness we can bring to our life is a choice that we have to make over and over again. Being awake is a constant practice. The first transmission of the mind, the continuation of the lineage of how to be awake, was done without words: “When the Buddha raised a flower and blinked his eyes, Kasyapa broke out in a smile. The Buddha said, ‘I have the treasury of the eye of truth, the ineffable mind of nirvana. These I entrust to Kasyapa’.”43 We find ourselves in a paradoxical world: Global information readily available on the web, the idea of close connection with social media, a wealth of material goods, and yet a great amount of dissatisfaction, deep psychological suffering, an unprecedented power of destruction due to an increasingly sophisticated technology. Although we cannot reverse time, we can try to awaken in the circumstances in which we find ourselves; this might bring great sadness and great joy. Our suffering is the earth’s suffering, the earth’s illness creates our sickness. ‘Those who free themselves from all appearances are called buddhas.’ The appearance of appearance as no appearance can’t be seen visually but can only be known by means of wisdom.”44 I wonder how you feel about it—I have a great admiration for creation: incredible art and culture, touching acts of kindness, the wonder of new life, the beauty of sentient beings, clouds in the sky, the fascination of the sea, the mystery of this earth. Do we really want to jeopardize all these efforts and phenomena? Life will become extinct; maybe other forms of life will be created. But given our capacity of reflection and mindful action, don’t we want to change the course of events? Can we not stand hand in hand, facing this climate catastrophe? For more than 2500 years Buddhists have examined the tendency of the human mind to disconnect and destruct. But Buddhism also tells us how to close the gap, how to become comfortable with oneself, recognize the interconnection of all

 43

Transmission of Light: Denkoroku, 4. Bodhidharma, “Wake-up Sermon”, in: Mountain Record: Zazen (spring 2013), 72. 44

A Vast Net of Interconnected Diamonds: Buddhist View of Nature

83

beings, and act upon this realization of oneness. Through the exercise I took you through at the beginning of this talk, you may have gained a greater sense of your own interconnectedness, which may have evoked feelings of gratitude and responsibility. There is no choice but to give our life to life! If we want to preserve this earth, we need to enter a real discussion of cause and effect, create the desire to know, look deeply into ourselves, listen to others, be a witness to inequalities and destruction, and apply our energy to preserve and enliven. We need to nourish ourselves for this call of the bodhisattva, seek the companionship of those who support us and with whom we can walk together, to heal ourselves, others, and nature. Let us unite in the effort of all great spiritual texts and traditions to recognize ourselves as one family. Let us give thanks to this earth that carries and nurtures us. Let us open our heart and do whatever we are able to do to save this earth, as we only have this one, our friend, our companion, our Mother. May I be like the earth, providing the air, the ground, water, and everything she provides that is our sacred source of life.45

Bibliography Kaza, Stephanie and Kenneth Kraft, eds. Dharma Rain: Sources of Buddhist Environmentalism. Boston and London: Shambala Publications, 2000. Stanley, John, David R. Loy, and Gyurme Dorje, eds. A Buddhist Response to The Climate Emergency. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2009. Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje. The Heart is Noble: Changing the World From the Inside Out. Boston and London: Shambala Publications, 2014. Loori, John Daido. The Zen of Creativity: Cultivating Your Artistic Life. New York: Ballantine Books, 2004. Myoko von Prittwitz, Tatjana. “Kreativität als allgemeines Menschenrecht!” Georg Jappe. Formen angewandter Ästhetik [“Creativity as human right!” Georg Jappe. Forms of applied aesthetics]. Munich, Germany: Silke Schreiber Verlag, 2010.

 45



Karmapa, The Heart is Noble, 89.

CHAPTER SIX DIETRICH BONHOEFFER AS AN ECOLOGICAL THEOLOGIAN JAMISON STALLMAN1

Abstract: Humanity’s worship of the god of infinite growth of gross domestic product (GDP) is wreaking havoc on and leading to further alienation to our species and the larger world. Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s social philosophy, laid out in his doctoral dissertation, Sanctorum Communio, is fundamentally helpful in reimagining humanity’s place within the larger sphere of life. Bonhoeffer’s social philosophy and much of his succeeding theology is based on sociality, or organizations of social relations. Niche theory, an ecological theory of interactions between species, is reminiscent of Bonhoeffer’s ideas of how communities form and interact. Expanding Sanctorum Communio to the larger than human realm is but one approach in envisioning a social philosophy that could reorient humanity, once again bringing humans into a proper niche in the fold of creation.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) is widely known as an influential theologian during the church struggle in Germany in World War II, as a Union Theological Seminary Fellow and student, and more prominently as a “pastor, martyr, prophet, and spy.” Bonhoeffer’s theology in his contexts



1 Jamison Stallman received a bachelor of arts degree from Luther College in Decorah, IA, majoring in both biology and religion. He is presently a master of arts candidate for Union Theology Seminary in New York City for 2017. In 2014 he presented “The Buddhist-Christian Conversation about Environmental Ethics” at the National Conference on Undergraduate Research (NCUR) in Lexington, KY. The year prior he presented “Luther Sustainability Grant Fund” at the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education Conference in Nashville, TN.

86

Chapter Six

illuminates how and what he was responding to at the time. Today’s context is much different. The current state of affairs includes alienation from nature, ecological destruction, and untempered rampant destructive economic systems. Climate science studies are increasingly grim and now, more than ever, there is a need for a theology that speaks to the masses and reconciles the truths found in both science and religion. Bonhoeffer’s dissertation, Sanctorum Communio, can serve as both a critique for the current destructive economic paradigm and a constructive foundation for an ecological theology. Sanctorum Communio, as a fundamentally Lutheran text, is helpful to serve as a basis for a new ecological theology for the group that has been largely responsible for most of the global carbon dioxide emissions. Of the many questions social philosophy asks, Bonhoeffer focuses on: what is community and how does it form? Sanctorum Communio can serve to examine what community might look like between humans, while giving a theoretical nod to niche theory to examine how community might look between humans and the rest of creation. This paper will begin with a detailed exposition of his seminal work, Sanctorum Communio. Bonhoeffer’s theology will then be revisited with insight from Larry Rasmussen’s notion of biosociality, which will set the stage for a treatment of Bonhoeffer’s theology through the lens of niche theory, an ecological theory of how species within ecosystems function. Finally, the paper will conclude with a brief normative discussion of how the world might function to combat the root causes of environmental destruction and climate change. Before diving in, a few root causes of climate change need to be named.

Root Causes of Climate Change The primary root cause of climate change is the destructive economic system that does not account for the social cost of resource extraction, production, and consumption, nor does it take into consideration the actual costs to the earth.2 Social costs here are considered negative effects, or externalities, on humans. An example of this is asthma induced by air pollution. This effect is not included in the transactions of goods and services, but nonetheless occurs because of those transactions. Actual costs include, but are certainly not limited to, environmental services, loss

 2

Karenna Gore. Beyond GDP. Union Theological Seminary. 14 November 2015. Lecture.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer as an Ecological Theologian

87

of biodiversity, habitat loss, etc. An example of an environmental service is wetlands serving as both buffers for floods as well as filtration systems for water. The current destructive economic paradigm aims to increase gross domestic product (GDP) infinitely, though the earth is a finite system. GDP, as a measure of products and services exchanged, does not include these actual and social costs of resource extraction as a part of the economic calculus. Under the current paradigm, the aim is to internalize the externalities, or in other words, to take into account the actual and social costs, and not just the benefits of the current economic system. Whatever the solution may be, the current economic development paradigm needs to be addressed. This treatment of GDP aims to address the idea that increasing GDP infinitely does not form community, but in fact bars community formation. GDP cannot be truly addressed without taking into consideration what many consider to be another root cause of climate change: humanity’s alienation from the larger environment. The costs are not realized because the material world is being subjugated by the will of humanity. The argument is that humans are not in proper relation with the earth. Bonhoeffer’s theology of relationship can seek to offer humanity a new mentality with which to address alienation from our ecosystem. Much of Bonhoeffer’s theology is based on community. Sanctorum Communio, Bonhoeffer’s doctoral dissertation, was written as a critique of the social philosophies of Aristotle and Descartes, which Bonhoeffer did not think could apply to the Christian community. Bonhoeffer instead offers a social philosophy that serves to “understand the structure of the given reality of a church of Christ, as revealed in Christ.”3 Though there will be more on this in the section “Christian Concept of Person”, it is important to keep in mind the reasons why Bonhoeffer writes Sanctorum Communio.

Sanctorum Communio His doctoral dissertation, Sanctorum Communio, was written largely as a critique of differing schools of social philosophy. In answering “what is community and how does it form?” Bonhoeffer felt the need to describe the social philosophy that he does not employ. Here, Bonhoeffer critiques the social philosophies of Aristotle and Descartes. In turn, answering what

 3

Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Sanctorum Communio. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 33



88

Chapter Six

community is and how it forms, Bonhoeffer’s social philosophy focuses on Christian concept of a person, primal state, sin, and revelation. First, Bonhoeffer’s response to other social philosophies is worth discussing in detail. The social philosophy of Aristotle says that “the collectivity, as closer to the species, is set over the individual person. The human being is a…[political animal], and the state is the highest form of collectivity.”4 According to Bonhoeffer’s critique, the essential person for Aristotle lies outside of the empirical body.5 In his footnotes, Bonhoeffer says that “the premise of this study of the Christian concepts of person and social basicrelations is that neither is abstracted from empirical social norms.” 6 In other words, social philosophies have real life impacts and Bonhoeffer finds it necessary to ground social philosophy, preventing it from abstracting from social norms. Bonhoeffer disagrees with the Aristotelian concept of God, and particularly has qualms with Aristotle’s concept of the individual outside of itself. Bonhoeffer was also unconvinced of Descartes’ social philosophy, in which Descartes proposes that “the metaphysical schema fundamentally denies the person by subsuming the person under the universal.” 7 According to Bonhoeffer’s critique, Descartes presents a social philosophy that says the individual is less important than the group. Instead, Bonhoeffer posits a new social philosophy, one that upholds the individual within community, where neither loses its worth. The rest of Bonhoeffer’s dissertation includes the chapters: “The Primal State and the Problem of Community,” “Sin and Broken Community,” and “Sanctorum Communio.” This work will slightly rework these chapters, using “Sin and Broken Community” as more of a theme rather than subsection, and instead will focus on “Will” and “The Christian Concept of Person” as key portions.

The Primal State and the Problem of Community To fully understand the Christian concept of person means to be cognizant of the fall of humanity, commonly known as original sin. Bonhoeffer calls the time before original sin “the primal state,” or the time of perfectly harmonious community. Since humans cannot imagine the

 4

Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio, 36-37. Ibid., 37. 6 Ibid., 41. 7 Ibid., 41. 5

Dietrich Bonhoeffer as an Ecological Theologian

89

primal state, because of original sin, Bonhoeffer theologizes what community might look like. He begins by saying that if humans are “created by God, and free, then we must connect this idea with the other, namely that God created human beings in direct relation to God’s own self, as oriented toward God.”8 Humans are created in relation with God, as relational creatures. Bonhoeffer focuses heavily on the primal state, because sin is central to the Christian concept of a person. This is because any view of history as “an unbroken straight line basically eliminates everything specifically Christian. In this view, neither sin nor redemption alters the essence of history.”9 The category of sin may seem unrelated, but his points about and necessitation of sin in the Christian concept of the person represent the transition from the descriptive claims of the primal state to the normative claims of how humanity ought to fit among the rest of creation. Bonhoeffer guides us forward by glancing back, saying that the “doctrine of the primal state is hope projected backward.”10 There is hope that community can live harmoniously. The theological implications for unbroken community are immense and will be discussed in detail in the section “Niche Theory Revisited Theologically.” First, we explore a fundamental aspect of community formation, Bonhoeffer’s ideas of will.

Will There is much richness in Bonhoeffer’s conceptions of will. He says that will is the “unified activation of self-determination and self consciousness. Will is always self-consciousness; that is to say, when initiating purposeful acts I do so as a unified center of activity.”11 In this vein, Bonhoeffer says “that there would be no self consciousness without community . . . Second, we assert that will is by its nature oriented toward other wills.”12 Bonhoeffer then proceeds to describe what has been integral to his social philosophy. He says at length: Since I know myself as ‘I,’ I lift myself as an individual above the vegetative condition of spirit in the community. At the same time,

 8

Ibid., 59. Ibid., 60. See “Basic Questions of a Christian Ethic” in the Ethics for more of Christianity as basically amoral. Bonhoeffer devotes much of this manuscript to determining what is Christian and what is not. 10 Ibid., 61. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 9



90

Chapter Six however, in this very act the essence of the ‘You’ jumps up to meet me, as the other spirit that is conscious of itself. One could turn this around and say that by recognizing a You, a being of alien consciousness, as separate and distinct from myself, I recognize myself as an ‘I’ and so my self consciousness awakens.13

Succinctly, I become an individual when I recognize that there is a self-conscious You. In other words, I recognize myself as being in community when I am met by a You. This is a pivotal piece in his social philosophy. The first ramification here is Bonhoeffer’s notion that when the “I comes into being only in relation to the You; only in response to a demand does responsibility arise.”14 When I encounter a You, a demand is made, accompanied by ethical responsibility. A second is that “only through God’s active working does the other become a You to me from whom my I arises. In other words, every human You is an image of the divine You.”15 Bonhoeffer’s notions of God’s love are another key part of what it means to be a Christian person. Bonhoeffer says “for that person the other member of the church community is essentially no longer claim but gift, revelation of God’s love and heart. Thus the You is to the I . . . an object of love.”16 When I recognize the You, I recognize an object of God’s love. Bonhoeffer stays on track here, saying that God’s love is revealed in Christ. There will be more on this in the next section of Christ as church community, but it is important to mention that the church community, the Gemeinde,17 is predicated on God’s love. Bonhoeffer says then “Christian love is not a human possibility.” 18 Furthermore, Bonhoeffer says that Christian love “loves the real neighbor . . . because the neighbor as a human being calls on me as the other who experiences God’s claim in this You of the neighbor.”19 In the end, only God can determine the purpose of God’s love. There are many implications of Christian love to be visited in the final section of this work. First, the rest of Bonhoeffer’s Christian concept of person.

 13

Ibid., 71. Ibid., 54. 15 Ibid., 55. 16 Ibid., 166. 17 German for “community” or “congregation.” Discussed below. 18 Ibid., 167. 19 Ibid., 169. 14

Dietrich Bonhoeffer as an Ecological Theologian

91

Christian Concept of Person A Christian person, for Bonhoeffer, is “not the person-concept of the primal human state, but that of the human being after the fall—the person who does not live in unbroken community with God and humanity, but who knows good and evil.” 20 Instead, Christians live in broken community, and our personhood is predicated upon community. He says, “every concept of community is essentially related to a concept of person. It is impossible to say what constitutes community without asking what constitutes a person.” 21 Bonhoeffer’s Christian concept of a person is based on how people relate to each other in this community. Pointedly, Clifford Green says that for Bonhoeffer, the “paradigm is not “cogito, ergo sum,” but rather “I relate ethically to others, ergo sum.”22 In Bonhoeffer’s words, “the person exists always and only in ethical responsibility; the person is re-created again and again in the perpetual flux of life.”23 The concept of the person is not static in nature, but instead founded upon humans bound in time and dynamically involved in it. This is based on the notion that the concept of a Christian person comes into being, or recognizes the inherent relationship that arises, when an ethical barrier is recognized. Bonhoeffer’s thinking on this matter is worth quoting here: It is a Christian insight that the person as conscious being is created in the moment of being moved—in the situation of responsibility, passionate ethical struggle, confrontation by an overwhelming claim; thus the real person grows out of the concrete situation.24

In other words, the concept of individual arises when a person recognizes his or her place in time and as he or she relates ethically to one another. Bonhoeffer says that we can only enter into the social sphere when these ethical barriers are encountered. It is not the nature of the barrier that matters most, but that the barrier is “experienced and acknowledged as a real barrier.”25 Thus, recognizing an ethical barrier is one of the facets of being recognized as a Christian person, according to Bonhoeffer. For Bonhoeffer, this means that “human beings, as spirit, are

 20

Ibid., 44. Ibid., 34. 22 Green: Bonhoeffer, A Theology of Sociality, 30. 23 Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio, 48. 24 Ibid., 49. 25 Ibid., 46. 21



92

Chapter Six

necessarily created in a community—that human spirit in general is woven into the web of sociality.”26 In turn, Bonhoeffer says that “from the ethical perspective, human beings do not exist unmediated qua spirit in and of themselves, but only in responsibility vis a vis an other.” 27 Bonhoeffer says that this, when embodied in society, yields one thing: church. At the center of the church, and at the center of Bonhoeffer’s theology, is Christ. Bonhoeffer says “It is not as if Christ could be abstracted from the church [in the institutional sense]; rather, it is none other than Christ who ‘is’ the church.”28 Jesus is the center of the church, but Bonhoeffer reminds us that this is not the institution that is commonly thought of as the church. Rather, it’s the Gemeinde, or the community where Christ is present. This is not to say, though, that humans can place Christ inside church. Christ is present in the church through communal word and sacrament and it is through these that Gemeinde is found, though this is not to be taken as thinking that Christ is able to be separated from the church community. Rather, “there is no relation to Christ in which the relation to the church is not necessarily established as well. The church, therefore, logically establishes its own foundation in itself.”29 Jesus is not only active in the church and the center of the church, Jesus is also in relation with the church. Christ’s existence in the church community gives rise to humanity’s relationship with God. Jesus is the foundation of the church community, the glue that holds it all together and most importantly, the one who completes God’s work today. The implications of this are enormous for an ecological reading, which will be discussed in detail in “Niche Theory Revisited Theologically.” Bonhoeffer’s social philosophy is based on relationships within a community. Through sin, humanity lives in broken community, especially when one lacks the recognition of the You in contrast to the I and the responsibility that ensues. Alienation from the natural world is a main argument as to the causes of climate change and environmental degradation. Bonhoeffer is certainly interested in the larger implications of his theology, especially when applied in reality. He says in a much later letter to his fiancé that he fears “that Christians who venture to stand on

 26

Ibid., 65. Clifford J Green and Michael P. DeJonge. The Bonhoeffer Reader. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 2013.), 25. 28 Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio, 15. 29 Ibid., 127. 27

Dietrich Bonhoeffer as an Ecological Theologian

93

earth with only one leg will stand in heaven on only one leg, too.” 30 Bonhoeffer aims to have his feet planted firmly on this earth. Bonhoeffer’s social philosophy can serve to inform a new perspective on humanity’s relationship with the rest of creation. One, potentially broader and more helpful way of viewing this project, is through the lens of Larry Rasmussen’s notion of humans as “biosocial.”

Humans as Biosocial Rasmussen’s work in environmental ethics, as well as Bonhoeffer scholarship, provides significant impetus for this project and serves to lay a wider foundation of sociality. Rasmussen’s view of humans as “biosocial” is a theme throughout much of his environmental ethics. Rasmussen notes that Sanctorum Communio’s “theme is ‘Christ existing as community,’ and behind it is Bonhoeffer’s comprehensive theology of relationality.”31 Rasmussen takes this to mean that humans are “biosocial creatures by nature” and that it implies that people are “being with and for others.” 32 Rasmussen’s latest work, Earth Honoring Faith: Religious Ethics in a New Key expounds his ideas of humanity’s biosociality and its implications for how humans ought to view and act within their role of the creation community. He says concisely that “biosocial is the kind of creature we are: Apart from humanity, community implanted in an Earth community embedded in a cosmic community, we cannot, and do not, exist.” 33 Another way Rasmussen presents biosocial is that humanity is “born to belonging.”34 For example, Rasmussen points out that babies are born to parents and are dependent on a community to take care of the vulnerability that is associated with the first few years of life. It seems evident how Rasmussen is influenced by Bonhoeffer’s sociality. Rasmussen says that “what is true for us as individuals is equally so for us as members of a rambunctious species.”35 Later, he reiterates

 30

Larry Rasmussen, Earth Community, Earth Ethics. (Maryknoll: Orbis. 1996.), 296. 31 Larry Rasmussen, “Dietrich and Karl-Friedrich Bonhoeffer: The Brothers Bonhoeffer on Science, Morality, and Theology.” Zygote: Journal of Science and Religion. Vol. 44, no. 1: March 2009: 102. 32 Ibid. 33 Larry Rasmussen, Earth Honoring Faith. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013): 12. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid.



94

Chapter Six

what it means to be born to belonging, saying “all that is, is kind and born to belonging. All is relational. Humankind and otherkind live into one another’s lives and die into one another’s deaths in relationships.” 36 Rasmussen might also be uncomfortable with the social philosophies that Bonhoeffer was critiquing and have a similar response. One way this project views the meaning of biosociality is remembering that humans are animals, just like elk or wolves. The difference in socialities here is that elk are herd animals, whereas wolves sometimes pack up and other times roam by themselves. Humans, on the other hand, are biosocial and crave group interactions. This is where niche theory is applicable as we continue our journey into niche theory, before dipping into the normative discussion of how humans might recognize biosociality, or our niche within the realities of otherkinds.

Niche Theory “The idea that ecological properties of species, loosely denoted as their ecological niches, and their areas of distribution are related, is an old one.”37 At its simplest, niche theory is the study of interactions between biotic and abiotic factors within a given environment. Some niches are looked at on an individual level, some niches are based on species, and some can be even as broad as entire populations within a given environment. Concretely, this might mean evaluating one peregrine falcon’s relationship with its surroundings as compared to taking a wider glance at how the salmon in the Pacific Northwest interact with the ecosystems there. It is worth noting that niche theory is but one of a multitude of areas of study within the vast field of ecology and thus any explication may seem cursory. However, niche theory is based on relationships and interactions and is therefore useful for this project. The focus and the reason why Bonhoeffer is so applicable to a reformed vision of ecology is that at the most fundamental level, ecology and niche theory are about relationships, how these relationships are formed, and what comes out of them.

 36

Ibid., 17 Soberon, Jorge. “Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distributions of species.” in Ecology Letters, (2007) 10: 1115–1123, 1115. 37

Dietrich Bonhoeffer as an Ecological Theologian

95

Niche Theory Revisited Theologically Clifford Green writes that Bonhoeffer sees “all human life as essentially social, that he develops a theological phenomenology of the human person in relation to other persons and to various types of corporate communities . . . and that he interprets the Christian gospel within this matrix.” 38 Bonhoeffer’s framework, then, could be useful for expanding humanity’s concept of community to include not just humans, but the larger community of creation. There are two main reasons Sanctorum Communio is an apt fit for this project. The first is that Bonhoeffer’s dissertation is about relationships, how those relationships are viewed, and what is central to those relationships. This mirrors the definition of niche theory as a study of interactions between biotic and abiotic factors within a given environment. Furthermore, Sanctorum Communio covers aspects of how humanity might view those relationships and includes notions of divine love, the divine You, and ethical responsibility. All of these have implications for a theological reading of niche theory, utilizing a lens developed from Sanctorum Communio. The first theological consideration is the break from the primal state to a state of sin. Taken literally, the primal state is about 200,000 years ago. This was when humanity was in a more proper relation with the earth and had a much better recognition of its niche. In other words, humanity did not see itself as something apart from the ecosystem, but rather inherently a part of it. This placement within a larger community is predicated on a tougher life than the ones most humans are living today. The primal state, for this project, not only represents Bonhoeffer’s notion of right relation with God, but also right relation in regard to niche theory. It is the exemplary standard with which humans might use to put themselves back into the proper niches. Niche theory is predicated on current and future relationships, and does not glance back and fawn at the relationships of the past. For Bonhoeffer this means that the “unbroken social community belongs to the primal being . . . in parallel to the eschatological hope we have for it in the church. This is expressed clearly, if only indirectly, in the Genesis narrative.”39 Theologically, it is because of sin that humans are now living in broken community. Empirically, the broken community of today is embodied in the fact that humans have taken themselves out of

 38 39



Green, Bonhoeffer: A Theology of Sociality, 21. Ibid., 63.

Chapter Six

96

their proper niche. This can be due to different social philosophies, which Bonhoeffer aims to ameliorate. Or it can be due in part to failing to recognize our ethical responsibilities to fellow humans. If Bonhoeffer were to summarize this project himself, he might say By viewing the individual person in a primal state as an ultimate unit who is created by God’s will—but also seeing individual persons as real only in sociality—we interpret their relations to one another, which are built upon their difference, as willed by God. This means, however, that strife is recognized as fundamental sociological law and basically is sanctified. Concretely, this implies the necessity and the justification of partisanship in every community relation. Genuine life arises only in the conflict of wills; strengths unfolds only in strife.40

Creation, by God’s will, comes into relationship through conflict of wills. This is the heart of niche theory. The implications of this are staggering. Taken empirically, one individual’s conflicting will to be, or to exist, over another is “basically sanctified” according to Bonhoeffer. Put into the words of niche theory, competition and niche interactions are sanctified by the will of God. Concretely, when a peregrine falcon eats a mouse in a field, two individuals arise in community because their will to exist is put into conflict. The mouse’s sacrifice to the falcon might be seen as a divine act of love, since this conflict of wills and the outcome that arises because of it are basically sanctified. This is in line with Bonhoeffer’s notion of love as not just a human possibility. Certainly, problems arise when predestination and free will get thrown into the mix. These ideas become especially problematic when notions of Social Darwinism try to find their way into this argument. However, Bonhoeffer’s temperance and prudence, as evident through his self-limiting ideas of Christ as the center of Gemeinde, sin, and the helplessness of human’s ability to rid themselves of sin, are key to remember here. This view of conflicting wills is but one implication of a new reading of both Bonhoeffer and niche theory. Bonhoeffer says that “only through God’s active working does the other become a You to me from whom my I arises. In other words, every human You is an image of the divine You.”41 Not only is it God’s will to bring individuals into community according to Bonhoeffer, but there is a divine You when the I arises. In other words, when I recognize an other, I

 40 41

Ibid., 84-85. Ibid., 55.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer as an Ecological Theologian

97

am brought into community. He continues to say that the “You-character is in fact the essential form in which the divine is experienced.”42 Simply put, interacting and becoming human through interactions with other niches means to experience God in the other. Bonhoeffer writes that one way to relate to God is through the person of Jesus and the church community.43 Here, Jesus is one iteration of the infinite love of God. When I recognize You, I recognize a divine you and an object of God’s love. Second, Bonhoeffer says that God’s love is not a human possibility. Expanding on this, an interesting theological claim arises. Humans might have but one taste of God’s love and God’s love could be embodied in the rest of creation in a manner that is not relatable to humans, since God’s love is not a human possibility. Love as purposeful through the will of God ought not be limited by human reason, but rather tempered and contemplated. Another notion of divine love has to deal with sacred space. According to Bonhoeffer, one way to relate to God is to relate ethically to others through Christ as the center of the church community. If Bonhoeffer’s notion of the church community is expanded to include the rest of creation, then one way to relate to God would be through relating to creation. For Bonhoeffer, this would not entail taking Jesus out of the mix, but instead living through Christ in community, which now includes creation. When humans encounter another niche, a You arises and thus a divine You. Envisioning other species and their niches as divine You’s might beget the ethical responsibility that is so central to Bonhoeffer’s thought and allow for an envisioning of sacred space. Sacred space here is meant as anywhere one finds God. When I recognize the divine You, sacred space is found with Jesus as the center of community and humanity’s relator to the creator. Bonhoeffer’s ideas of Jesus as Gemeinde offer another interesting insight pertaining to niche theory. Jesus, as something introduced by God to the world, brings people into right relation. As ecologists learn more about how the natural world works, a few potentially counterintuitive findings have changed how humans interact with other niches. The first is fire suppression. Many people remember Smokey the Bear and his slogan that “Only you can prevent forest fires.” Forest fires were seen as preventable, as unnatural, and as something that needed to be suppressed. The fire suppression regime of the 70s and 80s led to a significant increase

 42 43



Ibid. Ibid., 127.

98

Chapter Six

in dry fuel on the forest floor, which exacerbates forest fires today by making them burn hotter. There are a few ways of viewing the fire suppression regime. One is due to the fact of sin, which keeps humans out of proper relation within niche theory. Another is related to sin, but it is the fact that Bonhoeffer says one has to be a part of the community to understand the community. Early in Sanctorum Communio, Bonhoeffer says “the nature of the church can only be understood within . . . never by nonparticipants.”44 Through sin and continuing to be alienated from other niches, humans can never truly understand the nature of the community, according to this reading of Bonhoeffer and niche theory. Now, ecologists realize that fires are actually restorative. For example, Jack pines need the heat of fire for the cones to open and release seeds. Another example is that of invasive species. Often, fire sweeps through the forest floor and does not do enough damage to burn down the forest, but does eradicate the invasive species. Theologically, fire presents us with an interesting insight into restoring community. Fire is a plasma, which is a state of matter in the group of solid, liquid and gas. Plasma only exists in nature in a few instances and another example is lightning. Plasma, and fire by extension, is a state that is unlike the other states of matter, just as Jesus is wholly other. Jesus came to the earth to restore community and die for humanity’s sins. Sin is but one of many aspects that keeps humanity out of proper, or unbroken, community with both God and our ecosystem. Fire, like Jesus, comes to restore and put the community into order. Just as Bonhoeffer says that Jesus is at work in the world today through community, fire is also continually at work to restore the niche community. Fire is not a divine punishment, but rather a divine act of restoration. Fire, like Jesus, becomes a necessary aspect of life in an attempt to live in unbroken community within humanity’s niche and with God. Another ecological insight is flood prevention plans. For centuries, floods, and especially those of the Nile, were used to irrigate and bring new, fertile, and rich soil to the area. Now, humans are choosing to engineer the environment to prevent floods from affecting the places where people live. This will allow humans control over the river and environment, further engraining the notion that humans cannot fully understand the niche community since they are trying to take themselves out of nature. In this same vein, people who tend to live in flood plains are those who are economically marginalized and would not live there in the

 44

Ibid., 33.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer as an Ecological Theologian

99

first place if not for economic disparity. Furthermore, it is often the group who make up the upper class that tends to be the environmental engineers who reroute rivers. In this sense, they are forgetting not only their human community, but also that they are part of a larger ecological niche. They are not seeing the divine You, nor the ethical responsibility that arises when I recognize the You. Due to sin, it is difficult maintaining what it means to be a Christian person. Bonhoeffer, in turn, provides a way forward through his social philosophy, which speaks best to the Christian community.

Conclusion Bonhoeffer wrote his dissertation as a critique of social philosophies that were incapable of speaking to Christians. Bonhoeffer puts significant weight in the empirical and worldly interactions between people so that individuality is not subsumed by a larger group. Bonhoeffer argues the individual is naturally lost within Descartes’ and Aristotle’s social philosophy. Bonhoeffer uses Christian, anthropological, and empirical sources to speak to the Christian concept of a person, which includes the primal state, will, the social relations, and Christ as community. The significance that Bonhoeffer puts on the individual as a responsible Christian person living in community has enormous implications for the critique of today’s economic idealism: gross domestic product. GDP growth is seen as a laudable end goal and represents the “greater good” which in turn reduces the importance of the individual in the system. To combat this, Bonhoeffer’s Sanctorum Communio posits a Christian social philosophy to put humanity back into right relation with creation. Recognizing the rest of creation as an “other,” humanity is brought into community with other than human creation. Utilizing the social philosophy found in Santorum Communio, humanity might realize that GDP is not community-forming, but community-inhibiting. When humanity realizes that GDP inhibits human flourishing, responsibility to an other and the rest of creation necessarily follows. Through Sanctorum Communio, Bonhoeffer’s theology of relationships and social philosophy can serve as a constructive framework, as one kind of eco-theological inroad, with which to inform humanity’s relationship to the rest of creation.



100

Chapter Six

Bibliography Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Sanctorum Communio. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009. Gore, Karenna. Beyond GDP. Union Theological Seminary. 14 November 2015. Lecture. Green, Clifford. Bonhoeffer: A Theology of Sociality. Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1999. Green, Clifford J. and Michael P. DeJonge. The Bonhoeffer Reader. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 2013. Rasmussen, Larry. “Dietrich and Karl-Friedrich Bonhoeffer: The Brothers Bonhoeffer on Science, Morality, and Theology.” Zygote: Journal of Science and Religion. Vol. 44, no. 1 (March 2009) Blackwell Publishing Limited. —. Earth Community, Earth Ethics. Maryknoll: Orbis. 1996. —. Earth Honoring Faith. New York: Oxford University Press. 2013. Soberon, Jorge. “Grinnellian and Eltonian Niches and Geographic Distributions of Species.” Ecology Letters, (2007) 10: 1115–1123.

CHAPTER SEVEN POPE FRANCIS’ ENCYCLICAL AND CATHOLIC MAGISTERIAL STATEMENTS ON ECOLOGICAL ETHICS NANCY M. ROURKE1

Abstract: This paper summarizes recent Catholic Magisterial statements on ecological ethics and suggests further developments in the ecological application of the Catholic social teaching that is proposed in these documents. The paper then introduces systems ecology as a way to “read” the “sacred text” of creation. Next the paper uses systems ecology to bring ecological awareness to Catholic virtue theory. The paper demonstrates that a Catholic ecological virtue ethic is a necessary partner with CST for a sustainable Roman Catholic Church.

Roman Catholic theology has recently returned to its focus on ecological ethics.2 Because ecological ethics and theology are profoundly interdependent, our lengthy period of lapsed attention stunted the flourishing of both theology and ecological ethics in Catholic thought.

 1

Nancy M. Rourke, Ph.D., is a Catholic ethicist at Canisius College in Buffalo, NY. She earned her Ph.D. at St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth, Ireland and currently teaches and writes in the areas of bioethics and environmental ethics. 2 Others have noted that Catholic attention to ecological ethics lapsed for centuries. See Keith Douglass Warner, “Retrieving Saint Francis: Tradition and Innovation for Our Ecological Vocation,” in Green Discipleship: Catholic Theological Ethics and the Environment, Tobias L Winright, ed. (Winona, MN: Anselm Academic, 2011), 114–28: 119-121; and Jame Schaefer, Theological Foundations for Environmental Ethics: Reconstructing Patristic and Medieval Concepts (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2009).

102

Chapter Seven

Fortunately the Roman Catholic Church is now seriously engaging this connectedness. This paper begins with an overview and discussion of recent Catholic Magisterial statements on ecological ethics. 3 It then brings together Catholic virtue theory and a “reading” of the sacred text of creation to propose an ecological virtue ethic. This re-articulation of Catholic virtue ethics can help the Church to recover from our period of lapsed attention. Contemporary Catholic ecological ethics debuted with Pope John Paul II’s 1990 “World Day of Peace” address.4 This magisterial work expresses the connections between poverty, war, and ecological exploitation and points to the Catholic social teaching (CST) principle of solidarity.5 This address firmly links our world’s many conflicts and injustices with our “lack of due respect for nature.” 6 He therefore praises our rising “ecological awareness” and demonstrates this awareness, noting that a “morally coherent world view is essential because we need solutions that will respond well to the interrelated nature of our many threats to peace.”7 This address identifies several specific consequences of humanity’s failure to be at peace with God:8 ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect, extreme “urban concentrations,” levels of energy consumption, “industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestrained deforestation, and the use of certain types of herbicides, coolants and propellants,” genetic manipulation of plant and animal life, and rising ocean levels.9 He calls for internationally coordinated action10 characterized by a “new solidarity”11

 3

For more on earlier work, see: Schaefer, Theological Foundations or any of Ilia Delio’s work on Bonaventure. 4 Pope John Paul II’s work continued in the 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus. See Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All of Creation, Vatican, January 1, 1990. 5 Some material from the following can also be found in Nancy M. Rourke, “A Catholic Virtues Ecology,” in Just Sustainability: Ecology, Technology, and Resource Extraction, Peppard, Christiana Z. and Andrea Vicini, CTWE, eds. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2015), 194-204; and Nancy M Rourke, “Prudence Gone Wild: Catholic Environmental Virtue Ethics,” Environmental Ethics: An Interdisciplinary Journal Dedicated to the Philosophical Aspects of Environmental Problems 33, no. 3 (September 1, 2011): 249-66. 6 Par 1. 7 Par 1 and 5. 8 Par 5. 9 Par 6 & 7. 10 Par 9. 11 Par 10.

Pope Francis’ Encyclical and Catholic Magisterial Statements

103

which includes good relations between industrialized and developing nations. War, structural poverty, and consumerism must be seriously addressed. In Centesimus Annus Pope John Paul II continues this call. Here he addresses quality of life and consumerism. His target is our pursuit of “‘having’ rather than ‘being’.” We pursue “having,” he argues, because of “anthropological error.” The error is this: we think we can “make arbitrary use of the earth, subjecting it without restraint to (our) will.” We forget that creation has “its own requisites and a prior God-given purpose. . . .”12 This is Pope John Paul II’s way of describing our tendency to presume that creation is entirely for and about humanity and that it is therefore infinitely moldable to our needs and desires. One example of this is our destruction of species’ habitats and the mass extinctions that follow. This is a problem because each species is needed. Each plays a role critical to “the balance of nature.” 13 This error has ecological, theological, social, and moral implications. Ignoring entirely both what our being is and what it means to be at all, we turn instead to grabbing, owning, and having. This desire inculcates a quality of life which is frantic, confusing, and frightening; a “poverty or a narrowness” of outlook.14 We end up scrambling for ways to protect ourselves from a better self-understanding. Pope John Paul II argues that we expend “too little effort . . . to safeguard the moral conditions of an authentic ‘human ecology’.” 15 Without an authentic human ecology, we “create a human environment” which “give(s) rise to specific structures of sin which impede the full realization of those who are in any way oppressed by them.”16 This kind of decision cuts people out of the dynamic interrelationalities of the human ecology and the social ecology, isolating them. People become “alienated” and humanity becomes a “resource.” 17 As ecology teaches us, isolation means death. This attention to ecological ethics was picked up by now Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI who earned the title “The Green Pope” for his development and amplification of what Pope John Paul II had begun. Pope Benedict XVI re-introduces the “human ecology” idea and develops it to integrate nonhuman nature and humanity more closely together. “Nature,

 12

Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus (Vatican, May 1, 1991), par 37. Par 38. 14 Par 37. 15 Centesimus Annus, par 38. 16 Centesimus Annus, par 38. 17 Par 41. 13



104

Chapter Seven

especially in our time, is so integrated into the dynamics of society and culture that by now it hardly constitutes an independent variable.”18 He notes as an example the multiple causal connections between desertification and poverty. He even reinforces this point with a parallel to humans’ moral character: “Just as human virtues are interrelated, such that the weakening of one places others at risk, so the ecological system is based on respect for a plan that affects both the health of society and its good relationship with nature.”19 Benedict devoted one of his annual World Day of Peace addresses to ecological ethics. His consistent ecological awareness worked rapidly to re-acclimate the Church to thinking about ecological issues as theological. Pope Benedict’s method was to show what Catholic social teaching (CST) means for ecological ethics. Since his efforts, theologians have developed this further and I will also follow his lead by both summarizing some of how CST has been applied to ecological ethics and then extending CST’s ecological implications somewhat. CST consists of several interacting, interdependent, and theological principles whose cooperative effort makes CST what it is. Elsewhere I consider several of these principles.20 Here I will focus on three: the universal destination of goods, solidarity, and participation. The universal destination of goods asserts that environmental elements and social goods have sacred purpose.21 The theological character of this CST principle is easy to see. With this principle, the creator created everything with purpose. God’s reasons for our existence are authoritative. These purposes ought to influence how we relate to all the other humans, all forms of life, and the abiotic elements that comprise our environments. Life’s universal destination is God’s purpose. When brought to ecological ethics, this principle explodes with meaning. Ecology reminds us that we are the way we are (as bipeds, oxygen breathers, society-builders, tool users, etc.) because of our environments.

 18

The term “human ecology” is also a term used in sociology to refer to the study of human persons and institutions. See Pope Benedict XVI, “Message for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace 2007” (Vatican, January 1, 2007), par. 8 and Caritas in Veritate (June 29, 2009), par 51 and his “Message to the Brazilian Bishops for the 2011 Lenten Ecumenical Brotherhood Campaign in Brazil” (Vatican, February 16, 2011). 19 Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (June 29, 2009), par 51. 20 See my Wild Catholic Ethics: A Virtues Ecology (forthcoming). 21 Pontifical Council For Justice And Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (USCCB Publishing, March 7, 2005), 171f.

Pope Francis’ Encyclical and Catholic Magisterial Statements

105

We fit. We co-evolved with everything around us, without and within us. The principle amplifies our awareness of interconnectedness. This interrelatedness is definitive of life itself. As organic beings what we are IS interconnectedness. Without community there is no ecology, no life. This means that purpose, in the eyes of the sacred, cannot be pulled apart from the purpose of all creation. Solidarity is also both an ethical principle and a fact of life. It both describes and prescribes. 22 As a descriptor, solidarity means that interrelationality exists. This is an ecological sort of observation. The moral prescription follows: we ought to respond to our interrelationality. Solidarity is both reality and response to reality. More useful than a basic definition, perhaps, is this description of the “feel” of solidarity: It “expresses . . . the need to recognize in the composite ties that unite men (sic) and social groups among themselves, the space given to human freedom for common growth in which all share and in which they participate.” 23 Solidarity requires us to ensure “that nothing is lacking in the common cause” and to seek “points of possible agreement where attitudes of separation and fragmentation prevail. It translates into the willingness to give oneself for the good of one’s neighbor, beyond any individual or particular interest.”24 It means being aware of the ways in which we are indebted to (all!) others. 25 Mutual indebtedness is a very ecological concept! Solidarity values differentness; the otherness of others is good. 26 Solidarity therefore asks that we ensure that structures exist which deliberately “offer marginalized persons a genuine voice in decisions.”27 Theologian Maureen O’Connell warns that solidarity can be twisted into a cliché, or worse, a reinforcement of exactly those economic, social,

 22

Gerald J. Beyer, “The Meaning of Solidarity in Catholic Social Teaching,” Political Theology 15, no. 1 (2014), 7–25: 15. 23 Pontifical Council, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, par. 194. 24 Ibid, 194. 25 Ibid, 195. 26 Nichole M. Flores, “Latina/o Families: Solidarity and the Common Good,” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 33, no. 2 (September 2013): 57–72, 68. See also Kristin E. Heyer, Kinship Across Borders: A Christian Ethic of Immigration (Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press, 2012), 114. 27 Russell Butkus, “Solidarity: Does the Modern Catholic Rights Tradition Have Anything to Offer Environmental Virtue Ethics?” Environmental Ethics 37 (Summer 2015): 169–86, 176.



106

Chapter Seven

political, and racial dynamics that solidarity’s spirit aims to destroy. 28 Solidarity is possible only when our community awareness is intact, keen, and honest. This awareness must include an accurate and effective understanding of humanity’s structures of power. Intellectual work and imagination are needed for this kind of awareness.29 Solidarity is particularly important for those of us in the U.S. Our industrial, economic, and political practices contribute disproportionately to climate change30 and we have impeded global efforts to minimize the resulting damage. Differentiated moral responsibilities require us to take solidarity seriously. This is the central message of Pope Benedict XVI’s 2010 World Day of Peace address.31 Those who are most vulnerable to the accompanying threats and disasters of climate change have neither participated in nor benefitted from the practices that are changing our climate. Therefore, solidarity asks that we suffer with those who suffer. Why would suffering come from recognizing our interconnectedness? It follows because with that recognition of interrelationality comes a realization of the ways in which our lifestyles (including all kinds of decisions and assumptions that many Americans are accustomed to thinking of as amoral, like diet and means of transportation) deeply wound, kill, and squelch future life for others. The sources and rate of our energy use, the physical structures of our dwellings, 32 our means of entertainment and leisure—these practices create ripple effects around the globe and through

 28

Maureen H. O’Connell, “The Dance of Open Minds and Hearts: Aesthetic Solidarity as Antidote to an Anemic Solidarity,” Political Theology 15, no. 1 (2014): 74–87. 29 O’Connell, “The Dance,” 80. 30 For example recently published findings about the sources of global methane emissions indicate that 30-60 percent of the past decade’s “global growth of atmospheric methane” could have come from the United States. See A. J. Turner et al., “A Large Increase in U.S. Methane Emissions Over the Past Decade Inferred from Satellite Data and Surface Observations,” Geophysical Research Letters 43, no. 5 (March 16, 2016): 2218-2224: 2218. 31 Pope Benedict XVI, “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation” (Vatican, January 1, 2010). 32 For more on this (particularly suburbia), see David Cloutier’s lecture on “Our Catholic Faith and Action” at A Catholic Consultation on Environmental Justice and Climate Change: Assessing Pope Benedict XVI's Ecological Vision for the Catholic Church in the United States (11/2012). https://youtu.be/Z8WO0UWQJVs?t=27m45s).

Pope Francis’ Encyclical and Catholic Magisterial Statements

107

all species. Solidarity fundamentally requires us to know something of the harmful effects that result. Solidarity with nonhuman nature engages our imagination, helping us get better at recognizing the ways we are embedded in the world and indebted to our neighboring life-forms. Growth in solidarity might manifest in a slowly dawning realization of the suffering of nonhuman animals in a factory farming food system. It can grow as we count up the number of assumptions we make without noticing whenever we turn on a faucet, fill a glass, raise it to our lips, and drink whatever is in it. Imagination and tolerance for ambiguity give solidarity room to develop.33 Solidarity is hard. For those of us who are, as one TV character once said, “rich, free, and alive, all at the same time,”34 solidarity threatens our comfort, ease, and sleep. The good news is that pushing ourselves to ingest the honest realities of our power structures will help us escape a form of our own self-inflicted suffering. This is the anxiety, the fear of plenty and excess, or what Maureen O’Connell insightfully calls “the literal and figurative white-knuckled grip on our lives” which “keeps us isolated in our socially constructed preferences for defensive individualism.” 35 Solidarity threatens the lie of our independence and isolation and it can bring us the truth of community, meaning, and an unprecedented belonging. The CST principle of participation traditionally asserts the human right and duty to take part in all aspects of social life because we are social beings who require that for our fulfillment. 36 We also have a duty to encourage those who have been impeded to participate in the ways that they need and we need. It means re-clearing pathways and making room. In human realms, the ecological principle of participation requires that we ensure that opportunities exist for all to take part directly in growing and preparing food. It means that the methods by which we grant an industry permission to function near where people live should allow and encourage those residents’ responses to the industry’s proposed plans in meaningful ways. 37 Participation absolutely requires that people have

 33

O’Connell, “The Dance,” 81. This kind of curiosity avoids dualisms and respects (even appreciates) complexity. 34 Lord John Marbury, in Aaron Sorkin, “He Shall, From Time to Time . . .” West Wing (Warner Brothers, 2000). 35 O’Connell, “The Dance,” 79. 36 Compendium, 189. 37 A “meaningful way” does not mean offering an outlet for residents to voice concerns. It requires an investigation to learn their thoughts in earnest and to take





108

Chapter Seven

access to accurate and comprehensible information about the ecosystems within which they live, including water, air and soil quality and composition, natural and social history, and the chemical makeup of abiotic presences in their proximity. Present practices of privileging corporate secrets over this kind of knowledge violate several CST principles, including participation. Human participation requires opportunities to know about our ecosystems. Participation is a very ecological concept with great potential for development as CST continues to turn to ecological ethics. All forms of life participate in ecosystems and this is what keeps us all alive. Participation is inevitable for living beings. Ecologically speaking, participation is required for any and all life. This seems obvious but many of the practices we employ to feed ourselves in the U.S. minimize or prevent species’ ecological participation. Monocrops and animal factory farming aspire to a degree of control that view fields as factories and animals as cogs in machines. But plants and animals are living beings that must be able to participate in their ecosystems. The animals we breed, drug, and contain indoors have the capacity to enjoy, to seek out tasty food and warm sunlight and even, according to Christianity’s own sacred text, to praise or call out to the sacred in their own ways. 38 Our efforts to impede these forms of participation leave us scrambling to replace, supplement, correct, and reengineer facsimiles of what ends up missing. Soil death is a consequence of industrial agriculture. Chickens act self-destructively because of their life conditions in factory farms and we compensate by restraining and mutilating them. Pigs are social creatures who suffer as a result of the lives they lead on large farms, so we treat the physiological effects of this suffering with genetically modified feed. We need to regain our recognition that all species need to participate in their ecosystems and that ecosystems need this participation. We will not be able to replicate the cycles of life of these species and their communities but we could re-learn how to work with them. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s efforts to “green” the Church extended well beyond this application of CST.39 As we now know his groundwork

 those thoughts not merely as factors to counterbalance against potential customers’ desires. It means hearing local residents’ input as a way to understand the place itself and to know what that place might become with the new industry’s arrival. 38 See Luke 19:40. 39 See for example “Vatican Installs Solar Panel Roof,” BBC, September 29, 2008, sec. Europe, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7642811.stm (accessed 4/11/2016)



Pope Francis’ Encyclical and Catholic Magisterial Statements

109

in fertilizing Catholic ecological awareness was to explode into an unimagined harvest for his successor. In 2015 Pope Francis issued the first entirely ecological Catholic encyclical, Laudato Si’. This inspiring document, officially promulgated on Pentecost Sunday of 2015, 40 is a lengthy pastoral discussion of the roots and fruit of ecological ethics and theology. Laudato Si’, divided into six chapters, first describes our global ecological changes, addresses how and why Church and science should be in dialogue, and then explains the spiritual roots of anthropogenic climate change and ecological degradation. In the fourth chapter the document explains the “integral ecology” that is required of us right now. Chapter five points out what still must be done. The final chapter resounds the call for change in our lifestyle, understanding, and awareness. Many of the points raised by Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II are echoed in this encyclical. The vulnerable and the poor already suffer from bearing the brunt of climate change. Those of us living in wealthy contexts have a debt to the poor who lack access to safe water. Our planet’s many species are not just “resources” but have value in themselves. Looking again to Genesis, the document reminds us of the Roman Catholic tradition of seeing creation as a revelation of God. We must understand ourselves correctly to understand ecology correctly.41 Many new thoughts and ideas also appear. Pope Francis names our fragmentation of knowledge itself as a part of the problem. This fragmentation impedes our ability and willingness to see or appreciate the whole. He also develops the “human ecology” call of the previous two popes with his call for an “integral ecology.” What does this mean? This is a call for ecological awareness and for us to consciously re-integrate our selves into this gift of creation. Pope Francis’ call for ecological awareness begins with his warning that climate change demonstrates a need for a “profound internal conversion.” Some Christians ridicule others for their concern for ecological ethics, he notes, while others are passive. Conversion for both is needed. “Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of

 and “‘Green’ Pope Presented with Electric Car,” BBC News, September 6, 2012, sec. Europe, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19508637 (accessed 4/11/2106). 40 The significance of this date is that Pentecost is celebrated as the “birthday” of the Christian Church. 41 Laudato Si’, par 119.



110

Chapter Seven

our Christian experience.”42 With this, Pope Francis reiterates emphatically the connections between Christian faith and ecological awareness. This argument powerfully counters a Christian tendency to think of eternal life with God as a better thing than this life. When we think that way we act like someone who has been given a gorgeous, creative, powerful birthday gift and instead of appreciating and caring for the gift, neglect it or wreck it because they are hoping for something better next year! In truth, this gift, this creation, is all we need to be happy, whole, and in communion with God. We’ve been given amazing neighbors—dogs, trees, birds, fish, vegetables, and so many fruits!—everything we need to be led to the gift-giver, God. Ecological awareness enhances this ecological appreciation. Laudato Si’ frequently lifts up “attitudes” like honesty, responsibility, sobriety, humility, innocence, self-control, willingness to learn, and gratitude. The encyclical gives no technical definition of “attitude” but we can say that an attitude is a kind of inclination. It is somewhat imperceptible because it influences our way of interpreting our worlds but it is also quite visible through the responses we tend to give to what we encounter. Attitude appears in our “gut reaction,” our first assumptions. Even when not displayed, it is still present as a baseline. Attitude is a trait and it is habitual. In many ways it is very much like a virtue. So Pope Francis’ call for an integral ecology sounds like a call for virtue—specifically for the virtue of ecological awareness. This integral ecology is a human habit of deliberately contextualizing our selves and our interactions within our many environments (social, religious, ecological, political, economic, etc.).43 It is therefore responsive to what we and other lives create and need. The integral ecology is both our awareness of interrelationality and our renewed and attentive integration within all our spheres of interrelationality. It inspires us to ask questions like this: “What need does creation have of us?”44 This is not just an intellectual exercise. The radical connectedness required by an integral ecology “includes taking time to recover a serene harmony with creation, reflecting on our lifestyle and our ideals, and contemplating the creator who lives among us

 42

Laudato Si’, par 220. I am grateful to Dr. Dan Delio (recently minted doctoral recipient of theology at Boston College and project manager at Catholic Climate Covenant in Washington DC) who in a private conversation helped me to think through this definition. 44 Laudato Si’, par 160 43

Pope Francis’ Encyclical and Catholic Magisterial Statements

111

and surrounds us. . . .”45 The integral ecology is both a participation in our global connections and the contemplation of these connections themselves. If the Magisterium is calling for an ecological virtue ethic, we can begin here by drawing on one small area of the study of creation. This paper will now take systems ecology as a way of “reading” the text of creation. This paper therefore empowers systems ecology to shape Catholic virtue theory. Roman Catholicism affirms human efforts to “read” the book of creation. Catholic theology’s fondness for natural law ethics is well known. “Natural law” is a practice of looking to creation in order to understand something about its creator. This tradition goes back to Thomas Aquinas; to the early Church fathers; to Jesus’ way of looking to lilies, fish, and stones in order to say things about God and about God’s land; to Antigone. But we also must avoid the “naturalistic fallacy”46 to which Natural Law ethics is uniquely vulnerable. Holmes Rolston III summarized this problem: “Offered an imitative ethical sense of following nature, we observe, first, that nature is not a moral agent and therefore really cannot be followed; and secondly, that there are elements in nature which, if we were to transfer them to interhuman conduct in culture, would be immoral and therefore ought not be imitated.” On the other hand, he adds: “(D)oes it follow that nature is therefore bad, a savage realm without natural goods?”47 No. Rolston recommends we contemplate “wild nature.” After all, “Wild nature provides our sole contact with worth independent of human activity. Wild nature has a kind of integrity, and we are poorer if we do not recognize and enjoy it.” 48 So this is work worth doing and indeed “reading” creation is unavoidable if one is going to do ecological ethics. First let’s review the theory we aim to “draw into” systems ecology. Virtue ethics believes that as we act we exercise certain moral characteristics, like virtues and vices. A virtue is a good trait, a habit, strength, a tendency, or a well-balanced “element” of a person’s or a society’s moral character. When a characteristic that could be a virtue is

 45

Ibid., par 225. This term refers to a logical error that assumes that nature or creation is a standard of how we (humans) ought to exist. It is a simple and easy conclusion about morality on the basis of observation of the natural world. 47 Holmes Rolston III, Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World, Ethics and Action, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988), 39. 48 Rolston III, Environmental Ethics, 40. 46



112

Chapter Seven

instead too weak or too emphatic it is a vice. A virtue is a right “amount,” degree, strength or presence of a characteristic it develops with practice. God also gives us virtues. The theological virtues (faith, hope, and love) in particular are infused by God into a person. There are also intellectual virtues and vices, and all these need each other to exist. Ecological virtue ethicists often name specific virtues that are particularly needed (like humility, attentiveness, frugality, and other “dirty” virtues). 49 But our purpose here is to bring virtue theory as a whole “into” creation as understood by systems ecology. Systems ecology studies ecosystems by looking at all the systems of interrelationality between, among, and within the participants in ecosystems, like bodies of water, bears, rock, grass, parasites, bees, worms, temperatures, chemicals, sunlight, etc. It notes and analyzes systems of energy exchange, nutrient cycles, the successions of organisms, etc. happening in a place.50 From lake to desert, ecosystems differ but they do share certain properties. These characteristics, which environmental philosopher Morito calls “underdetermined,” 51 are the tendencies (not “laws”) or patterns of ecosystems. Let’s look at a few of these. Ecosystems are resilient and self-sustaining.52 When they are healthy they do not “cause distress to neighboring systems,” and they have few



49 See Louke Van Wensveen, Dirty Virtues: The Emergence of Ecological Virtue Ethics (Humanity Books, 1999). See also Russell Butkus, “Solidarity: Does the Modern Catholic Rights Tradition Have Anything to Offer Environmental Virtue Ethics?,” Environmental Ethics 37 (Summer 2015): 169–86; Ronald D. Sandler and Philip Cafaro, eds., Environmental Virtue Ethics (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005); Ronald L. Sandler, Character and Environment: A Virtue-Oriented Approach to Environmental Ethics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007); and Philip Cafaro and Ronald Sandler, Virtue Ethics and the Environment (Springer, 2010). 50 For more see Douglas W. Larson, Cliff Ecology: Pattern and Process in Cliff Ecosystems, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000); Lawrence B. Slobodkin, A Citizen’s Guide to Ecology (New York, N.Y: Oxford University Press, 2003); Eugene Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology (Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company, 1953); and Howard T. Odum, Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-first Century: The Hierarchy of Energy (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007). 51 Bruce Morito, Thinking Ecologically: Environmental Thought, Values, and Policy (Halifax, NS: Fernwood Pub, 2002), 177. 52 Morito, Thinking, 170. The characteristics of ecosystems are sometimes debated as a part of discussions about what makes an ecosystem healthy. Ecosystems exhibit both change and stability. What’s healthy for a desert is not healthy for a



Pope Francis’ Encyclical and Catholic Magisterial Statements

113

enough “risk factors” to be able to survive over time. 53 Ecosystems’ adaptability, stability, and resilience are possible because of the many webs of interrelationalities functioning both within and between them. Ecosystems’ boundaries are porous and permeable. All ecosystems are open systems. Each ecosystem continually influences and is influenced by its neighboring ecosystems. “(S)eas, cities and savannahs have structures and processes that blend into adjacent nature, often without discontinuities. . . .”54 Boundaries within ecosystems are also porous. In fact, the difference between an ecosystem and its “subsystem” is only a matter of observation.55 This means that systems ecologists are always studying simultaneously an ecosystem and its subsystems and its broader context. When one chooses an ecosystem to study one automatically determines which levels of the system will become most visible. Christian ecological ethicist Kevin O’Brien calls this the tradeoff between scale and resolution.56 If we study a pond’s food systems we may easily see the effects of the water’s acidity but we might miss the consequences and causes of a visiting bird’s global migratory changes. If we examine numbers of one fish species over years we may notice a drop in a predator’s population but not the disappearance of the ash trees that border that pond. Our choice of scale in “reading” an area (lily pad, pond surface, forest) determines what we will notice and what we might miss. We cannot avoid this choice. The good news is that an order resonates across the scales of ecosystems. What happens inside a fish’s digestive system, in the fishes’ predators’ population densities, in the average annual temperature where the pond exists, and in the industrial regulations of a state 2000 miles away are all interrelated. We can mitigate the consequences of not seeing everything if we remember that what seems most obvious to us as we read an area is only most obvious because of the scale on which we’ve chosen to observe.

 forest. For more on defining ecosystem “health” see David Rapport, “Ecosystem Health: An Emerging Integrative Science,” in Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of Large-Scale Ecosystems, Connie L. Gaudet and Peter Calow, eds., NATO ASI Series 28 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1995), 5–31 or “What Constitutes Ecosystem Health?” in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 33, No. 1 (1989): 12-132. 53 Rapport, “What Constitutes Ecosystem Health,” 121. 54 H. Odum, Environment, Power, and Society, 59. 55 Howard Odum, Systems Ecology: An Introduction (New York: Wiley, 1983), 3. 56 Kevin O’Brien, An Ethics of Biodiversity: Christianity, Ecology, and the Variety of Life, (Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press, 2010), 79f.



114

Chapter Seven

Third: niches are important in ecosystems. A niche is a function or a role that a species or an individual occupies and performs. Eugene Odum explains: “The ecological niche . . . is the position or status of an organism within its community and ecosystem resulting from the organism’s structural adaptations, physiological responses, and specific behavior. . . . The ecological niche of an organism depends not only on where it lives but also on what it does.”57 This definition demonstrates that a niche is defined by its context. Organisms “adapt” and “respond” to their historic and current ecologic circumstances and that is the source of their “specific behavior.” A niche is the “space” where species’ and systems’ needs and roles meet.58 Generally speaking, greater complexity and diversity means more niches, which means greater resilience for the ecosystem. Through the death of member species, rotting, feeding, reproducing, cooperation, and competition in the places where they live (and have lived), the participants in an ecosystem respond to one another continually by the hour and across their generations. An ecosystem and its participants evolve together in mutual responsiveness. Each change in the ecosystem motivates further changes among all participants. In this way we can say that ecosystems self-organize. Perhaps some parallels between systems ecology and virtue theory are already apparent. Both look at communities of interaction participants that both shape and are shaped by these participants. Let’s look again at the systems ecology observations about ecosystems that I’ve named here. Ecosystems’ boundaries are porous; ecosystems are nested within one another; niches are filled by species, and in that way ecosystems selforganize. Does Catholic virtue theory recognize that the borders around and between moral character are porous? Yes. Infused virtues demonstrate this. God’s grace enters in and contributes to a moral character from “outside” the person.59 A Christian virtue theory therefore cannot view a moral character as an isolated entity. God’s free gifting of theological virtues and strengthening of moral virtues breaks any notion of a moral character as impervious to “external” influence and counters any tendency to value absolute autonomy in moral formation as some kind of ideal.

 57

Eugene Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology, (Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company, 1953), 15. 58 J. Baird Callicott, Thinking like a Planet: The Land Ethic and the Earth Ethic, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 92. 59 This happens through the theological virtues.

Pope Francis’ Encyclical and Catholic Magisterial Statements

115

Other circumstances of a human person’s life also seep into moral character. An episode or pattern of personal or structural violence marks our moral development. The shape of that mark is not predetermined (though some potential stages of response and development can be anticipated by disciplines like psychology). One of the many ways in which the violence of poverty, racism, and sexism harms persons is the impediments it piles onto a person’s ability to maintain a sense of security or self-esteem. Torture is designed to destroy a person. 60 Rape plays a similar role in war and war-like social contexts. Sexism in religions produces conditions that bolster misogyny. These experiences of violence have consequences in many “parts” of a person including moral development. Ecosystems are nested within one another, and moral characters are too. The moral character of a person’s societies influences that person’s moral character. These are very powerful influences even though, again, no simple predictions can be made about how a society’s moral character will affect that of an individual. An individual absorbs and reinforces the virtues of her societies in multiple ways. As individuals we internalize the values of surrounding social structures and experience these values within our bodies (in the form of healthy teeth or cancerous skin, for example) as well as non-physically. We participate in social structures and that participation changes us even as we influence those structures. The effects of participation in social structures are often underestimated by societies like mine with an extremely individualistic focus. We see ourselves as freely making decisions to do things, attributing our actions to the will and forgetting that we have merely chosen among the options our cultures offer. We notice easily our individual distinctiveness but we find it difficult to perceive how our contexts of cultures dictate the options that occur to us. The nested quality of moral character is an important reminder to Catholic virtue ethics, where the individual human person has been the focal unit of virtue ethics to the extent that we have often failed to attend to social justice.61



60 See Elaine Scarry, The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). 61 See for example the critique presented in Darryl Trimiew’s “Political Messiahs or Political Pariahs? The Problem of Moral Leadership in the Twenty-First Century,” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 30, no. 1 (2010): 63–78, 7970.



116

Chapter Seven

As psychologist Darcia Narvaez notes, “virtue is co-constructed by those around” us. 62 This co-construction takes place through social reinforcement and all manner of social, physical, spiritual, epigenetic, etc., conditions into which we are born and through which we pass. 63 Our virtues and vices jostle each other within our character in response to other’s development and in response to the “external” ecological and social environments through which we move. What about niches? As organisms and as social beings we fill and create niches within ecological and social contexts. Part of how we do this is through the shifting dynamics within our character. Virtues and vices occupy roles within our moral character and these respond to our contexts even as they motivate our responses to these contexts. Niche awareness in virtue theory gives us a new way to understand ourselves. It can pull us from our fixation on personal background narratives that constrict imagination or hope, empowering us to respond to and look for opportunities to orient ourselves toward health and flourishing. Understanding ourselves as niche-fillers also helps us to practice solidarity, including with nonhuman animals. We can navigate a situation while seeing ourselves primarily as a human person or as a specific “kind” of human person (like a mother, a pastor, a resident, or an educated citizen), but we can also see ourselves primarily as oxygen breathers, or as participants in the nitrogen cycle, as mammals, bipeds, water drinkers, carbon producers. These are niches we all occupy and our virtues help us to fill these niches well. Why is this important? As virtue theorist and psychologist Narvaez notes, “our heritage of human virtue will be incomplete” if we do not extend it “to the natural world—to all entities. . . .”64 She calls for “a sense of partnership,” as mammals within our “evolved developmental niche.”65 This will help us to remember many overlooked aspects of what we are as neighbors and co-evolvers of creation. This is how an ecologically attuned Catholic virtue theory, one good response to Pope Francis’ call for an

 62

Darcia Narvaez, “The Co-Construction of Virtue: Epigenetics, Development and Culture,” in Cultivating Virtue: Perspectives from Philosophy, Theology, and Psychology, Nancy E Snow, ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2015), 211. 63 Narvaez, “The Co-Construction of Virtue,” 253. Epigenetics looks at genes with awareness that they will be “expressed” or “activated” (or not) by experience. 64 Narvaez, “The Co-Construction of Virtue,” 267. 65 Narvaez, “The Co-Construction of Virtue,” 254.

Pope Francis’ Encyclical and Catholic Magisterial Statements

117

integral ecology, can contribute to ecological ethics and to Christian theology.

Bibliography Beyer, Gerald J. “The Meaning of Solidarity in Catholic Social Teaching.” Political Theology 15, no. 1 (2014): 7–25. Butkus, Russell. “Solidarity: Does the Modern Catholic Rights Tradition Have Anything to Offer Environmental Virtue Ethics?” Environmental Ethics 37 (Summer 2015): 169–86. Cafaro, Philip and Ronald Sandler. Dordrecht: Virtue Ethics and the Environment. Springer, 2010. Callicott, J. Baird. Thinking Like a Planet: The Land Ethic and the Earth Ethic. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Cloutier, David. “Our Catholic Faith and Action.” Paper presented at Catholic Consultation on Environmental Justice and Climate Change: Assessing Pope Benedict XVI’s Ecological Vision for the Catholic Church in the United States, Washington, D.C., November 11, 2012 (accessible here: https://youtu.be/Z8WO0UWQJVs?t=27m45s). Flores, Nichole. “Latina/o Families: Solidarity and the Common Good.” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 33, no. 2 (September 2013): 57–72. Heyer, Kristin E. Kinship Across Borders: A Christian Ethic of Immigration. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press, 2012. Larson, Douglas W. Cliff Ecology: Pattern and Process in Cliff Ecosystems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Morito, Bruce. Thinking Ecologically: Environmental Thought, Values, and Policy. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Pub, 2002. Narvaez, Darcia. “The Co-Construction of Virtue: Epigenetics, Development and Culture.” In Cultivating Virtue: Perspectives from Philosophy, Theology, and Psychology, edited by Nancy E. Snow, 251278. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2015. O’Brien, Kevin. An Ethics of Biodiversity: Christianity, Ecology, and the Variety of Life. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2010. O’Connell, Maureen H. “The Dance of Open Minds and Hearts: Aesthetic Solidarity as Antidote to an Anemic Solidarity.” Political Theology 15, no. 1 (2014): 74–87. Odum, Eugene. Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company, 1953. —. Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-first Century. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.



118

Chapter Seven

—. The Hierarchy of Energy. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. Odum, Howard. Systems Ecology: An Introduction. New York: Wiley, 1983. Pope Benedict XVI. “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation.” Vatican, January 1, 2010. https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en /messages/peace/documents/hf_benxvi_mes_20091208_xliii-worldday-peace.html. —. “Message for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace 2007.” Vatican, January 1, 2007. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/docu ments/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20061208_xl-world-day-peace_en.html. —. Caritas in Veritate (June 29, 2009). —. “Message to the Brazilian Bishops for the 2011 Lenten Ecumenical Brotherhood Campaign in Brazil” (Vatican, February 16, 2011). Pope Francis. Laudato Si’. Vatican, May 24, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/ en/encyclicals/documents/papafrancesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html. Pope John Paul II. Centesimus Annus. Vatican, May 1, 1991. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/ hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html. —. “World Day of Peace Address: Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All of Creation.” Vatican, January 1, 1990. https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/messages/peace/ documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace.html. Rapport, David. “Ecosystem Health: An Emerging Integrative Science.” In Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of Large-Scale Ecosystems, edited by Connie L. Gaudet and Peter Calow, 5-31. (NATO ASI Series 28) Berlin: Springer, 1995. —. “What Constitutes Ecosystem Health?” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 33, No. 1 (Autumn 1989): 120-132. Rolston III, Holmes. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988. Rourke, Nancy M. “A Catholic Virtues Ecology.” In Just Sustainability: Ecology, Technology, and Resource Extraction, edited by Christiana Z. Peppard and Andrea Vicini, 194-204. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2015. —. “Prudence Gone Wild: Catholic Environmental Virtue Ethics.” Environmental Ethics: An Interdisciplinary Journal Dedicated to the Philosophical Aspects of Environmental Problems 33, no. 3 (September 1, 2011): 249–66.

Pope Francis’ Encyclical and Catholic Magisterial Statements

119

Sandler, Ronald and Philip Cafaro, eds. Environmental Virtue Ethics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005. Sandler, Ronald. Character and Environment: A Virtue-Oriented Approach to Environmental Ethics. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. Scarry, Elaine. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Schaefer, Jame. Theological Foundations for Environmental Ethics: Reconstructing Patristic and Medieval Concepts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2009. Slobodkin, Lawrence B. A Citizen’s Guide to Ecology. New York, N.Y: Oxford University Press, 2003. Snow, Nancy E. Cultivating Virtue: Perspectives from Philosophy, Theology, and Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2015. Trimiew, Darryl M. “Political Messiahs or Political Pariahs? The Problem of Moral Leadership in the Twenty-First Century.” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 30, no. 1 (2010): 63–78. Turner, A.J., et al. “A Large Increase in U.S. Methane Emissions Over the Past Decade Inferred from Satellite Data and Surface Observations,” Geophysical Research Letters 43, no. 5 (March 16, 2016): 2218-2224. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. USCCB Publishing, March 7, 2005. Van Wensveen, Louke. Dirty Virtues: The Emergence of Ecological Virtue Ethics. Humanity Books, 1999. Warner, Keith Douglass. “Retrieving Saint Francis: Tradition and Innovation for Our Ecological Vocation.” In Green Discipleship: Catholic Theological Ethics and the Environment. Edited by Tobias Winright. 114-128. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic, 2011.



PART II IMPERATIVES FROM SACRED TEXTS AND TRADITION

CHAPTER EIGHT WHO WILL INHERIT GOD’S WORLD? THE RIGHTEOUS OF SURA 21 AND PSALM 37 BARBARA B. PEMBERTON1

Abstract: Only one verse in the Qur’an is clearly attributed to an earlier scripture. The Qur’an says in Sura 21:105: “Before this We wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses): ‘My servants, the righteous, shall inherit the earth,’” a quotation also found in Psalm 37:29. This paper will show that these verses offer complementary perspectives, exhorting adherents of both traditions to righteous living that includes working together to protect God’s world.

Introduction Judaism and Islam offer individuals an incentive to be righteous: a special location of peace and security. Of particular interest is the similarity of both the offer and its delivery—the communities actually sharing one verse of scripture. The Qur’an says in Sura 21:105: Before this We wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses): “My servants, the righteous, shall inherit the earth.”2

 1

Barbara Pemberton, Ph.D., Baylor University, is professor of Christian missions and director of the Carl Goodson Honors Program at Ouachita Baptist University. She lived in Saudi Arabia for over ten years and is a frequent conference leader and speaker on Islam and Christian-Muslim relations. Her other research and writing interests include comparative sacred texts, sacred space, and religious art and music. 2 Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary (Brentwood, MD: Amana Corp., 1983), 846. All references in this paper from the Qur’an are from the translation by Ali unless noted otherwise. This study begins with no presuppositions about origin or authorship of either discourse, and no assumptions



124

Chapter Eight

While many of the stories, personalities, and injunctions found throughout the Tanakh appear also within the Qur’an, only this verse is clearly attributed to the earlier scripture. Comparing Sura 21:105 and Psalm 37:29 reveals that both verses are set within a didactic passage contrasting the righteous and the wicked, both employing an “antithetical diptych” construction as a rhetorical strategy exhorting hearers/readers to faithful living.3 The diptych of Psalm 37 offers an explicit contrast; Sura 21 employs an apocalyptic setting, heightening the rhetoric. Within Judaism this contrast of righteous versus wicked extends to every aspect of behavior. 4 This same contrast is one “pervading the whole temper of Islamic religion.”5 Rhetorical criticism reveals important commonalities, asking: “Of what does [the text] seek to persuade?” and how?6 This investigation of “how” will include a sampling of the literary devices employed, though some elements such as rhyme are lost in translation. Concepts that have developed from the shared word-motifs “the righteous” and “land/earth” will disclose the content, or “what.” These elements combine to persuade the adherents to apply the message to their lives. The significance of this work lies in its potential value for interfaith understanding and dialogue on issues as diverse as sacred place and national home, the dilemma of the “dispossessed,” and global environmental challenges. Similar creation and earth-caretaker themes exhort adherents of both traditions to righteous

 of dependence or derivation. Investigation within the Islamic tradition will focus on the Sunni tradition, both classical and modern. Jewish research will focus on what Jacob Neusner labels “Classical Judaism” or “Judaism of the dual Torah” which is rabbinic, Talmudic, and classical because it has endured. See Jacob Neusner, Judaism in Modern Times: An Introduction and Reader (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1995.) 3 “Diptych” here means a literary piece with two contrasting elements. In his 2011 translation of the Qur’an, Muhamad Farooq-i-Azam Malik draws the direct comparison of Sura 21:105 and Psalm 37:29. See Muhammad Farooq-i-Azam Malik, English Translation of the Meaning of Al-Qur’an: The Guidance for Mankind (Houston, TX: The Institute of Islamic Knowledge, 2011). 4 Arthur Hertzberg, Judaism (New York: George Brazillier, 1962), 73-4. 5 Kenneth Cragg, The Event of the Qur’an: Islam in Its Scripture (Oxford: Oneworlde, 1994), 18. 6 William H. Bellinger, Jr., A Hermeneutic of Curiosity and Readings of Psalm 61 (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995), 71. Aristotle delivered the primary definition of rhetoric: “the art of discovering the best possible means of persuasion in regard to any subject whatever.” Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1.1.

Who Will Inherit God’s World?

125

living working together to protect the world—wisdom that honors God and his creation and benefits all humanity. The poetic Psalms make up part of what is called “wisdom literature” with its own particular vocabulary and distinct theme: “living successfully, with approval of God and man.”7 While the capacity to acquire wisdom is natural, it must be learned through instruction, and training, or counsel and persuasion.8 Both Jewish and Islamic scholars view the Psalms, or “Book of Praises,” as originally designed for the first hearers—the ancient Israelites—but offering timeless relevance. While not established within the text, Davidic authorship became part of the rabbinic tradition at an early date. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine a date of composition; however, the current trend in scholarship is to consider the Psalms pre-exilic. 9 The received Hebrew text is “virtually identical” in content and orthography to the Massadah Scrolls, meaning that the Psalms has a “traceable history” of over two millennia.10 The Islamic community has its own relationship to the Psalter, recognizing the zabur of David as part of the accumulated guidance from God, still extant though thought probably to have been altered considerably.11 Sura 17:55 states: “We have preferred some Prophets over others; and We gave to David Psalms.” Islam regards the Dawud of the Qur’an as both prophet and the historical Kind David of the ancient nation of Israel who received from God the Psalms “intended to be sung for the worship of God and the celebration of God’s praise.”12

 7

Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971 ed., s.v. “Wisdom; Wisdom Literature.” The English word “Psalms” seems to have come from the Hebrew word mizmor— meaning “singing” or “chanting,” with or without accompaniment; “to celebrate.” The recognized Hebrew rabbinic title for the book is Sefer Tehillim, See Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971 ed. s.v. “Book of Psalms.” 8 Ibid., 560. 9 William H. Bellinger, Jr., Psalms: Reading and Studying the Book of Praises (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990), 17. 10 “Book of Psalms,” 1317. 11 Ali, 232. The Qur’an, recognizing only three sections of biblical literature: the Torah of Moses, the Injil of Jesus, and the Psalms of David, confirms these messages by mandating that faith be placed in all of the Books and prophets. 12 Ibid., 709. The Prophet Muhammad understood the plural Arabic word zubur of the Qur’an to refer to all of the revealed books (Q. 26:196, 35:25); however, qur’anic use of the singular zabur occurs always in association with the psalms.



126

Chapter Eight

Psalm 37 One of eight acrostic poems in the psalter, Psalm 37 appears to be a random collection of twenty-two proverbs arranged in alphabetical order; however, the acrostic format discloses an obvious pedagogical strategy. The first word of each stanza begins with consecutive letters of the Hebrew alphabet, providing an instructive mnemonic device.13 The basic stanza length is four lines, with the exceptions of verses 14-15 (six lines), and verses 25-26 (five lines). This tightly woven aphoristic format leaves little space for descriptive elaboration. This nearly perfect acrostic is missing the required word to begin verse 28 to introduce the ‘ayin stanza, an omission considered by most scholars an error in copying. Amended, verses 28c-29 state: [His faithful ones] are preserved forever, while the children of the wicked will be cut off. The righteous shall inherit the land, and abide forever in it.14

The acrostic format of Psalm 37 makes the boundaries of this rhetorical unit easy to establish. The beginning and ending form a loose envelope structure or “frame”; the psalm begins with an implied rhetorical question, “Why do the wicked prosper?” and ends with a response. In between are interlaced a “catalogue of characteristics” and the eventual fates of “the righteous” and “the wicked.” While the stanzas offer no apparent progression of thought or development of sapiential instruction, the keywords “land/earth” and “righteous” provide cumulative thematic unity. The forty verse, twenty-two strophe didactic psalm appears as a “continuous whole”15; however, the psalmist does employ a mood shift, with the first nine verses in the imperative, the rest in the indicative, a common practice of Israel’s sages.16 The ‘ayin stanza displays an unusual

 13

Harry M. Orlinsky, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry: Considered with Special Reference to the Criticism and Interpretation of the Old Testament (N.Y.: KTAV Publishing House, 1972), 244. 14 Psalter quotes are from the Jewish Publication Society translation of 1985. The Septuagint emends the beginning to read “the lawless are banished” in order to restore both the missing ‘ayin and the synonymous parallelism within the stanza. 15 J.W. Rogerson and J.W. McKay, Psalms 1-50 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 170. 16 James Luther Mays, Psalms (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994), 159.

127

Who Will Inherit God’s World?

word order: subject-verb-object, departing from the normal Hebrew word order of verb-object-subject. The diptych of Psalm 37 may be diagrammed as follows: Admonitions: v 1 do not be vexed

Diptych A-Wicked

Diptych B-Righteous

v 2 evil men, wrongdoers vv 3-7

trust, do good seek Lord’s favor be patient v 9a evil men (will be cut off) v 9b look to the Lord (will inherit the Land) v 11 lowly (will inherit the Land) v 12-15 wicked vv 16-17 contrast: wicked—upright

upright vv 18-19 blameless

v 20 Lord v21 cursed

wicked, enemies of wicked

vv 23-24 theological vv 25-26 testimony + v 27 depart from evil v 28a theological +

v 21 righteous blessed righteous faithful, righteous

v 28b wicked v 29 righteous (will inherit the Land) v 32 wicked v 33 theological v 34 look for the Lord, keep His way vv 34b-36 wicked v 37

blameless upright

v 38 transgressors, wicked vv 39-40 righteous



128

Chapter Eight

The interplay of figurative and literal language using antithetical parallelism creates something of a “see-saw” effect juxtaposing the righteous versus the wicked. Standard sapiential forms feature throughout—the most elemental in verses 1-2: two prohibitions with a motivation clause introduced by the emphatic particle ki, “for”: “Do not be vexed . . . for [the wicked] soon wither like grass.” 17 Motive clauses provide a crucial rhetorical element emphasizing the connection between deed and consequence. 18 Verses 27-28 contain two admonitions: “shun evil and do good,” also followed by a motivation clause: “for the Lord loves what is right, He does not abandon His faithful ones.” Verse 16 features a “better saying,” a self-evident proverb: “Better the little that the righteous man has than the great abundance of the wicked.” Repetition plays a dominant role both in structure and word use, with “wisdom words” such as “evil” and “good” appearing repeatedly. The first verse raises an implied rhetorical question: “Do not be vexed . . .” which in essence asks: “How can you, O God, permit such a thing?” The persuasive psalmist appeals to generally accepted principles and values, desires and experiences, then ultimately delivers an emotional appeal: threatening punishment and disaster. Verse 38 warns that “transgressors shall be utterly destroyed; the future of the wicked shall be cut off.”19 Psalm 37 contains numerous similes reflecting conventional images: “wither like the grass,” “fade away like verdure.” Antithetical to these similes is the “security” “in the land” which would include abundance. Verse 3 offers “Trust in the Lord and do good, abide in the land, and remain loyal.” The “broken arms of the wicked,” in verses 16 and 17, express metaphorically the disablement of the wicked so they can no longer work to acquire “abundance.” The psalmist employs the typical wisdom device of “autobiographical stylization,” a testimony exhorting the student to trust God. 20 Other characters include “the righteous” and “the wicked.” God is portrayed as omniscient (37:13, 18) and ultimately omnipotent. Recognizing that God will eventually intervene gives comfort, even though justice may not



17 On the particle ki, see James Muilenburg, “The Linguistic and Rhetorical Useages of the Particle Ki in the Old Testament,” HUCA 37(1961): 153. 18 Walter Brueggeman, The Message of the Psalms (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984), 43. 19 Claus Westermann, The Psalms: Structure, Content, and Message, Ralph D. Gehrke, trans., (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1980), 112. 20 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59: A Commentary, Hilton C. Oswald, trans., (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988), 404, 408.

Who Will Inherit God’s World?

129

prevail in the present. The psalm explains that the ground of all blessings is the “love” of God who “loves what is right and does not abandon His faithful ones” (37:28). Psalm 37 moves from question through warnings and motivations to an “answer” or “goal”: convincing the hearer/reader to choose the righteous life. In this “loose envelope” form, the end formally echoes the beginning. The repeated antithetical juxtaposition ends with the formulaic: the wicked “will be cut off”—an end to the wicked’s offspring. This implicit image of death powerfully communicates the ultimate hopelessness of the wicked.21 The preservation of name and family line into the future “approximates to immortality for the ancient Israelites. . . . Hence childlessness or death of descendants was a great disaster, virtually amounting to personal annihilation.”22 Divine protection for the righteous includes the covenantal image of the land as an inheritance for descendants (Genesis 17:7-8). While the concluding “forever” seems to offer security, it may also mean “completely” or “totally.” Neither understanding necessarily implies a personal afterlife; however, the future tense renders the passage somewhat eschatological in nature. 23 The psalmist locates God’s blessings in “the land,” the unifying motif of Psalm 37. Enjoyment of the land and passing it on to one’s descendants was the fulfillment of God’s promised protection and justice. While emphasizing contrasting life styles and the terrible consequences of evil, the real thrust of Psalm 37 is the inevitable intervention of the living God in the lives of people. The audience is not exhorted to trust in retributive justice, but in God. In this way the psalm nurtures faith and faithful living.

Sura 21, “The Prophets” While Sura 69:40-43 rejects the label “poetry” for the Qur’an, it still may be regarded as a didactic divine discourse of a “compact, often elliptical, quasi-poetic style.” 24 Sura 21, “The Prophets,” is considered Meccan with characteristic themes: 1) the unity of Allah, 2) resurrection



21 Willem A. Van Gemeren, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 5, PsalmsSong of Songs, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 304. 22 Rogerson and McKay, 179. 23 J. Clinton McCann, Jr., “Psalms,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 4 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 828. 24 Marilyn Robinson Waldman, “New Approaches to ‘Biblical’ Materials in the Qur’an,” The Muslim World 75 (January 1985), 5.



130

Chapter Eight

and judgment, and 3) righteous living.25 An eschatological motif of the inevitability of judgment pervades the sura: righteousness and truth eventually triumph. Sura 21 contains no superscript mystical letters, but is prefaced with the formulaic bismalah: “In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful” then moves from warning through exemplary lives of prophets to another appeal with heightened imagery. The sura may be divided into 7 sections; the last, verses 94-112, contains the verse under our consideration.26 The antithetical diptych structure, the righteous (vs. 94, 101-3, and 105-6) versus the wicked, or unbelievers (vs. 95-100), emphasizes two “ways” of life, with no third alternative. This section exhorts the individual to good deeds, for, after judgment, there is no further help or repentance. The righteous need not fear, for they will inherit a “new world” as promised in all earlier prophecies and ultimately in the Qur’an.27 In this diptych convention the two “panels” need not be the same length, but serve as counterbalances forming “an intricate artistic unity.”28 Verse 105 may be translated: Before this We wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses): “My servants, the righteous, shall inherit the earth.”

This last section of Sura 21 may be dissected rhetorically as follows: Eschatology v 94 diptych A1—righteousness and faith v 95 allusion to those destroyed v 96 evocation of known event—God and Magog v 97 prelude + diptych B—unbelievers + woe formula

 25

Ahmad von Denffer, ‘Ulnjm al-Qur’Ɨn: An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an, (The Islamic Foundation, 1983), 85. 26 Neal Robinson categorizes the structure of this sura as an example of a neatly tripartite sura, the first and last parts typically polemic-eschatological (sections 14, and section 7) with a narrative middle section (sections 5-6). This view suggests what may be considered a “loose envelope” structure—the end echoing the beginning. Neal Robinson, Discovering the Qur’an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text, (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1996), 149. 27 Yusuf Ali, 843-4. 28 Robinson, 174.

Who Will Inherit God’s World?

131

Polemic v 98 proceeding + warning v 99 theological statement v 100 diptych B—unbelievers Eschatology vv 101-3 diptych A2—those with good record + promise v 104 creation sign + promise Revelation v 105 previous scripture + divine quote vv 106-7 status of the Message Messenger v 108 Messenger “Say” + affirmation of authenticity of Message vv 109-11 “Say” + warning v 112a “Say” + prayer v 112b concluding directive The Qur’an often features rhythmic embellishments, curious constructions, or stylistic aberrations all considered rhetorically motivated deviations from the normal Arabic usage. However, this highly apocalyptic passage within S. 21 is fairly straightforward, containing the often-repeated elements of “impending cosmic catastrophe, the judgment, paradise and hell.”29 The diptych is introduced by the formulaic syntactical device of “whoever . . . but whoever,” abbreviated to “Whoever . . . but . . .” that often introduces the antithetical: those who produce an “atom’s weight of good” versus an “atom’s weight of evil.”30 A rhetorical reference to a “known event” occurs in verses 95-6, employing a biblical allusion to the destruction of Sodom. Verses 98-100 provide a brief polemic against polytheism, with graphic imagery intensifying the rhetoric. Verse 100 warns this situation will continue forever with divine speech leaving little room for ambiguity as to the agent of condemnation, for God declares the wicked will “surely come” to Hell. Verse 101 shifts back to the righteous and repeats the assurance that the good they do is permanently recorded on their behalf, with positive eschatological imagery of “the Day” motif promising a new creation for believers. Verse 102 assures the righteous will not be disturbed by sounds



29 Robinson, 103. The qur’anic outline follows the example of work done by Neal Robinson. (See Discovering the Qur’an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1996). 30 Ibid., 105-6.



132

Chapter Eight

from hell and suggests that the righteous may choose their reward in some regard.31 Verse 103 dramatically juxtaposes their “Day” with the “Great Terror.” This divine apostrophe promises the righteous will face an angelic greeting, not horror. The simile of “rolling up the heavens like a scroll” gives rhetorical evidence of divine omnipotence, while the creation sign within this verse affirms resurrection: “Even as We produced the first Creation, so shall We produce a new one.” Verse 105 identifies this promise as part of the prophetic message given to Moses and also revealed by God in the zabur (Psalms), a rhetorical device affirming the status of the Message as related to previous scripture. Most commentators interpret al-ard in this passage eschatalogically: “the land of Paradise.” Referring back to the “forever” of Psalm 37:29, the passage must mean “Paradise” which alone is “forever.” 32 Prophetic discourse begins again in verse 108 following the formulaic imperative “Say.” This “revelation” section contains the often-repeated affirmation of the Unity of God and divine inspiration of the Message. Another warning to those who do not believe is followed by a closing divinely summoned prayer: “Say, O my Lord! Judge Thou in Truth!” Judgment is inevitable. Figurative language features throughout, such as the simile in verse 31 which describes the creation of the mountains with broad highway passes in between, actually referring to God’s provision of guidance for humankind. Paired contrasting elements—night and day, sun and moon— prepare for the contrast of the righteous versus the wicked.33 The ellipsis in verse 21 offers conciseness and brevity: “Or have they taken gods from the earth who can raise?” which may be read “Or have they taken (for worship) gods from the earth who can raise (the dead)?” The pleonasm in verse 104 makes it emphatic: “a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfill it.” The speaker of this sacred didactic discourse is God himself, often changing pronominal case in adjacent sentences or even within the same verse for emphasis as in verse 25: “Not an apostle did We send before thee without this inspiration sent by Us to him: that there is no god but I;

 31

Tadabbure Qur’an, Vol. IV, p. 331; quoted in Anwer Syed Ali, Qur’an: The Fundamental Law of Human Life: Text, Translation, and Commentary, vol. 9 (Karachi, Pakistan: Hamdard Foundation Press, 1994), 284-5. 32 Anwer Ali, 287. 33 Robinson, 33.

Who Will Inherit God’s World?

133

therefore worship and serve Me.”34 Sura 21 reveals God in many ways including creator (vs. 16, 30-33, 104), owner of all (v. 19), provider (v. 44), deliverer (v. 88), judge (v. 112), and destroyer (v. 6). In verse 105 God quotes himself: “before this We wrote in the Psalms . . .” The dramatic nature of the Qur’an serves the homiletic purpose of arguing God’s case. Muhammad is the official recipient of the Qur’an, while through him God ultimately speaks to all humankind. The righteous are characterized as those who “do right” and fear the Lord (vs. 48-9) and have faith (v. 88). Terms used to label the wicked include: wrong-doers (vs. 1-3), unbelieving population (v. 6), and those who blaspheme (v. 36). Vivid qur’anic retribution imagery repeatedly underscores the theme of impending judgment, verse 47 clearly defining the inevitable. The eschatological symbolism found in Sura 21 “resolves the seeming inequities of life as it is actually lived (in which evil seems to prosper) by reflecting a divinelyruled society in which evil gets its proper ‘reward.’”35 To summarize, rhetorical investigation of Psalm 37: 28-9 and Sura 21:105 reveals that both are set in didactic passages structured in an “antithetical diptych” form, and are oriented toward the future to varying degrees. Both passages use similar poetic devices. Next, two unifying word-motifs—“the righteous” and “the land/earth” will be considered.

Word-motifs: The Righteous Who are the righteous, the zaddikim, of Psalm 37, and God’s salih servants of Sura 21? The psalmist, or wisdom teacher, provides instruction for those who would be righteous including trusting in the Lord and doing good (v. 3), being humble (v. 11), being gracious and giving (v. 21b), shunning evil (v. 27), promoting justice (v. 28), speaking what is right (v. 30), and keeping God’s way (v. 34). The psalmist also identifies “the righteous” by way of contrast—the righteous versus the wicked who are evil men and wrong-doers (v 1), those who scheme against the needy and “slaughter those who are upright” (v 14), enemies of the Lord (v. 20), and transgressors (v. 38).

 34

W. Montgomery Watt, Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an, revised (Edinburgh: University Press, 1970), 65. 35 Andrew Rippin, “The Commerce of Eschatology,” in The Qur’an as Text, Stefan Wild, ed., (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), 126.



134

Chapter Eight

Judaism teaches humans are born with a moral “clean slate.” While by nature people lean toward goodness, righteousness is not an “inherent characteristic”—it must be learned by each individual. Righteous acts enrich everyone, for every moral deed adds to the “worth and value of the existence of the world.” Throughout the Tanakh the term “righteousness” carries an unmistakably legal character, identifying righteous people as those who fulfill “all legal and moral obligations.”36 Such righteousness also includes the earnest pursuit of justice and positive deeds beyond the letter of the law, and the development of a social conscience that upholds human dignity.37 In contrast, evil deeds devalue God’s beautiful creation; however, individuals are not doomed by their errors. Through repentance any person may forsake deviation from God’s way and be forgiven. Judaism recognizes a “world to come”; however, in the Tanakh both rewards and punishment seem to be gained corporately and are primarily of a material, “this-worldly” nature. The communal emphasis of Psalm 37 features a “promised land” playing a dominant role with covenantal language identifying “the righteous” as Israel, God’s people. Most classical Jewish writings agree that righteous actions lead to a righteous society, which will establish world peace with Jerusalem as the “citadel of righteousness.” 38 The election of Israel by God was for a spiritual and moral task—that all peoples would be blessed through the instrumentality of Israel (Ex. 19:5). 39 While the Judaic perception of redemption is “national and particular,” salvation, because it is individual and personal, is universal. 40 The Talmud clearly states that the righteous, among the Gentiles (or throughout the world) also inherit the world to come.41 The Qur’an identifies “the righteous” as God’s salih servants, the semantic domain of the word salih containing the duel concepts of belief or religious piety and good works. “[T]he strongest tie of semantic relationship binds salih and iman [belief and faith] together into an almost inseparable unit . . . ‘those who believe and do salih deeds’, is one of the

 36

Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971 ed., s.v. “Righteousness.” Meyer Waxman, Judaism: Religion and Ethics (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1958), 358. 38 Ibid., 162. 39 S. Daniel Breslauer, “Universalism,” in A Dictionary of the Jewish-Christian Dialogue, ed. Leon Klenicki and Geoffrey Wigoder (New York: Paulist Press, 1984), 200. 40 Breslauer, “Salvation,” 181. 41 TB Sanhedrin 105a. 37

Who Will Inherit God’s World?

135

most frequently used phrases in the Qur’an.” 42 Q. 2:177 offers a comprehensive definition of the righteous: It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces towards East or West; But it is Righteousness—to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him . . . to be steadfast in prayer, and to practice charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made, and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering).

In contrast, the wicked of Sura 21 are described as evil-doers who pay no attention to warnings of impending judgment (vs, 1-2, 42, 45, 97), reject the prophet Muhammad (vs. 5, 36), are guilty of iniquities (v. 11), have embraced other “gods” (vs. 24, 98), and are blasphemous “unbelievers” (v. 36). Islam teaches that people come into the world “innocent and sinless,” but with weaknesses and tendencies, including that of living in the “extremes of self-sufficiency and hopelessness.” 43 However, individuals also have an innate knowledge of the creator planted in the human consciousness by God himself. The appropriate response, for both individuals and communities, is to voluntarily choose God’s will. Placing faith in God and in the Prophet “places the Muslim on the straight path,” with God providing Messengers and revealed Books as “merciful guidance.”44 The righteous accept God’s guidance, and therefore follow the right path. The Arabic shari’a is best translated “the road to success in this world and the next,” or the “way to human fulfillment.” From God’s perspective this “way” is the “righteous will of God”; from the human standpoint, this “way” means “justice” and living in balance with nature. Islamic emphasis on judgment brings personal accountability of deeds and motivations under careful scrutiny. 45 The wicked stray from God’s guidance and take the wrong path. However, the Qur’an identifies God as

 42

Toshihiko Izutsu, Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur’an (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1966), 204. 43 Suzanne Haneef, What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims (Des Plaines, IL: Library of Islam, 1985), 182-3. 44 John Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 68-9. 45 Bert F. Breiner, “Shari’ah and Religious Pluralism,” in Religion, Law and Society: A Christian-Muslim Discussion, Tarek Mitri, ed., (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1995), 51-2.



136

Chapter Eight

forgiving and merciful, and when a straying individual turns to God in authentic repentance, God always accepts.46 Muslims claim no covenantal relationship with God that establishes an “ethnic destiny”; however, the Qur’an says of Muslims “Ye are the best of Peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in God.” (Sura 3:110) Sura 9:39 warns that if the Muslim community fails to follow God’s guidance, God will “put others in your place,” for even though the Qur’an speaks in terms of promises, both to individuals and communities, friendship with God may never be presumed upon. All communities should heed this warning and learn from past civilizations that God judged because of their lack of righteousness and failure to honor God’s ownership of the world.47 On the Last Day, God will judge each individual, rewarding the faithful with Paradise, and punishing the unfaithful with hell. These rewards and punishments cannot be construed as spiritual to the exclusion of literal physical events, for Islam holds no concept of a dualism of body and soul.48 Communities will also be judged according to the standards of their respective prophets. The Qur’an implored monotheists of Muhammad’s day in 3:64: “O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but God.” Fazlur Rahman explains this as a call for cooperation in the establishing of a right “ethico-social world order.” In Islam, “there is no particular ‘salvation’: there is only ‘success’ or ‘failure’ in the task” of establishing an egalitarian and just moral-social order.49

The Land—Psalm 37 The importance of the concept of “land” within Judaic thought cannot be overemphasized. The Tanakh documents an “unseverable, eternal



46 H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, eds. Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), 586. 47 Fazlur Rahman, Islam & Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 59. Sura 7:172 does tell of the primordial event of the Covenant of Alast (“I am not”) when before the creation of the world, all people were called into God’s presence and all entered into a covenant with God. [Annemarie Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975), 24.] 48 Ibid., 112-3. 49 Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur’an, (Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1980), 62-3.

Who Will Inherit God’s World?

137

relationship among the people of Israel, the Land, and the God of Israel” illustrating “the twofold human need for terrestrial roots and for the transcendent.”50 Theologically, God owns the Land; the Israelites did not merit the land, but received it as part of the contractual relationship carrying obligations for both parties: mutual loyalty (Lev. 25:23, Deut. 1:36). God explains: “I will make your heirs as numerous as the stars of heaven, and I will assign to your heirs all these lands, so that all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your heirs” (Gen. 26:4 trans. Orlinsky). This verse “universalizes” the concept of “land,” for God’s blessings will, through Israel, reach all the inhabitants of the earth. All the contractual benefits, “blessings,” are also tied to the land: “economic, territorial, political, and increase in population.” 51 For the ancient Israelites, violating the covenant with God meant discipline, also associated with the land, such as loss of land (as through exile or invasion), loss of sovereignty, drought, and pestilence. The wicked would be “cut off” from the land—from the blessings—making the land a “mirror, reflecting the religious and ethical behavior of the people.”52 God promised to never break the covenant; after disciplining the community if needed, he would restore them to their land. The “humble” of verse 11 who put their confidence in God are assured in verse 18 that their inheritance is forever—a future hope including descendants. The Hebrew term “inherent” means simultaneously “possess” and “dispossess” implying more than children receiving what their parents leave them: if someone owns the land (and the blessings), then someone else does not.53

 50

W.D. Davies, “Reflections on Territory in Judaism,” in Sha’arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, Michael Fishbane and Weston W. Fields, eds., (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 339, 343. Translating the ambiguous word ertz as “land” rather than “earth” may be understood to refer to “the place of God’s blessing” which has always connoted more than physical possessions. See Deut. 28:1-14. Rogers and McKay, 171-2. 51 Harry M. Orlinsky, “The Biblical Concept of the Land of Israel: Cornerstone of the Covenant between God and Israel,” in The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspectives, Lawrence A. Hoffman, ed., (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986), 34. 52 Moshe Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 184. 53 Jerome F. Creach, The Destiny of the Righteous in the Psalms (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2008), 49.



138

Chapter Eight

Classical Judaism affirms two worlds, this one and the world to come. In the period just prior to the destruction of the Second Temple (70 C.E.), the concepts of “the Land” and of “Jerusalem” began to be “spiritualized” and Jerusalem became the “heavenly Jerusalem.” “Inheriting the Land” became understood as “inheriting a share in the world to come.” This spiritualization process did not, however, strip the concepts of their real, physical counterparts, which continued to be foundational to Jewish faith for “without the real Land and the earthly city, Messianic redemption was inconceivable in Judaism.” 54 While many passages reflect a collective eschatological perspective, a parallel understanding concerning the individual and the afterlife also developed, with rabbinic literature offering descriptions of the World to Come as where: “the righteous sit with crowns on their head and enjoy the radiance of the Shekhinah [Divine Presence].” 55 In spite of texts identifying the world to come as the postmortem realm, the view of a “future collective redemption” continues to influence Jewish thinking.56 While the concept of “landedness” has shifted as times and conditions have changed, it has always been rooted in a particular geographic location.57 Today Jews seek to integrate their faith with modern realities, with those now living “outside the Land” thinking in terms of an idealized

 54

Weinfeld, xix-xx. The Talmud and Midrash make a distinction between “the days of the Messiah” and “the world to come” generally seeing the Messianic time as a transnational period prior to the establishment of the “new world.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971 ed., s.v. “Eschatology.” 55 Simcha Paul Raphael, Jewish Views of the Afterlife (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1994), 124-5. (Berakhot 17a) There is, of course, no one “rabbinic” view of the afterlife or of the World to Come. Mishnah Avot offers: “Better is one hour of bliss in the World to Come [Olam Ha-Ba] than the whole of life in this world [Olam Ha-Zeh].” In contrast, however, the same rabbi is also recorded as saying: “Better is one hour of repentance and good works in this world than the whole life of the World to Come.” (Raphael, 200) Juxtaposition of these views leads many Jewish scholars to the conclusion that neither this world nor the next are given primacy over the other. Both are important in Judaism. (Ibid.) 56 Ibid., 127-8. 57 Lawrence A. Hoffman, “Introduction: Land of Blessing and ‘Blessings of the Land,’” in The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspectives, Lawrence A. Hoffman, ed., (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986), 19-20. The term “Holy Land” was first popularized by Christians and only in recent years has been appropriated by Jews, who previously used the standard “The Land of Israel” (erets yisra’el).

Who Will Inherit God’s World?

139

past.58 These diaspora Jews place a greater significance on issues such as the common human predicament of global environmental challenges, and the theological significance of the Holocaust rather than concerns about the Land.59 For those Jews living “inside the Land,” questions about its significance are more important. The Orthodox see the return to Israel as evidence of divine providence; however, only those who believe in an imminent messianic redemption have applied apocalyptic understandings to contemporary life.60 Other contemporary Jews may reject the Messianic notion, yet still uphold the right for the Jewish people to have a state of their own.

The Earth—Sura 21:105 Sura 21:105 assures Muslims that “My servants, the righteous, shall inherit the earth.” Traditional commentators conclude that “earth” within this eschatological passage refers to the New Creation, the land of Paradise, promised in verse 104. God’s New Creation follows the cataclysmic events associated with the Day of Judgment—a reversal of the process of creation. “Sign passages” (as in 21:104), referring to the revival of dead land, serve as signs of God’s power and bounty as well as support for the belief in resurrection.61 The Qur’an typically locates rewards and punishments in the world to come, which alone provides permanence, peace, and happiness. While the Qur’an offers only partial descriptions of Paradise, Sura 47:15 describes it in very concrete terms as a garden overflowing with all kinds of fruit, with rivers of milk, wine, and honey. The Arabic word here rendered “earth,” ‘ard, like its Hebrew counterpart, ‘eres, in Psalm 37:29, is ambiguous and may be translated “land.” Some modern exegetes view descriptions of a paradise as incentives for responsible, ethical living in this world finding within Sura 21:105 a reference to an inheritance, or control, of physical land on



58 Arnold M. Eisen, “Off Center: The Concept of the Land of Israel in Modern Jewish Thought,” in The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspectives, Lawrence A. Hoffman, ed., (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986), 289. 59 Ibid. 60 Uriel Tal, “Contemporary Hermeneutics and Self-Views on the Relationship Between State and Land,” in The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspectives, Lawrence A. Hoffman, ed., (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986), 317. 61 Watt, 124.



140

Chapter Eight

earth. 62 While verse 105 may be understood contextually in the eschatological sense of the “new and real world of the spirit,” the verse also may be taken literally to mean “authority on this earth.”63 God is the true possessor of the land and is also the land’s only true heir.64 In Sura 7:128 Moses says to his people: “. . . For the earth is God’s, to give as a heritage to such of His servants as he pleaseth; and the end is (best) for the righteous.” Both interpretations—paradise or physical land—have merit, for earthly communities will stand accountable at the Judgment. The Islamic community is enjoined to establish ethical societies that will merit participation in the new, which includes being faithful stewards (khalifah) of the earth, and living in balance with nature. Sura 22 that follows suggests that people “established in the land” with political control will receive God’s help if they are faithful in prayer and alms giving and foster justice. 65 The Qur’an explains, however, that God allows “deserving nations” control as long as they are worthy of such a trust. Failure to learn from the mistakes of nations of the past, from whom God had to remove power, puts societies at risk of similar loss. From this perspective, Sura 21:105 may be interpreted “We gave the inheritance of the earth to new and more deserving people.”66

Conclusion While Judaism and Islam differ at many points, both passages under consideration deal persuasively with the question “why be righteous?” As



62 Jane Idleman Smith and Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, The Islamic Understanding of Death and Resurrection (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1978), 104. 63 Yusuf Ali, 846. 64 Hassan Hanafi, “Method of Thematic Interpretation of the Qur’an,” in The Qur’an as Text, Stefan Wild, ed., (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), 209. 65 Carroll McC. Pastner, “The Emergence of Umma Muslima; Religious Ecology in Sura 22 of the Qur’an” in Religious Writings and Religious Systems: Systematic Analysis of Holy Books in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Greco-Roman Religions, Ancient Israel, and Judaism, Jacob Neusner, Ernest S. Frerichs, and A. J. Levine, eds. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 12. 66 Rahman, Major Themes, 53-4. Islam does not hold that there is a specific “promised land” to be gained as a reward as the Qur’an gives the entire earth to Muslims; however, “belief in God attaches man to the Land. . . . Good deeds build the Land.” [Hassan Hanafi, Religious Dialogue & Revolution: Essays on Judaism, Christianity & Islam (Cairo: Anglo Egyptian Bookshop, 1977), 131.]

Who Will Inherit God’s World?

141

an incentive, both sacred discourses offer images of a special location of peace, abundance, and security provided by God. Invoking the land has motivated Judaic thought through the centuries; images of the Last Day remain highly motivational for Muslims. While the passages reflect eschatological settings to varying degrees, both are expressed in concrete terms of worldly experience with communal aspects: the Israelites are God’s chosen people; Muslims are the “people of Paradise.” These messages of hope and exhortation are delivered in remarkably similar fashion. Both employ the antithetical diptych construction of the “righteous versus the wicked” featuring highly motivational images to persuade people to faithful living in order to avoid the consequences faced by the wicked. These passages suggest that no one ethnic group can make exclusive claim to a relationship with God. The Covenant between God and humankind is “universal, conditional and moral,” providing “the only way to succession in the Land.”67 Political powers would do well to take heed of this injunction.68 Judaism and Islam share a common regard for “sacred space” and a particular location—Jerusalem and the “Holy Land.” Control remains contested, for “Jerusalem is an actual city of stone and flesh, and it is also an ethereal idea. It is a collision of convictions and a mosaic shattered by ethnic strife.”69 In this shared space “[b]oth peoples are victims. Each has suffered at the hands of outsiders, and each has been wounded by the other.” 70 Regarding such sacred space, Sigurd Bergmann urges cooperation: the important ethical challenge for all traditions is to “turn this belief in earth as a holy space into a peaceful vision in which religions in dialogue and ‘diapractice’ contribute to a worldwide and polycentric ‘topophilia.’ . . . the love of place—in particular spaces, as well as the planet in general.”71

 67

Ibid., 179. Walter Brueggemann, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), xvii. 69 David K. Shipler, Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land (N.Y.: Broadway Books, 2015), 6. Jewish scholar Abraham Heschel offers that “the thing that separates us from the Arabs is the claim of 2 percent of the area of the Middle East, while the values and interests that unite us comprise 90 percent of our personal and social being.” [Abraham Joshua Heschel. Israel: An Echo of Eternity (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1969), 174.] 70 Ibid., 10. 71 Sigurd Bergmann, Religion, Space, and the Environment (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2014), 176. 68



142

Chapter Eight

A shared creation theme makes caring for the environment a religious obligation establishing an interfaith intersection between geography and ethics—between place and the environment.72 Judaism affirms God gave this world to humanity to “enjoy, appreciate, and sanctify,” 73 while prohibiting wasteful or needlessly destruction of useful things.74 Muslims are charged to protect the land, or it will be given to others to guard.75 This “vicegerency” on earth means living virtuous lives, promoting justice and taking care to not harm the earth—not monopolizing the earth’s bounty, but sharing God’s blessings with all creatures. 76 Therefore, each faith community is challenged to “self-critically revise its own participation in . . . land-violating missions on the one side; on the other side . . . to develop new interpretations of what creation and the natural and cultural space and its place mean in light of a truly post-colonial and ecologically-life enhancing theology.”77 Classical expressions of both traditions promote universal human dignity. According to the Jewish rabbinical tradition, Adam was formed from dust “of the four corners of the earth” so that no one people could lay exclusive claim to him. God also began the human race with one individual so that all humanity would know they all come from the same source and are brothers and sisters.78 While Judaism affirms an afterlife, life lived rightly here and now is valued above concern over the life to come. According to a famous Midrash, Ecclesiastes Rabba, God took Adam and Eve around the garden of Eden and told them not to destroy its beauty, for he had created it for their sake. Jews are to “mend the world” where needed, which also means “total transformation of the sociopolitical realm of human existence.”79 The purpose of the Muslim political order is: “for the sake of creating an egalitarian and just moral-social order” which would eliminate “corruption on the earth” and would “reform the earth.” The Qur’an and books of hadith explain corruption in terms of wastefulness, and any

 72

Ibid., 167. Raphael, 13. 74 Simon Glustrom, The Language of Judaism (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc., 1988), 21-22. 75 Hanafi, “Method of Thematic Interpretation of the Qur’an,” 209. 76 Hanafi, Religious Dialogue & Revolution, 131. 77 Bergmann, 387. 78 Glustrom, 48-9. 79 Ecclesiastes Eabbah 7:28. See Judaism and Ecology, Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, ed., (Harvard, Massachussets: Harvard University Press, 2002). Also, Raphael, 13. 73

Who Will Inherit God’s World?

143

destruction of beautiful creation needlessly. The Qur’an warns against human environmental corruption in 30:41: “Corruption has appeared on the land and in the sea because of what the hands of humans have wrought.”80 The passage also warns of consequences for failure to protect God’s creation. This was never to be the sole work of the Muslim community, for the qur’anic vision calls for “cooperation between likeminded communities.” Contemporary scholarship suggests the traditional categories of dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam) and dar al-Harb (abode of war) should “dissolve into a greater dialogical continuum characterized by symbiosis—dar al-Ahad (“a unified abode,” or a single world community”).81 Perhaps the observation of common moral convictions and shared spiritual values from complementary passages concerning the “religious ordering” of lives will help overcome some misperceptions and antagonism between the Jewish and Islamic communities. The psalms address real human predicaments and concerns, the “historical indeterminacy” of the poetic language still speaking to people regardless of location or social situation.82 Thirteenth century Sufi poet Yunus Emre said beautifully: “We love all creation for the sake of its Creator.” The Qur’an says “To each is a goal to which God turns him; then strive together (as in a race) towards all that is good. Wheresoever you are, God will bring you together. For God hath power over all things” (Sura 2:148). Fazlur Rahman interprets: “The positive value of different religions and communities, then, is that they may compete with each other in goodness.”83 Exhorting the community of the faithful to righteousness not only honors God and his creation, it also saves individuals from the fate of the wicked, and benefits all humanity. Such exhortation is wisdom for all people.

 80

Rahman, Major Themes, 62-3. Ibrahim Abdul-Matin: Green Deen: What Islam Teaches About Protecting the Planet. (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2010), 10. Also see Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “Islam, the Contemporary Islamic World, and the Environmental Crisis,” in Islam and Ecology, ed. Richard C. Foltz, Frederick M. Denny, and Azizan Baharuddin (Cambridge, Massachussets: Harvard University Press, 2003). 81 Meena Sharify-Funk, “From Dichotomies to Dialogues: Trends in Hermeneutics,” in Contemporary Islam: Dynamic, not Static, Abdul Aziz Said, Mohammed Abu-Nimer and Meena Sharify-Funk, eds., London, Routledge, 2006), 64. 82 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 207. 83 Rahman, Major Themes, 167.



144

Chapter Eight

Bibliography Abdul-Matin, Ibrahim. Green Deen: What Islam Teaches About Protecting the Planet. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2010. Bergmann, Sigurd. Religion, Space, and the Environment. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2014. Creach, Jerome F. The Destiny of the Righteous in the Psalms. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2008. Foltz, Richard C., Frederick M. Denny, and Azizan Baharuddin, eds. Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed Trust. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2003. Tirosh-Samuelson, Hava, ed. Judaism and Ecology: Created World and Revealed Word. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2002.

CHAPTER NINE INTERRELIGIOUS ENCOUNTER IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND THE NEW TESTAMENT: MODELS FOR THE ANTHROPOCENE RICHARD C. SALTER1

Abstract: This chapter describes the special conditions of the Anthropocene, why interreligious encounter is important in the Anthropocene, and how the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament can be seen as resources that model interreligious encounter with regard to the natural world. Differences in the creation stories of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 serve as an example of interreligious encounter in the Hebrew Bible and differences in various references to nature in the Gospels highlight interreligious encounter in the New Testament. The chapter closes with a caution that interreligious encounter must ultimately issue forth in action.

The term “Anthropocene” describes our current geological period, a time when human activity drives global environmental change. The term comes from the Greek root anthropo, or (hu)man, and the suffix -cene, a derivation of the Greek for new. Since the term was first proposed it has gained wide currency as a way to describe the radical change that happened when the effects of industrialization became essential ingredients in planetary environmental and geologic change. Although the term has a long provenance and disputes still swirl around when the period

 1

Richard C. Salter is associate professor of religious studies at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY. His areas of expertise include Christian traditions, Caribbean religions, and American civil religion.

146

Chapter Nine

began, “Anthropocene” has now been used in hundreds of scholarly articles and entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 2014.2 As a new situation, the Anthropocene forces us to grapple with questions about the limits of human power that were once unimaginable (such as the ability to significantly change the atmosphere and climate). The economic and social changes that ushered in the Anthropocene also lead us to ask new questions about human flourishing: can there be happiness if we are disconnected from nature or if the natural world is deteriorating? Finally, as a global phenomenon, the Anthropocene occurs on a scope that also is new to us. Our awareness of the dimensions of the Anthropocene can lead us to wonder whether it is even possible or worthwhile to try to turn back the clock to a period when human-caused environmental destruction was not inevitable. The questions raised by the Anthropocene do not replace old concerns, but rather add to them. For example, it is axiomatic that “we are all in this together” when it comes to the largest scale problems, such as global warming, and therefore the conversations we have about our new situation must include ever widening circles of people. When we recognize that new global environmental problems are also intertwined with other perennial questions of social justice it becomes clear that the Anthropocene asks us to consider our relationship to the world holistically. The Anthropocene brings us to a new situation with new problems and a new context, but it does not remove from us the problems of the past. Do we have adequate sources for thinking these problems through? Science and technology will be necessary, but they cannot be sufficient, for the methods of science and the advances of technology are themselves strictly formal and without content unless they are guided by carefully constructed norms and models. There are two reasons in particular why those norms and models must be developed with religious traditions in mind:

 2

For a brief description and history of the term, see Jan Zalasiewicz, Mark Williams, Alan Haywood, and Michael Ellis, “Introduction: The Anthropocene: A New Epoch of Geological Time?” Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369/1938 (2011), 835-41. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.hws.edu:2048/stable/41061702. For an excellent history of debates surrounding the term see Jill S.Schneiderman, “The Anthropocene Controversy.” In Anthropocene Feminism, edited by Richard Grusin. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2017), 169-95. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.hws.edu:2048/stable/10.5749/j.ctt1m3p3bx.11.

Interreligious Encounter in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament

147

First, a great majority of people in the world are part of religious traditions, and unless we are willing to leave those people out of a conversation about the environment, we have to make a space in which they can talk, be heard, and be taken seriously. A conversation about how to respond to the environmental problems of the Anthropocene that ignored religious traditions would be self-defeating because it would ignore too many people for whom religion is important, itself a denial of the scope of the Anthropocene. Second, religious traditions offer us something that many other parts of culture do not: fundamentally, but among other things, religious traditions openly aim to form and habituate us, individually and communally, in what and how to love. By “love,” I am referring to the way in which we value and engage in relationships with real and imagined others. This twin focus on the practical goal of formation, on the one hand, and love, valued as a way of practically engaging with our world, on the other, is important because part of our current environmental situation has come from a formation and habituation to a kind of “disordered love.” In forming us and habituating us to particular practices of how to love, religions also motivate people in a special way. Lynn White’s famous article on the role of Christianity in relation to nature put the relationship succinctly: “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny—that is, by religion.” 3 There are other “technologies of desire,” or ways of forming people in what and how to love, besides religious traditions, but few are as explicit about their intentions to form people and few motivate people at such deep levels. Thus, the role of religion can be particularly important in the movement from environmental ethics as a set of principles to the practice and application of those principles as a way of life. In J. Baird Callicott’s survey of ecological ethics, Earth’s Insights, Callicott points out that in the west environmental ethics “. . . are formulated as behavioral rules, or more generally, as precepts and principles” Yet, as Callicott puts it, “Compliance with an ethic, even one hardened into a law, is to some extent voluntary.” Thus, compliance involves desire and will as much (or even more than)

 3

Lynn White, Jr. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science, new series 155/3767 (Mar. 10, 1967), p. 1205 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1720120 Accessed: 19/05/2010 11:41AM.



148

Chapter Nine

principles.4 Insofar as religious traditions aim to shape how we love, they are instrumental not only to how we see the world, but also to what we do in the world. On my reading, this means that while religious traditions may give us the principles of an environmental ethic, they are even more important in shaping our habits of choosing and valuing. In recent decades efforts have been made to clarify the relationships among various religious traditions and nature.5 But to look only at how religious traditions clarify principles is to intellectualize at the expense of practice. By turning instead to how we are formed to “love” we keep practice in focus. But there is already a problem with using the term “love” in defining religion. My use of the term “love,” and especially the term “disordered love,” may be seen as implicitly, or even explicitly, Christian, and my Christianity may prima facie alienate non-Christians from engaging with

 4

J. Baird Callicott and Tom Hayden. Earth’s Insights: A Multicultural Survey of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback (University of California Press, 1994), 2. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.hws.edu:2048/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnbx7 The word “compliance” itself connotes a kind of dull resignation to a principle instead of an active embrace. William James addresses this distinction in his description of differences between ethical and religious attitudes in his classic The Varieties of Religious Experience: “Morality pure and simple accepts the law of the whole which it finds reigning, so far as to acknowledge and obey it, but it may obey it with the heaviest and coldest heart, and never cease to feel it as a yoke. But for religion, in its strong and fully developed manifestations, the service of the highest is never felt as a yoke. Dull submission is left far behind, and a mood of welcome, which may fill any place on the scale between cheerful serenity and enthusiastic gladness, has taken its place.” William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience. (1917. Project Gutenberg 2014), p.42. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/621/621-pdf.pdf. 5 The secondary literature is full of examples of this sort of clarification in particular religious traditions. An earlier example, arising from a 1996 conference at Harvard on religion and ecology, is a Daedalus issue edited by Mary Evelyn Tucker and John A. Grim dedicated to the relationship of religion and ecology. See Mary Evelyn Tucker and John A. Grim, “Religion and Ecology: Can the Climate Change?’” Daedalus 130/4 (Fall, 2001) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027715 Accessed: 19/05/2010 12:02PM. Subsequently multiple volumes from the Harvard University Press Religion of the World and Ecology series have addressed the theme. Beyond that, in the last twenty years we have seen the publication of reference works on religion and nature and more than one academic journal devoted to the issue. The Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale (http://fore.yale.edu/) is a comprehensive on-line resource that includes extended bibliographies on major world religions.

Interreligious Encounter in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament

149

me on this issue. And this problem points to one of the real obstacles to including religions in conversations about the environment: all religions are particular in the sense that they each offer specific visions of the universe, shaped by a specific set of images, metaphors, experiences, and teachings about how to love. Moreover, religions exist in a context, and that context cannot be fully free from the influence of power, domination, or the specific conditions wrought by history. Indeed, it is the very specificity of religions that may make them most meaningful: one theory regarding the return of religion in the contemporary era is that religions allow people to express particularity precisely at a time when globalization seems to render particularity insignificant. Following this logic, perhaps one weakness of looking for the inner unity of world religions is that finding inner unity flattens religions out and leaves nothing substantial upon which real people, in their particularity, can fasten. It therefore seems like there is a conflict: in the Anthropocene religions must be part of a global conversation and must engage constructively with one another, but in crucial respects the salience and promise of religions lie in their particularity, a particularity that can be lost when religions are treated as simple variations on a universal theme. Framing this conflict as a question we might ask: if the global nature of the Anthropocene requires that religions have to be part of the conversation about the environment, but religions themselves are valuable in part because of their specific revelations, locations, and histories, then do we have models for how particular religions can address the environment together in such a broad context without losing their specificity? Fortunately, within two religions with which I am familiar, Judaism and Christianity, we have textual examples that show the juxtaposition of different relationships to the environment at the heart of their respective religious texts. From today’s perspective, in which Judaism and Christianity are recognizable as relatively whole traditions, the different streams visible in the text can easily be interpreted as simple variations; alternatively, such juxtapositions in the texts of different approaches to the environment could be understood as early intra-religious encounters. But my approach is to suggest that these intra-religious encounters are actually inter-religious encounters. For those who hold the Hebrew or Christian Bible to be a sacred text, recognizing these as inter-religious models of thinking about the human relationship to the environment authorizes our own interreligious encounter and provides us with a model for how to talk to others about the environment in the Anthropocene.



150

Chapter Nine

To be fully transparent, the premise of this argument is that the unity of the canon is an ex post facto interpretation, and that if we ignore the contributions of different religious perspectives to the respective texts, we miss a model that could be helpful as we start to use religion to think about global environmental concerns. Anyone who has opened a Bible knows that it is made up of multiple texts written at different times and in a variety of genres. Moreover, Biblical criticism has demonstrated that many of these texts contain within them multiple sources and fragments (examples include the well-known J, E, P, D sources of the Pentateuch and the various Q and Markan sources of Matthew and Luke). While it may be theologically unorthodox to say that these different traditions reflect different “religions,” doing so can be useful insofar as it allows us to see models in each respective text for how different religious understandings can be held together in a fruitful tension that keeps possibilities for encounter open. With regard to the environment in particular, the textual examples used here show how different views of humanity’s relationship to God and nature exist side by side in our sacred texts, thus benefiting us in at least four ways. First, recognizing such juxtapositions shows us that encounter among different religions has happened in the past and has been incorporated into our own sacred texts, a fact that lays the groundwork for the possibility of future encounter. Second, and with all due respect to those who mistakenly have argued for one univocal “Judeo-Christian” perspective on the environment, the presence of multiple views on the environment shows that alternative views in the text have always existed and, consequently, lessens the possibility that one view will be presented as hegemonic. Third, seeing other views side by side with our own can help us assess our own view more accurately. Finally, since the religious traditions we are talking about have integrated multiple perspectives, the juxtaposition of views shows us that such differences need not be neatly resolved to achieve a new understanding or when practical circumstances require us to act together in common cause. Put bluntly, the multiplicity of religious texts and their views on the natural world are a strength and resource as we respond to the Anthropocene. At the same time, a strong caveat is in order: the ability to consider many views is crucial, but the environmental situation is finally a practical matter, not a matter of interpretation. As a result, the preservation of multiple perspectives is only environmentally useful insofar as it yields practical results. In the context of the Anthropocene, this means that we must not only learn to talk to one another, but also learn when to stop talking in order to take action.

Interreligious Encounter in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament

151

The Hebrew Bible The English word “Bible” comes from Latin and Greek phrases meaning holy books, and even a superficial glance at the contents of the Bible shows that it contains a variety of texts, something that is even more visible when the texts are kept as separate scrolls. Even when the first five books, the Torah, were attributed to Moses as single author, the larger body of sacred texts surrounding these five books, the Tanakh, also included the works of many prophets (Nevi’im) and various other writings (Ketuvim). It has always been recognized that these works were written by different authors at different times and in different contexts. Consequently, they each reflect different (though sometimes related) concerns. One of the distinctive features of Rabbinic Judaism has been its embrace and preservation of ongoing debate/argument about how these texts and concerns fit together. Since the prophets and the writings obviously demonstrate a multiplicity of texts, situations, perspectives and genres, let’s turn directly to the Torah. The Torah has traditionally been held to tell the story of the Hebrew people from the creation of the universe, to the establishment of various covenants that God made with Abraham and his descendants, through exile, captivity, and redemption from Egypt, wanderings through the desert, up to [almost] entering the Promised Land. Richard Elliot Friedman’s book, Who Wrote the Bible?, presents a simple accessible summary of what led up to the idea that the Torah is constituted by several sources, an idea generally known as the Documentary Hypothesis (a.k.a., the Welhausen Hypothesis or Welhausen-Graf Hypothesis). According to Friedman, scholars over many years had noticed anomalies in the sacred texts, including the appearance of so-called doublets and triplets (stories or phrases that are repeated in the texts), anachronisms, patterns in the use of the names for God, and other idiosyncrasies that pointed to multiple hands being involved in the writing of the texts. Some of the anomalies could be attributed to transcription errors or to intervening redactors/editors attempting to smooth out the text, but as time went on it became clear that these alone could not account for the patterns. The Documentary Hypothesis was novel because it argued that the first five books of the Bible included materials from different documents, and that those different documents had differing overriding concerns.6

 6

Richard Elliot Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: HarperOne,Reprint, 1997).



152

Chapter Nine

The Documentary Hypothesis answers the problem of the patterns and anomalies in the text by proposing four principle foundational sources for the Torah, respectively labeled J, E, P, and D, which were composed relatively autonomously and integrated into the text as a whole at different times by a redactor or redactors. While Welhausen’s hypothesis has been challenged in details, the basic premise that there were multiple sources that only became the Torah when pieced together is generally accepted. What is important for our purposes is that the different sources in the Torah view the relationships of human and nature differently and draw differently on nature (e.g., they use different natural metaphors); the fact that the Torah includes these multiple views shows that different views can exist side by side and, perhaps, illuminate each other without cancelling each other out. Perhaps the place where we can see most clearly these different approaches to nature is in various creation stories. In his book, The Seven Pillars of Creation, William P. Brown presents seven different creation stories from the Hebrew Bible and elaborates how each presents a different understanding of the natural world.7 We cannot treat all seven here because of space limits, but one of the best-known examples is found in the opening of chapter of Genesis. Genesis 1:1-2:4a is typically associated with the P, or Priestly, source, and it reflects an ordered and theocentric view of nature, one that Brown associates closely with the architecture of the Temple. The connection to the Temple is important because, in Brown’s eyes, as custodians of the Temple, the P source authors describe a God that reflects their concerns, in particular the sense that their role in the care of the Temple mirrors God’s role in the care of the world.8 In this text humanity is explicitly in the image and likeness of God, a relationship to God that commonly has been used to authorize human domination and exploitation of nature (Gen 1:26-28). 9 Contrary to the



7 William P. Brown, The Seven Pillars of Creation: the Bible, Science, and the Ecology of Wonder (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). 8 Walter Brueggeman cites Genesis 1:28 as emblematic of the central Priestly kerygma—a land theology that sees blessing in control over territory taken in conquest but lost in faithlessness. See Walter Brueggemann, “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84.4 : 397. ProQuest. Web. 24 Apr. 2017. 9 Sometimes this view is mistakenly called a “dominionist” view. Applying the term “dominionist” to this particular reading of Genesis 1:26-28 sheds more heat than light because it seems to connect holders of this view to an ill-defined “Dominionist” (or, Reconstructionist) theology whose existence is itself suspect.



Interreligious Encounter in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament

153

common view, Brown argues that the link to the image and likeness of God indicates that humans’ relationship to creation should follow God’s relationship to creation. For Brown, the key to understanding what this relationship is can be found in God’s creation through words: that is, God commands, creatively makes distinctions, and sees the goodness that results. God never forces nature against its will, and God revels in the goodness of what has been created (both the goodness of the things created and the goodness of the totality of what has been created). In this text, humans may have a privileged position in creation insofar as humanity is the only thing created in God’s likeness and image, but humans and animals arguably share the same “breath of life” and both are given green plants equally for food (Genesis 30).10 Thus, though humanity bears the image and likeness of God, there is also a kind of thread of connection throughout creation. Gavin Ortlund has presented an interesting reading of Genesis 5:3 by which the meaning of image and likeness as it appears in Genesis 1:26 becomes clearer by seeing it in a manner that is recognizable in human relationships: we are in the image and likeness of God in the same sense that our children are in our image and likeness.11 This reading of Genesis 5:3 supports the idea that whatever hierarchy of creation that exists in the terms “dominate” or “subdue” in Genesis 1 is attenuated by an inherent sense of custodianship and relation that is also present in the texts and reinforced in later passages. Nonetheless, the P writer seems to value in human beings the same qualities that P associates with God: the ability to pronounce, make distinctions, productively divide and order. Humanity is not apart from nature in this passage, but perhaps could be considered to hold a pride of place as first among equals. It is easy to imagine how this view might be

 See McVicar for an account of how the term “Dominion Theology” emerges at least in part as a discursive strategy for situating and marginalizing particular religious views in the public sphere. Michael J. McVicar, “Let them have Dominion”: ‘Dominion Theology’ and the Construction of Religious Extremism in the US Media,” The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 25:1, Spring 2013 doi:10.3138/jrpc.25.1.120 10 Whether or not humans and animals share the same “breath of life” is debatable. See, for example, T. C. Mitchel, “The Old Testament Usage of NešƗmâ.” Vetus Testamentum 11, no. 2 (1961): 177-87. doi:10.2307/1516255. 11 Gavin Ortlund, “Image of Adam, Son of God: Genesis 5:3 and Luke 3:38 in Intercanonical dialogue.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57/4 (2014): 672-688.



154

Chapter Nine

used to legitimize domination unless we keep in mind the subordination of the creation of humans to the creation as a whole in Genesis 1:31. But Genesis 2:4b to 3:24 presents a second creation story that is quite different from that presented in Genesis 1 insofar as it emphasizes humanity’s connection to the earth, and responsibilities to care, till, cultivate, and work in the Garden. Considered separately, it is hard to see how the two creations can be part of the same religious tradition. According to most scholars, this second creation is associated with the J, or Yahwist, source, and it reflects a much more elemental creation. Perhaps most importantly, Adam, the original human, is made from dirt or arable land, and set immediately in a context in which its role is to tend and care for the Garden.12 Sexual differentiation of human beings comes later than in Genesis 1, once Adam rejects the animals as suitable companions. Preceding the sexual differentiation of Adam and Eve, God’s presentation of animals to Adam in Genesis 2 suggests a God who has no qualms about imagining a certain type of compatibility of humans to animals. In fact, the text suggests that it is Adam, not God, who seeks companionship in “bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh” and finds the difference with the animal world to be a barrier to relating—God does not reject out of hand that animals could be suitable companions, and only resorts to sexual differentiation of human beings when other possibilities for companionship and assistance have been exhausted. According to scholars like Ziony Zevit, Theodore Hiebert, and William P. Brown, humanity’s relationship to nature in J is one of integrated and dependent caregiver: humanity is from the soil, returns to the soil, and receives blessings and curses by means of the soil.13 Human relationships, both to one another and to other parts of nature, are understood less through the image of humans acting upon nature and more symbiotically, as humans working together through nature. Both P and J are interesting accounts of creation and deep statements about the human relation to nature, but perhaps the most salient feature of all for our purposes is the fact that they stand next to one another in the text, seemingly offering two different versions of the same thing. Many people have recognized the differences in the two stories and have

 12

The distinction between dirt and arable land can be found in Ziony Zevit, What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013). 13 Zevit, ibid. Brown, “The Seven Pillars of Creation. Theodore Hiebert, The Yahwist’s Landscape: Nature and Religion in Early Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

Interreligious Encounter in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament

155

attempted to reconcile them. But what makes us think that they should be reconciled? Theologically speaking, is it not possible that the two stories are irreconcilable, that both are incomplete, or that it is only by seeing both together that we get the fullest understanding? Thus, the religion of J and the religion of P each present possibilities of relation to the natural world that are not fully present in the other. That the two religions were once separate is simply an interesting historical fact. That they are now side by side, juxtaposed, in relation to one another, is a potentially valuable theological source; to grant one chapter a priori precedence over the other seems to foreclose possibilities that the Scripture itself tries to keep open.

The Christian Bible Christianity also attributes crucial importance to a text (the Bible) that includes juxtapositions of different religious texts. First, there is the obvious example of the relationship of the “Old Testament” and the New Testament. Since the “Old Testament” is, with some differences in content and order, the Hebrew Bible, there is a kind of juxtaposition of texts and possibilities for inter-religious dialogue embedded in the Christian Bible. Christians regard the Old Testament as revelation, and although it is read differently and with a different hermeneutic lens than the Hebrew Bible is in Judaism, it is still recognized to also be the text of a different religion. Ostensibly Christian groups, such as the Marcionites, that did not include the Old Testament in their sacred texts, were declared heretical in part precisely because of their inability to deal with Christianity’s Jewish roots. Some may object that the pairing of “Old” and New Testaments in the Christian Bible hardly constitutes an example of fruitful interreligious dialogue, and instead may point to it as an example of the appropriation of another religion’s sacred text. Moreover, the pairing of “Old” and New Testaments has certainly not led on balance to much fruitful interreligious dialogue between Judaism and Christianity throughout most of the past 2000 years. But to reiterate a point made earlier, it is not the case that juxtaposition of different religions always creates fruitful encounter, rather that juxtapositions of texts preserve the possibility of encounter, even if it is a possibility preserved through tension. The timing of the fruitful unfolding of encounter is a separate matter, related not least in part to circumstances that we, as readers, must be able to perceive. In terms of Christian theology, then, the unfolding possibilities of the text are related to the kairos, or opportune moment, in which they are found. Thus, after centuries of anti-Semitic hostility towards Jews, the undeniable



156

Chapter Nine

relationship of the texts has in the last 50 years flowered in better relations among Judaism and Christianity. For example, the possibility that the two religions might mutually illuminate one another’s readings of sacred texts is stated explicitly in the recent Papal Encyclical Evangelii Gaudium. Beyond the shared text of the “Old Testament,” the New Testament itself intentionally preserves multiple voices and perspectives. The inclusion of different letters written by different people shows this, but the most obvious preservation of multiple perspectives is in the Gospels, which formed at different times, at times drawing on the same and at times on different sources, and which represent different understandings of Jesus as those understandings formed in different circumstances. Within each Gospel and among the Gospels we can find images of Jesus ranging from human wisdom teacher to cosmic Logos. The genre “Gospel” is itself difficult to clarify, and in popular understanding, the different Gospels may be seen as simply four versions of the life of Jesus; yet, whatever else a Gospel is, it expresses a particular theological understanding. Thus, with four Gospels, the New Testament includes, and asks readers to consider the theological understanding of, at least four communities. Since the early years of Christianity there have been and continue to be attempts to harmonize the Gospels, but none of these accounts are accepted as canonical and, by virtue of the decisions of what to include and exclude, harmonizations raise as many problems as they solve. Moreover, and from a theological perspective, in reading these accounts one has the sense that the goal of harmonization arises from a desire for a type of certainty that is in itself a kind of stumbling block to faith insofar as it attempts to smooth out the complexity of the texts which feed the contemporary Christian witness. Are the different sources used in the New Testament sufficiently different to regard them as different religions, and thus constitutive of inter-religious encounter? From today’s perspective, which recognizes an established canon, it may stretch the imagination to consider that the sources for the gospels represent different religious traditions, but the differences among the sources are important. On the most fundamental matter of the divinity of Jesus, or the way in which Jesus brings salvation, there are broad differences: for example, our relationship to nature changes depending on whether the passage has a “high Christology” or a “low Christology,” whether Jesus is primarily a wisdom teacher or an apocalyptic prophet, whether there are obvious gnostic influences in the text, or whether Jesus ushers in a Kingdom of God or announces a Kingdom of God to come.

Interreligious Encounter in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament

157

As with the Hebrew Bible, creation itself is not the primary focus of the Gospels or the New Testament as a whole: the human to divine relationship and the human to human relationships are central to the New Testament. But, as with the Hebrew Bible, the natural world is a permanent backdrop for everything that happens, thus it provides not only the settings for events, but also a rich repertoire of symbols. For example, nature is present as a setting through references to the wilderness, to lonely places, to a garden, a sea, or a storm; nature is a metaphor through images of vineyards and vines, fruitless trees, beautiful lilies, and carefree birds. Throughout the texts we encounter images, metaphors, and forms of discourse that make reference to nature in helping unfold the authors’ understanding of the “Good News”; with Jesus as the focus of the texts, his interactions with the natural world model a good relationship to nature and, insofar as a central part of his teaching about the Kingdom of God comes through his actions, show us right relations to that world. Thus, when the authors of the Gospels reference nature and highlight the relationships of humans and nature in different ways, it is important that we note the differences among them: that these different understandings occur side by side, and have not been erased in the interest of harmonization, suggests that such differences are valuable—if not because they provide direct instruction for how to act with regard to nature, at least because they maintain tension among perspectives and provoke discussion. Additionally, as with the Hebrew Bible, the individual gospels themselves are now understood to have been composed using different sources, and those sources themselves came from communities with radically different understandings of Jesus. Two short examples of the relation of humans to nature in the New Testament illustrate the juxtapositions of different views of nature:

On Ravens and Lilies In a well-known passage sometimes called On Care for Earthly Things, Luke (LK12:22-34; paralleled in MT 6:25-34) shows Jesus asking his followers to consider God’s concern for ravens (or, in MT, birds in general) and the beauty of lilies as a way of diminishing their anxiety about life. On examination, this pericope includes layers that reflect important internal differences. The passages are generally considered to come from Q documents, reflecting wisdom teachings of Jesus and advice for how to live as a follower of Jesus. In the early part of the passage nature provides a model for God’s graciousness; later, God’s graciousness



158

Chapter Nine

(as displayed in nature) becomes a model for our own social ethics (“sell your possessions, and give alms . . .”).14 Burton Mack, following others, reminds us that Q itself is a layered tradition, conveying ideas that change thematically depending on when it was composed. Thus, the early section of these verses may reflect a Jesus tradition that focused on wisdom. But later, when apocalyptic expectations and disappointments have shaped the Q source, as they seems to do in LK 40 (and passim), the text shifts the question of our relationship to the natural world from one of seeing the world as a model of grace to one that counsels ready expectation for the Messiah.15 As Luke says in the lines following those that counsel against anxiety, “Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning, and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the marriage feast, so that they may open to him at once when he comes and knocks.” (LK 35) And, “You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour.” (LK 40). It is hard to imagine how those who are waiting with girded loins might also be relieved of their anxiety by considering the lilies of the field! Reading the parallel passage in MT 6:25-34, there are few differences, but there is a notable substitution of the reference to ravens to one that references birds more generally. This may be just a minor difference, but could it also be a substantially different vision of the natural world. Does Matthew, as some have suggested, see ravens as unclean? In the small difference between Matthew and Luke do we also see a shift in how distinctions in the natural world are marked? Can the natural world be unclean? What might that mean? The question only arises because of the juxtapositions in the texts (and, notably, disputes about the distinction of clean/unclean arise again in other New Testament texts). The passages I have mentioned in LK 12 illustrate how different sources’ understandings of Jesus (e.g., as wisdom teacher or as returning Messiah) change the way in which the human relationship to nature is modeled in the text. Since there are multiple understandings of Jesus in these texts, there are also multiple possible relations of humans and nature. To reiterate a point already made, we ought not to see these different meanings as contradictions, but rather as different possibilities for how to

 14

All Biblical quotations are from the Revised Standard Version (RSV). Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth (San Francisco, CA: HarperSan Francisco, 1995), 49.

15

Interreligious Encounter in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament

159

see the human relationship to nature. We should not reconcile the perspectives, but embrace and work within the tension between them.

Storms and Wilderness A second example of where different views of nature can be found in the New Testament is in those places where the presentation of nature shifts rapidly. Thus, storms as seen in LK 8:22-25, MT 8:23, and MK 4:35-37 (see also Acts 27: 13-18) are presented as dangerous and the sea as perilous, but they are also places of solitude and escape. In the storm passages the disciples become afraid of nature, even though it seems to originally be a means of escape from conflicts with others. In LK 8:22-25 Jesus calms the storms and sea, suggesting his great power on one hand, but the disciples lack of faith on the other. As with the passage about the lilies of the field, Jesus’ question to the disciples (“Where is your faith?” LK 8:25) suggests not a man/god who uses supernatural power to subdue nature, but rather a counselor chastising his followers for an anxiety that is misplaced. Similarly, the wilderness is a place of danger and temptation, but one through which Jesus (and, earlier, John the Baptist) is ultimately fortified and given strength. While Jesus struggles with temptation and his own material needs in the wilderness, we do well to remember that in MT and Luke it is specified that it was the Spirit that led Jesus there. Mark even mentions Jesus’ time in the wilderness as a time when he “was with the wild beasts,” implying a special relationship with nature (MK1:13) Jesus has a special connection with the divine in the wilderness, for MT and LK both mention that while there Jesus was ministered to by angels. In terms of the effects of the time in the wilderness, Luke (4:14) specifically mentions that “Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee . . .” where reports of his works first begin to spread. And on a deeper look we may wonder if that time in the wilderness was key to Jesus’ ongoing spirituality, for he continues to seek mountains and lonely places as his ministry unfolds. For example, Jesus counsels his disciples to find “lonely places” to rest (MK 6:31) and seeks out his own solitude in nature to pray (e.g., on mountains, as in Mk 6:46). These ideas are repeated in MT 14:15 (passim), LK 4:42, 5:16, 6:12, 9:11, 9:28 and other passages. The gospel writers themselves clearly value landscape as a context, for important teachings are set on mountains (e.g., in MT 5) or the plain (e.g. LK 6). It is hard to avoid the conclusion that for these writers, solitude, spirituality, and nature are somehow implicitly connected.



160

Chapter Nine

And yet, by contrast, in John there are very few mentions of nature, despite the repetition of creation in the prologue. The gnostic influences on John are well known and, though ultimately rejected, nature plays a decidedly lesser role than in the Synoptics. The most natural of all phenomenons, death, is famously undone in the raising of Lazarus. Is the inclusion of John with the Synoptics also a juxtaposition of the presence and absence of nature? These examples are meant to show simply that nature and the environment provide a wide backdrop for events in the New Testament, and nature itself is presented and valued differently in different New Testament contexts. No specific environmental norms emerge from the way the environment is presented in the New Testament, yet the uses and purposes of nature, and the human relation to the environment, appear in distinct ways. Nature can be a place of truth, a place of refreshing solitude, of harmony, and an example of God’s care and concern; it can also be the place of harsh storms, earthquakes, and fear; the same setting can be trying or strengthening, a place of loneliness or communion with the divine. And in John, the natural world can at times seem to disappear. In short, the multiple perspectives in the text beg to be read in context, in relation to one another, and in relation to the views of nature presented in the Hebrew Bible. This sort of consideration and process of thinking through our relationship to the environment is not possible without the contribution of multiple sources to the texts.

A Conclusion and Caveat If the Anthropocene is a special period marked by new questions about the human relation to the divine and by a new, global, scope for our environmental concerns, then it makes sense that discussion among different religious communities in the globe must be part of our response to a new situation. Yet bringing distinct religious groups together in encounter over environmental issues is easier said than done, since different religions see the environment differently. The argument in this chapter is that, at least in Judaism and Christianity, the apparent problem of different views of the environment is more of a help than a problem per se. Our sacred texts include examples of when different views have been brought together already, seemingly without dismissing or subsuming one to the other. In our new age, these textual encounters can be a resource for us, showing us that different views of the environment can sit together even without being harmonized. In one important way, simply acknowledging the multiple voices in our texts undermines the possibility

Interreligious Encounter in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament

161

of the sort of hegemonic readings of nature that thinkers like Lynn White pointed out long ago. In fact, the Hebrew and Christian Bibles both show that such hegemonic readings are problematic because different perspectives on the environment are present in the texts, and these different perspectives provide textual authorization for the kind of retrieval of interpretation that White himself proposed. And yet . . . . In their excellent co-written book, Flammable: Environmental Suffering in an Argentine Shantytown, Javier Auyero and Débora Alejandra Swistun present to us an example of the potential problems with considering too many perspectives.16 Their book describes Flammable, a small town in Argentina that is severely polluted and presents a danger to all who live there. As the authors point out, the residents know that the town is contaminated, but they have real difficulty doing anything to help themselves. To be fair, there are residents who address the problem, who protest, who move to other areas, but by and large these are individual efforts and the town does not mobilize collectively. The reason is a kind of habit of “toxic uncertainty” that has emerged through discussion of the situation in the town. For every opinion, there is another opinion; for every piece of evidence, there is another piece of evidence; every interpretation is countered with another interpretation, so the population is divided, and disagreement breaks out over what to actually do to change the situation. These divisions work to maintain the status quo because they undermine the sort of collective decision-making and action that would be necessary for deep systemic change. Thus, differing interpretations and disputes about fact create a situation in which individuals are habituated to indecision. In Flammable the encounter of different perspectives co-opts action by using different interpretations to produce uncertainty. So, let us end the chapter by saying that the encounter of different religions’ understandings of the human relationship to the environment is essential, and we have models for it. Yet that dialogue cannot be permitted to produce the equivalent of a toxic uncertainty in decisions about how to respond to the environmental crisis of the Anthropocene.

 16

Javier Auyero and Débora Alejandra Swistun, Flammable: Environmental Suffering in an Argentine Shantytown (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).



162

Chapter Nine

Bibliography Auyero, Javier, and Débora Alejandra Swistun. Flammable: Environmental Suffering in an Argentine Shantytown. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Brown, William P. The Seven Pillars of Creation: the Bible, Science, and the Ecology of Wonder. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Brueggemann, Walter. “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84.4 : 397. ProQuest. Web. 24 Apr. 2017. Callicott, J. Baird, and Tom Hayden. Earth’s Insights: A Multicultural Survey of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback. University of California Press, 1994. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.hws.edu:2048/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnbx7. Crutzen, Paul J., and Veerabhadran Ramanathan. “The Ascent of Atmospheric Sciences.” Science 290, no. 5490 (2000): 299-304. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.hws.edu:2048/stable/3078126. Friedman, Richard Elliot. Who Wrote the Bible? New York: HarperOne, reprint edition 1997. Hiebert, Theodore. The Yahwist’s Landscape: Nature and Religion in Early Israel. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience. 1917. Project Gutenberg 2014. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/621/621-pdf.pdf Mack, Burton L. Who Wrote the New Testament? the Making of the Christian Myth. San Francisco, CA: HarperSan Francisco, 1995. McVicar, Michael J. “Let them have Dominion”: ‘Dominion Theology’ and the Construction of Religious Extremism in the US Media.” The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 25:1, Spring 2013 doi:10.3138/jrpc.25.1.120. Mitchell, T. C. “The Old Testament Usage of NešƗmâ.” Vetus Testamentum 11, no. 2 (1961): 177-87. doi:10.2307/1516255. Ortlund, Gavin. “Image of Adam, Son of God: Genesis 5:3 and Luke 3:38 in Intercanonical dialogue.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57/4 (2014): 672-688. Schneiderman, Jill S. “The Anthropocene Controversy.” In Anthropocene Feminism, Edited by Grusin Richard. 169-95. Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press, 2017. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.hws.edu:2048/stable/10.5749/j.ctt1m3p3 bx.11. Tucker, Mary Evelyn and John A. Grim, “Religion and Ecology: Can the Climate Change?” Daedalus 130/4 (Fall, 2001) Stable URL:

Interreligious Encounter in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament

163

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027715 Accessed: 19/05/2010 12:02PM White, Lynn Jr. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science, new series 155/3767 (Mar. 10, 1967): 1203-1207 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1720120 Accessed: 19/05/2010 11:41AM Zalasiewicz, Jan, Mark Williams, Alan Haywood, and Michael Ellis. “Introduction: The Anthropocene: A New Epoch of Geological Time?” Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369, no. 1938 (2011): 835-41. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.hws.edu:2048/stable/41061702. Zevit, Ziony. What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.



CHAPTER TEN GREEN BOOK: QUR’ANIC TEACHINGS ON CREATION AND NATURE FATIH HARPCI1

Abstract: This paper will provide an overview of Qur’anic perspectives on nature and the environment. It will use a Muslim perspective to examine questions of environment, the meaning of nature, and the place of humans within it. The Qur’anic teachings on nature are ultimately grounded in Islam’s fundamental religious values: the Oneness (i.e., Uniqueness) of God and His creation, seeing the signs of God’s activity in the universe, the responsibility to be a khalifa (God’s vicegerent/guardian) on earth, and God’s commands to protect the earth and live in balance with nature. For decades, economics, natural sciences, political science, international relations, engineering, and international law were considered absolutely crucial for understanding and resolving environmental crisis and ecological problems. We now have ample knowledge from these fields about environmental concerns, yet still not enough to engage in drastic change for flourishing our earth. There has been a growing realization since the 1970’s that religion and spirituality can also make important contributions to address environmental and ecological issues. This paper will examine the contribution and promise of the Qur’an, the Holy Book of Islam. Studying environmental ethics from the Qur’anic point of view

 1

Fatih Harpci graduated from Marmara University in Turkey. In order to contribute to interfaith dialogue, especially among Christians and Muslims, he earned his MATS from Moravian Theological Seminary in Bethlehem, Pa. Harpci received his Ph.D. in religion from Temple University in Philadelphia, PA. He is currently an assistant professor in the Religion Department at Carthage College in Kenosha, WI.

166

Chapter Ten

will be an important addition to fostering a global environmental ethos.

Introduction In Islamic tradition, human beings can have knowledge about God through observation of nature. For Muslims, the natural world is a sacred project; it is a sacred creation that must be respected, a book through which human beings can know God better, a blessing from God to humankind, and the greatest miracle and sign of God. In Islam, nature itself is considered a muslim (“one who surrenders to God”) because it carries out God’s will, submits to God’s power, and acts within the limits God has set for it. A significant aspect of the relationship between nature and humankind in Islam is the idea of nature as a book found in the Qur’an. The Qur’an teaches humankind not to take nature for granted but to be aware of its marvels, and to contemplate them in order to know God. The Qur’an describes nature as a source of meditation for people to think about this fantastic system and the delicate and precise balance within. Among the Qur’anic teachings to be explained in this paper are the Oneness (i.e., Uniqueness) of God and His creation, the universe as a work and sign of God, and important lessons that can be learned from nature.

Tawhid Paradigm: An Affirmation of Unity Qur’anic teachings on nature begin with the idea of tawhid that demonstrates the Oneness and Uniqueness of God: the recognition that there is one, absolute, transcendent Creator of the universe and all that exists. That is why Muslims interpret Qur’anic texts on the basis of the Qur’an’s underlying unity of the Oneness of God. For Muslims, Qur’anic statements about tawhid are not redundancies but unfoldings of God’s will in different ways and circumstances, experienced first by the Prophet Muhammad and his companions, then throughout the history of Muslims. As we will see, the message of divine Oneness correlates to and reinforces what is covered in the “Book of the Universe.” The concept of tawhid is an expression of the absolute unity and integrity not only of the Creator, but of all lived experience, including the unity of all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, language, or religion.

Green Book: Qur’anic Teachings on Creation and Nature

167

The Qur’anic view of nature, Najma Mohamed asserts, is neither based on ecocentrism 2 nor anthropocentrism 3 , but is essentially theocentric (God-centered), wherein it is believed that everything in the universe is created by God.4 The Qur’an insistently declares that nature is created by One God in verses such as, “Such is God, your Lord; there is no deity but He, the Creator of all things; therefore worship Him alone. He holds all things in His care and control.” 5 This Oneness of God constructs the understanding of nature in the Qur’an and links nature to the divine without making it divine. The Qur’an declares that upon creating the earth and the heavens, God asked the spiritual and material worlds if they would be willingly obedient to their Creator. The response was “We have come in willing obedience.”6 Explaining this passage, Wagner writes that all that exists and all that happens, therefore, starts as “islam,” that is, in joyful and voluntary submission and obedience to the One-Only God. The same question is directed to every nafs (human soul) before it is joined to its physical body, and each responds that it will be in “islam,” obedience, submission, and worship to the One God. Furthermore, the obedience from all inanimate objects and animate beings makes everything that is visible and invisible a network of “signs” (ƗyƗt; sing. Ɨyat) directing humans to worship and serve the Creator. The testimony, therefore, from realities external to humanity to the One-Only God and from planets to atomic particles is



2 Ecocentrism teaches that environmental ethics should give due consideration to ecosystems, including their non-living natural objects, since forests, lakes, wetlands, etc. are valuable in their own right and deserve moral consideration. See P. Bourdeau, “The Man-Nature Relationship and Environmental Ethics,” in Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 2004, 72: 9-15 and Tongjin Yang, “Towards an Egalitarian Global Environmental Ethics” in Environmental Ethics and International Policy, Paris: UNESCO, 2006. 3 In an anthropocentric view, humans have a moral duty only towards one another; any duty they seem to have towards other species or entities is really only an indirect duty towards other people. See Yang, “Towards an Egalitarian Global Environmental Ethics.” 4 Najma Mohamed, Revitalising an Eco-Justice Ethic of Islam by way of Environmental Education: Implications for Islamic Education, Ph.D. dissertation, South Africa: Stellenbosch University, 2012. 5

English quotations of the Qur’an are from Ali Ünalm, trans., The Qur’Ɨn with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, (New Jersey: The Light, 2006). 6 Qur’an: 41:11



168

Chapter Ten

matched by the internal covenant reality that every person’s nafs makes with God before it enters this earthly realm:7 And (remember, O Messenger,) when your Lord brought forth from the children of Adam, from their loins, their offspring, and made them bear witness against themselves (asking them:) “Am I not your Lord?” They said: “Yes, we do bear witness.” (That covenant was taken) lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “We were indeed unaware of this (fact that you are our Lord).” (Qur’an 7:172)

Therefore, Yaseen Gada writes, tawhid is “the primordial testimony to the unity of all creation and to the interdependence of the natural order of which humanity is a [fundamental] part. 8 Among the Qur’anic verses confirm this reality are, To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on the earth. All are obedient to Him in humble service. He it is Who originates creation in the first instance . . . (Qur’an 30:26-7) To God belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth, and God encompasses everything (with His Knowledge and Power) (Qur’an 4:126)

A meaningful aspect of the relationship between humans and nature is the idea of nature as a book found in the Islamic scripture. The Qur’an teaches human beings not to take nature for granted but to be aware of its marvels and to contemplate on them in order to know and understand the Ultimate Reality. The Qur’an describes nature as a source of meditation and reflection for people to think about this fantastic system that was built, and the delicate and detailed balance within.

 7

Walter Wagner, Beginning and Endings: Fethullah Gulen’s Vision for Today’s World, (New Jersey: Blue Dome Press, 2013), p. 36. See, also, Fatih Harpci, “A Common Word: Global Faith and Pluralism in Islam,” in Sacred Texts & Human Contexts: A North American Response to “A Common Word between Us and You.” (ed.) by Nathan R. Kollar and Mohammad Shafiq. (North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014), p. 305. 8 Mohd Yaseen Gada, “Environmental Ethics in Islam: Principles and Perspectives,” in World Journal of Islamic History and Civilization, IDOSI Publications, 2014 4 (4), p. 130-138.

Green Book: Qur’anic Teachings on Creation and Nature

169

Signs of God Manifested in Book of the Universe The Qur’an speaks of creation, and the word khalq (creation) with its conjugations is mentioned in 261 different verses. It talks about human beings, the earth, heavens, sun, stars, oceans, mountains, trees, skies, fish, mother pearl, honeybee, cattle, ant, etc. In fact the very first divine message revealed to the Prophet mentions the creation, “Read in the Name of your Lord, Who has created, Created human from a clot” (Qur’an 96:12). Here we should underscore the fact that the first command of God to His Messenger was iqra’ (read), when there was as yet no book to be read in the seventh century Arabian Peninsula. Even though this also implies that the Prophet would have revealed a scripture to recite from memory, since the word iqra’ in Arabic means both “read” and “recite,” in particular, it meant that there is another book counterpart to the Book which was to be revealed. According to Ozdemir, “‘reading’ here means a completely new way of looking at the world.”9 That is the main reason why a Muslim approaches the study of the universe and humanity without preconception. According to Gülen, with the command iqra’, the Qur’an invites humans to read the signs the Creator placed in creation so that they can understand something of God’s wisdom, will, and power. It is a command to learn, through experience and understanding, the meaning of His creation.10 Creation is referred to as the signs of God; this is also the name given to the verses of the Qur’an. The word sign with its derivatives is repeated 288 times in the Qur’an. The universe and everything in it are signs pointing to the Creator. Therefore the verses of the Qur’an, the phenomena in the universe, and those in human nature, both material and psychological, are called signs or pointers. Consequently, the universe should be read and studied as a book that has chapters, paragraphs, sentences, words, and letters that are interrelated and interlinked.11 In many verses, the Qur’an presents the creation of the heavens and the earth and the formation of the heavens as the most manifest signs of God’s

 9

Ibrahim Özdemir, “Toward an Understanding of Environmental Ethics from a Qur’Ɨnic Perspective,” in Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed Trust, eds. R.C. Foltz, F.M. Denny and A. Baharuddin, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), p. 1-37. 10 Fethullah Gülen, Questions And Answers About Islam vol. 1, (New Jersey: Tughra Books, 2010), p. 93-5. 11 Ünal, p. 1239.



170

Chapter Ten

existence and unity in the outer world. Then, as signs in people’s inner world, it shows how humankind was brought into life. Therefore, the Qur’an invites people to ponder over their environment. As declared, On the earth there are (clear) signs (of God’s Oneness as Lord and Sovereign) for those who seek certainty. And also in your own selves. Will you then not see (the truth)? (Qur’an 51:20-21) We will show them Our manifest signs (proofs) in the horizons of the universe and within their own selves, until it will become manifest to them that it (the Qur’an) is indeed the truth. (Qur’an 41:53)

Each and every creature has its own physical existence as a sign of God, and by its very being manifests and reflects God’s majesty and mercy. Bediüzzaman Said Nursi (1876-1960), the Turkish-born Islamic scholar who wrote a 6,000 page commentary on the Qur’an called the RisƗla-i Nur, also views nature as “the book of the universe.” He regards the universe “as a whole and a meaningful book of the Eternally Besought One; and all beings from the ground to the Divine Throne are a miraculous collection of Divine missives . . . and since they act as mirrors to and have a relationship with that Sovereign, the value of all things infinitely surpasses their individual value.” 12 According to Seyyed Hossein Nasr, professor of Islamic Studies at George Washington University, nature is “the theatre wherein are manifested His sign[s],” 13 and over and over again, the Qur’an reminds humans to see these signs (emphasis added): God sends down from the sky water and therewith revives the earth after its death. Surely in that there is a sign (manifesting the truth) for people ready to hear. And surely in the cattle (feeding on the pastures of the revived earth), there is a lesson for you: We give you from that which is within their bodies, (marvelously distinguished from) between the waste and blood, milk that is pure and palatable to those who drink. And there are (among the produce that God brings forth as nourishment for you on the revived earth) the fruits of the date-palm, and grapes: you derive from them intoxicants and good, wholesome nourishment. Surely in this is a sign for people who reason and understand. And your Lord inspired the (female) bee: “Take for yourself dwelling-place in the mountains, and in

 12

Salih Yucel, Said Nursi’s Approach to the Environment: A Spiritual View on the Book of Universe, 2011. Retrieved January 01, 2014. http://www.nur.org/en/Islam/nurlibrary/?Page=ContactForm&ItemID=111633. 13 Özdemir, “Toward an Understanding of Environmental Ethics from a Qur’Ɨnic Perspective,” p. 1-37.

Green Book: Qur’anic Teachings on Creation and Nature

171

the trees, and in what they (human beings) may build and weave. “Then eat of all the fruits, and returning with your loads, follow the ways your Lord has made easy for you.” There comes forth from their bellies a fluid of varying color, wherein is health for human beings. Surely in this there is a sign for people who reflect. (Qur’an 16:65-9)

The verse mentioned above, “Read in the Name of your Lord (Qur’an 96:1).” indicates that every science that studies nature should be executed in the name of God, and therefore every act would eventually become worship. Any act of study cannot be against God’s limits and commandments. For instance, in the pursuit of scientific knowledge, no one can cause harm to living beings and the environment. The Qur’an reminds Muslims to always remember that they will be called to account before God for all their actions in the world, as we will discuss in the following sections. Science, Gülen says, is the study of nature and how the universe functions. It accumulates knowledge via observation and experiment. 14 Again, from an Islamic perspective, the developments of the natural sciences and the sciences that study human anatomy and physiology will prove the existence and oneness of God. The aforementioned verses and many others point out that only through the study of nature, contemplation, and knowledge can one distinguish between belief and denial. Such other warnings of the Qur’an as, “Do they not use their intellect?”, “Do they not reason and understand?”, “Do they not reflect?”, and “Do they not reflect and be mindful?” signify that the belief in One God is based on knowledge, reflection and sound reasoning.15 The Qur’an keeps inviting people to reflect on the alternation of day and night, stars, mountains, trees, rivers, dessert, wind, rain, and shows that nature has three major lessons for humans.

Nature as Purposive Phenomena The first lesson is that since Muslims believe that the universe has been created by God, the creation of the universe is the work or action of God. The actions or works of God indicate the existence of God Himself. For Muslims, God is the sole Creator of all created beings, including human beings. Among His attributes are life, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, a sense of mercy and justice, and benevolence. The Qur’an shows that God has created the heavens and the earth and made light and

 14

Gülen, Questions And Answers About Islam vol. 1, p. 93-5. Ünal, p. 15.

15



172

Chapter Ten

darkness. He created human beings from clay, and He knows what human beings conceal and declare openly and what they do (Qur’an 6: 1-3)16 God has limitless creative power and continues to create in this world for a reason: “. . . and (besides all that you see and know of,) He creates what you have no knowledge of.” (Qur’an 16:8). As the Qur’an declares relentlessly, God’s creation is meaningful, has purpose, value, wisdom, and function.17 The Qur’an preaches that nature is a serious matter and that one should live in harmony with humans and nature. It is possible to see “[this] serious nature of the divine project” in the following verses:18 We have not created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them as a play and game for Us. If We had willed to find a pastime (without creating the heavens and the earth with all that is in and between them), We would indeed have found it in Our Presence, if We were going to do so! (Qur’an 21:16-17) We have not created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in play and fun. We have created them only with truth (for meaningful purposes, and on solid foundations of truth), but most people do not know. (Qur’an 44:38-39)

From a Qur’anic point of view, creation was not a single act. God did not create the universe as a single action and then leave it to operate according to the laws He himself established. Rather, creation is a continuous act: “Every (moment of every) day He is in a new manifestation (with all His Attributes and Names as the Divine Being) (Qur’an 55:29). That is, through the manifestations of His Names and Attributes, God continuously creates, destroys, and recreates the universe. Consequently, all the creatures exist because God creates; they meet their needs because God is the All-Providing and All-Munificent; and these creatures continue to exist because God is the All-Maintaining, All-Merciful, and All-

 16

Ibrahim Abu Bakar, “Islamic Theological Teachings on Ecology,” in International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 3 No. 13; July 2012, p. 222-26. 17 Gada, “Environmental Ethics in Islam: Principles and Perspectives,” p. 130-138 and Özdemir, “Toward an Understanding of Environmental Ethics from a Qur’Ɨnic Perspective,” p. 1-37. 18 Thomas Michel, A Christian View of Islam, (New York: Orbis Books, 2011) p. 168.

Green Book: Qur’anic Teachings on Creation and Nature

173

Loving.19 We can conclude that creation would achieve its excellence and perfection when it is in complete coherence with the Creator. In Islam, nature was designed for a reason. God has a purpose for everything He has done and made, nature not being an exception to this. A Muslim strives to understand everything around him from a Qur’anic perspective and declares, “Our Lord, You have not created this (the universe) without meaning and purpose. All-Glorified are You (in that You are absolutely above doing anything meaningless and purposeless).”20 As Ozdemir states, “nature is not there just by accident, as a result of the process of . . . chaotic configurations without meaning or purpose; it has order and meaning.”21 Interpreting Qur’an 54: 49: “Surely We have created each and every thing by (precise) measure,” Fazlur Rahman (1919-1988) writes that “. . . when God creates anything, He places within it its powers or laws of behavior, called in the Qur’an “guidance,” “command,” or “measure,” whereby it fits into the rest of the universe.” 22 From an Islamic perspective, God is the All-Powerful Being Who can do whatever He wills by the mere command, “Be!” In his commentary, Ali Ünal underlines that in the corporeal realm, God acts from behind the curtain of cause and effect or regular patterns of events—that is, His exercise of His decrees or will in the corporeal realm gives rise in people’s minds to some notions that they call “natural laws.” Therefore, this statement in “And among His signs is that the heaven and the earth stand firm (subsisting) by His Command” (Qur’an 30:25) means that the heaven and earth stand firm and subsist by the laws issuing from the pure realm of His commands that originate from His Attributes of will, wisdom, and power.23

The Human Position: Governor or Guardian? The second lesson is that the nature is good, and this goodness comes from that of the divine purpose. For Muslims, nature is a blessing and a blessed gift of God’s bounty. Nature provides humans all the goodness

 19

Ünal, p. 1095. Qur’an 3:191. 21 Özdemir, “Toward an Understanding of Environmental Ethics from a Qur’Ɨnic Perspective,” p. 1-37. 22 Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur’Ɨn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), p. 67. 23 Ünal, p. 839. 20



174

Chapter Ten

because of God’s love and mercy. God intended for humans to use the resources He provided, to eat and find clothing from animals, to eat the fruit from the trees, and to eat the fish from the seas. In Surah 16, what Thomas Michel calls the Surah of Nature, the Qur’an lists some of the gifts that God has given to mankind:24 And the cattle He has created, from which you get warmth (of clothing) and other uses, and from them you get (food) to eat . . . They carry your loads to many a land which (otherwise) you would be unable to reach except with great hardship to yourselves . . . And horses, mules, and donkeys (has He created for you) to ride, as well as for ornament (the loveliness they add to your world); and (besides all that you see and know of,) He creates what you have no knowledge of. (Qur’an 16:5-8) He it is Who sends down from the sky water; you drink thereof, and thereof (drink) the shrubs on which you pasture your cattle. With it, He causes to grow for you the crops, the olives, the date-palms, the grapes, and all (other) kinds of fruit. Surely in this is a sign (manifesting the truth) for people who reflect. (Qur’an 16:10-11) He has made the night and the day and the sun and the moon to be of service to you, and the stars are made subservient by His command. Surely in that are signs for people who reason and understand. And He it is Who has made the sea to be of service (to you) so that you eat from it fresh meat, and draw out from it ornaments that you wear. (Qur’an 16:12-5)

The Qur’anic teachings hold that everything on the earth is given for humankind as God’s gift, but a gift with certain conditions, though, and not something with which one runs and plays. God created everything for the human being and appointed him/her as khalifa (vicegerent or viceroy) on this earth: “(Remember) when your Lord said to the angels: “I am setting on the earth a vicegerent. 25 “He it is Who has appointed you vicegerents on the earth (to improve it and rule over it according to God’s commandments).”26 This role was one of amana (trusteeship) that imposed a moral responsibility, “We offered the Trust to the heavens, and the earth, and the mountains, but they shrank from bearing it, and were afraid of it (fearful of being unable to fulfill its responsibility), but human has

 24

Michel, A Christian View of Islam, p. 169-70. Qur’an 2:30. 26 Qur’an 6:165. 25

Green Book: Qur’anic Teachings on Creation and Nature

175

undertaken it.” 27 This assumption of responsibility made humankind accountable for their actions. Lubis underlines that the term khalifa with its derivatives is mentioned nine times in the Qur’an; seven of these times are used in conjunction with the prefix fi al-ardh (on this earth).28 In each case it refers to a person, people, or humankind in general, whom God has appointed on earth. The term has also been translated as guardian. 29 Thus, God makes human beings guardians, not lords or owners of the earth. This portrays men and women as trustees, who are provided with gifts and bounties that should be enjoyed within limits since humans are also the servants of God, and the ultimate end of their creation is to serve God.30 Yasin Dutton claims that humans are neither equal to all other creatures, nor are they master of all creation. Rather, each human being is khalifa, that is, in charge of, and therefore responsible for what is below, but at the same time he is abd, servant to what is above.31 In Islamic tradition, in this world, creatures live a life according to their conditions, and all conscious beings sow here to reap in the afterlife. God will take them to account for their deeds in the world and recompense them accordingly. As the trustees of God on earth, humans will be judged in the afterlife for their actions here. They would be held accountable also for their actions related to the environment. Humans are warned that nature will speak accounts of any injustice done to it on the Day of Judgment: “When the earth quakes with a violent quaking destined for it; And the earth yields up its burdens; And a human cries out, “What is the matter with it?” On that day, it will recount all its tidings.”32 Nature will remember the actions of human beings and act as witness in the afterlife. It is reported in the Hadith tradition that since the earth will be a witness, the companions of the Prophet always prayed in different places so every piece of land will testify for them in the Judgment Day.33 Traditionally it is

 27

Qur’an 33:72. Gada, “Environmental Ethics in Islam: Principles and Perspectives,” p. 130-138. 29 Mohamed, “Revitalising an Eco-Justice Ethic of Islam by way of Environmental Education: Implications for Islamic Education.” 30 Ibid. 31 Yasin Dutton, “The Environmental Crisis of Our Time: A Muslim Response,” in Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed Trust, R.C. Foltz, F.M. Denny and A. Baharuddin, eds., (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), p. 323-40. 32 Qur’an 99:1-4. 33 Abnj al-Hussain Muslim, Sahih Muslim, Nasiruddin al-Khattab, trans., (Riyadh, SB: Darussalam, 2007), 1:96. 28



176

Chapter Ten

preferable to change the place of daily ritual prayers if possible. It is the opinion of Muslim scholars that since God will call everything and everyone to witness humankind’s good and evil deeds, every place of prayer and every spot of worship will bear witness to people. It is worth mentioning here that according to the Qur’an, Paradise is described as a place full of an abundance of fruits, shade trees, and companions. Nature with water and trees appears in the Qur’an as a means of reward for the faithful and punishment for the unfaithful in the afterlife. One scenario where water fulfills these roles is in the Qur’anic descriptions of the afterlife, of which the following verse is exemplary: A likeness of Garden which the God-revering, pious are promised is this: in it are rivers of water incorruptible (in taste, smell, and color); and rivers of milk whose taste never changes; and rivers of wine delicious for the drinkers; and rivers of pure, clear honey. And in it, there are also fruits of every kind for them, as well as forgiveness from their Lord (to bring unforeseen blessings). (Are those who will enjoy all this) like those who will abide in the Fire and be given boiling water to drink, so that it rends their bowels? (Qur’an 47:15)

Yes, nature will continue to exist in Paradise, according to the Qur’an. These ideas make it clear to Muslims that the world and all its benefits, whatever part each individual is given power over, is a trust from God, and their obligation is to look after it, as stated by God’s laws and rules. While explaining the concept of Haqq (truth) in the Quran, Nasr states, “the Qur’an does not under any condition give human beings the right to dominate nature without protecting it and acting as a steward.”34 Umar and Khamidi affirm that Muslims are going to be held accountable to God for this and punished or compensated depending on how good they fulfilled their responsibilities as khalifa serving God. 35 Human being should not misuse, abuse, or disfigure nature as each generation is entitled to benefit from them, but is not entitled to own them in an absolute and total sense.36

 34

David Clowney and Patricia Mosto, Earthcare: An Anthology in Environmental Ethics, (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009), p. 85. 35 Mohd Faris Khamidi and Usman Aminu Umar, “Green And Sustainable Development in an Islamic Perspective.” 36 A.M. Al-Damkhi, “Environmental Ethics in Islam: Principles, Violations and Future Perspectives,” in International Journal of Environmental Studies, 2008 65(1), p. 11-31.

Green Book: Qur’anic Teachings on Creation and Nature

177

Coherence and Coordination in Nature as the Universal Law of Creator The third lesson nature teaches us is that the recurring cycle of nature and the order within proves that God is the All-Powerful who governs the universe in an orderly fashion. The Qur’an clearly states that there is a very sensitive balance in nature and the relationships among its parts. It describes this balance thus: And the earth—We have spread it out and set therein firm mountains, and caused to grow therein of every kind in balance and proportion (and in a measured quantity). (Qur’an 15:19) He Who has created seven heavens in harmony. You do not see any fault or incongruity in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look yet again: can you see any rifts? Then look again and yet again (and however often you do so, with whatever instruments to aid your looking), your sight will fall back to you dazzled (by the splendor of God’s creation), and awed and weakened (being unable to discern any flaw to support any excuse for claiming that there could be any sharing in the dominion of the universe). (Qur’an 67:34)

The Qur’an commands Muslims to balance their efforts and also instructs them to do good deeds in this world since God has done good to them and prohibited them from doing mischief here. Qur’an 15:19-21 explains the natural or ecological balance and that everything is created in due balance and ascertainable measures. In one of its well-known passages, the Qur’an speaks of this perfect balance that is also indispensable to human life, both individually and socially: And the heaven—He has made it high (above the earth), and He has set up the balance. So you must not go beyond (the limits with respect to) the balance; And observe the balance with full equity, and do not fall short in it. (Qur’an 55:7-9)

By mentioning the word mƯzƗn (balance) in three consecutive verses, according to Ünal, the Qur’an shows the significance attached to it. The passage clearly states that there is a very sensitive balance in creation and the relationships among its fragments. The amazing harmony observed in the universe and its preservation, for Muslims, is due to this most sensitively calculated balance. The Qur’an employs the perfect order of



178

Chapter Ten

the universe as the proof of both God’s existence and oneness.37 Nursi describes the harmony and concord of the universe as follows: The universe is like a magnificent palace, a well-ordered factory, a wellplanned city, all of whose elements or parts are interrelated with one another and with the whole of it, all at the same time, and which work together for great purposes. Even over long distances, elements hasten to help each other when needed and do not get lost. For example, the sun and the moon, day and night, and summer and winter work with plants to help animals and to help convey their food to them, which they take from the treasury of Mercy. Animals hasten to help human beings. For example, honeybees and silkworms take honey and silk from the treasury of the AllMerciful and prepare them for the use of humankind. Particles of soil, air, and water help fruit and vegetation, each of which has a different taste and quality of nourishment. In turn, they help the body’s cells in perfect orderliness and for great purposes.38

This balance and harmony created by God leads to the Qur’anic idea that nature itself is considered Muslim because it carries out God’s will, submits to God’s power, and acts within the limits God has set for it. The created world is Muslim, actualized to worship and obey God, following both natural laws and God’s commands, as declared in the following passages: Do you not see that all that is in the heavens and the earth, and the birds flying in patterned ranks with wings spread out glorify God. Each knows the way of its prayer and glorification. God has full knowledge of all that they do. (Qur’an 24:41) The thunder glorifies Him with His praise (in that He is absolutely above having any partners, and that all praise belongs to Him exclusively), and so do the angels, in awe of Him. (Qur’an 13:13) Do you ever consider that all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth prostrate themselves to God, and so do the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, and the beasts, and so do many among human beings? But many others are deservedly condemned to punishment. Whoever God humiliates can have none to give him honor. Assuredly, God does whatever He wills. (Qur’an 22:18)

 37 38

Ünal, p. 1090. Said Nursi, Al-Mathnawi Al-Nuri (New Jersey: The Light, 2007), p. 10-11.

Green Book: Qur’anic Teachings on Creation and Nature

179

The seven heavens and the earth, and whoever is therein, glorify Him. There is nothing but it glorifies Him with His praise (proclaiming that He alone is God, without peer or partner, and all praise and gratitude belong to Him exclusively), but you cannot comprehend their glorification. Surely He is (despite what His servants have deserved from Him) All- Clement, All-Forgiving. (Qur’an 17:44)

Since it is God Who creates, sustains, cherishes, nourishes, maintains, and administers the whole universe with all that is in it, so the whole of creation praises Him exclusively. While conscious beings praise Him willingly and consciously “. . . verbally, actively, and by heart—the bodies of all other beings also praise Him through the satisfaction of their needs and contentment of their senses and faculties.” 39 The only distinction between nature and humankind is that nature is Muslim without free will, implying that only a human can be Muslim by his own free choice, as declared in the Qur’an.40 Referring to animals, the Qur’an declares that they constitute a nation or community, just like human beings; “No living creature is there moving on the earth, no bird flying on its two wings, but they are communities like you.”41 In the Qur’an, we see the honeybee as a recipient of God’s divine inspiration. 42 The basic obligation of the honeybee here is not to consciously pray or petition for help like humans do. Her obligation in creation is to act within the bounds of her innate faculties, which is the mode of worship specified for her. We find the mountains as well as birds glorify God along with the Prophet David.43

Conclusion As we have seen, in Islam, there is a special emphasis placed on the natural world and the direct relationship humans have with nature. Islam is the second largest world religion and its 1.6 billion people can be found throughout the entire world. Studying environmental ethics from a Qur’anic point of view will be an important addition to fostering a global environmental ethos and addressing the issues of ethical and social responsibility.

 39

Ünal, p. 582. See Qur’an 3:83. 41 Qur’an 6:38. 42 Qur’an 16:68. 43 Qur’an 21:79. 40



180

Chapter Ten

This paper has explained some of the Qur’anic teachings on creation and nature to hopefully overcome human thoughts and activities from destroying and damaging our world, leading to environmental crises affecting all living beings. It might be debatable whether or not there are adequate principles and guidelines in the Qur’an to make an Islamic environmental law. Nevertheless, it is crystal clear that God has created the universe to invite human beings to rationally and intellectually prove His existence and Oneness through the studies of Book of the Universe.

Bibliography Abu Bakar, Ibrahim. “Islamic Theological Teachings on Ecology,” in International Journal of Business and Social Science vol. 3 no. 13; July 2012. Bourdeau, P. “The Man-Nature Relationship and Environmental Ethics,” in Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2004. Clowney, David and Mosto, Patricia. Earthcare: An Anthology in Environmental Ethics. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009. Al-Damkhi, A.M. “Environmental Ethics in Islam: Principles, Violations and Future Perspectives,” in International Journal of Environmental Studies, 2008 65(1). Foltz, R.C. et al., eds. Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed Trust. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Gada, Mohd Yaseen. “Environmental Ethics in Islam: Principles and Perspectives,” in World Journal of Islamic History and Civilization. IDOSI Publications, 2014. Gülen, Fethullah. Questions And Answers About Islam vol. 1. New Jersey: Tughra Books, 2010. Kollar, Nathan R. and Shafiq, Mohammad, eds. Sacred Texts & Human Contexts: A North American Response to “A Common Word between Us and You.” North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014. Michel, Thomas. A Christian View of Islam. New York: Orbis Books, 2011. Mohamed, Najma. Revitalising an Eco-Justice Ethic of Islam by Way of Environmental Education: Implications for Islamic Education. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. South Africa: Stellenbosch University, 2012. Muslim, Abnj al-Hussain. Sahih Muslim, trans. Nasiruddin al-Khattab.

Green Book: Qur’anic Teachings on Creation and Nature

181

Riyadh, SB: Darussalam, 2007. Nursi, Said. Al-Mathnawi Al-Nuri. New Jersey: The Light, 2007. Rahman, Fazlur. Major Themes of the Qur’an. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Ünal, Ali (trans). The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English. New Jersey: The Light, 2006. Wagner, Walter. Beginning and Endings: Fethullah Gulen’s Vision for Today’s World. New Jersey: Blue Dome Press, 2013. Yang, Tongjin. “Towards an Egalitarian Global Environmental Ethics,” in Environmental Ethics and International Policy. Paris: UNESCO, 2006. Yucel, Salih. Said Nursi’s Approach to the Environment: A Spiritual View on the Book of Universe, 2011. http://www.nur.org/en/Islam/nurlibrary/?Page=ContactForm&ItemID= 111633. Retrieved January 01, 2014.



CHAPTER ELEVEN THE PROTECTION OF NATURE AND ENVIRONMENT: A CASE FOR RESTORING “DHARMA” IN THE HINDU WORLD NAWARAJ CHAULAGAIN1

Abstract: This paper concentrates on the DevƯ MƗhƗtmya (The Glorification of the Goddess), a popular seventh century Goddess-centered Sanskrit text, and on the human context(s) of the annual navarƗtra/navarƗtri festival for which this text is most popular. In this text, the Goddess (as the ultimate Shakti/ĝakti, the divine power) is presented as the embodied cosmos, with all creatures and elemental forces as her bodily parts. In the festival, likewise, nature and environment (broadly designated as prakrֈ ti) is worshiped variously, such as in the forms of earth, plants, seedlings, water, and virgins. In both the text and the rituals, there are calls for the preservation and restoration of the dharma and rejection of the adharma. In these contexts, the dharma mainly concerns the maintenance of natural order, balance and unity with nature. In contrast, the adharma is represented by actual demons. Metaphorically, forces within humans such as ego, greed, anger, selfishness, hunger for worldly power and wealth, and the condition of being dominated by one’s senses are also interpreted as demonic and obstructive of spiritual progress. While recognizing the perpetual conflict of the dharma and the adharma and the inevitable

 1

Nawaraj Chaulagain is an assistant professor in religious studies at Illinois Wesleyan University, Bloomington, IL. He is currently working on the Sanskrit coronation manuals of the Maratha King Shivaji (regnal, ca. 1674-1680 CE). His planned research works include a comparative study of the consecration rituals in the Jain, Hindu, and Buddhist temples; interfaith relations and dialogue; comparative religion; yoga and meditation; and religion and literature.

184

Chapter Eleven

violence that is involved in the process of restoring order, the DevƯ MƗhƗtmya and the rituals of navarƗtri advocate for the preservation of nature and eco-system as ethical and religiously mandated (i.e., dharma), and critique the destruction of the natural (divine) order as unethical and irreligious (i.e., adharma) and demonic.

Introduction Despite deep ecological wisdom in Hindu religious texts and traditions, India and Nepal—the two main countries where nearly 80 percent of the world’s Hindus reside—face increasing environmental challenges and problems such as air and water pollution. Hindu religious texts tirelessly advocate for the protection of nature and the environment, honoring them as divine embodiments or abodes; however, especially in recent decades, mindless exploitation and defilement of natural resources have occurred. In Hindu religious texts and practices, important natural sources such as rivers (for example, the Narmada and Ganges in India and Bagmati in Nepal) are reverentially praised and honored as forms of divinity, especially as goddesses. Yet, ironically, such places are simultaneously the sites that bear the brunt of pollution caused by human activities. 2 The disjunction is not only between what the text mandates (for example, protection of nature) versus what actually happens in day-to-day life, but also between two concurrent activities—worship and defilement. The increasing pollution (of rivers and cities such as Gwalior, Allahabad, Patna, and Delhi in India and Kathmandu in Nepal) has adversely impacted the biodiversity in spite of the attempts by many Hindu-related and other organizations to reduce the level of pollution and maintain the sanctity of nature and environment. This paper concentrates on the conception of nature and ecology in the DevƯ MƗhƗtmya (literally, The Glorification of the Goddess),3 a seventhcentury Sanskrit text that glorifies the goddess as the supreme creatrix of

 2

Christopher Key Chapple and Mary Evelyn Tucker, Hinduism and Ecology: The Intersection of Earth, Sky, and Water (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 339-452; David L. Haberman, River of Love in an Age of Pollution: The Yamuna River of Northern India (California: University of California Press, 2006); Madhav Gadgil and Ramachandra Guha, Ecology and Equity: The Use and Abuse of Nature in Contemporary India (New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 1995). 3 The text is divided into thirteen chapters (henceforth stated in chapter and verse numbers—for example, 1.5—while citing from this text), and theoretically it contains seven hundred verses.

The Protection of Nature and the Environment

185

the universe, and on the human context of spring and autumnal goddess worship rituals of the navarƗtri (alternatively, the DurgƗ pnjjƗ, or dussehra) that are based on the mythological conceptions documented in this text. The DevƯ MƗhƗtmya is one of the most recited texts and the navarƗtri festival (literally, “nine nights” but observed for up to ten to fifteen days in different parts of South Asia) is one of the most important religious occasions in the Hindu world. Both the text and the rituals illustrate that nature and the environment are sacred and divine, and that to harm nature is something demonic and self-destructive. Although neither the text nor the rituals were composed and constructed with modern environmental threats in mind, they provide a theological vision that this earth is the body of the Goddess (or goddess) and pervaded by her divine power, and that as humans, we have an important obligation to embody and translate ecological values in our day-to-day living.4

Part I: Devi MƗhƗtmya and the Ecological Wisdom 1. The Divine and the Demonic: A Perpetual Cosmic Battle The DevƯ MƗhƗtmya presents this universe as created, sustained and recreated by the goddess, and that the entire cosmos, including this earth, is her embodied form (1.56-57, 1.63, 4.6, 5.7, 11.3). The goddess is rooted to the world and is called by such names as prakrֈ ti, which can be translated as both primordial matter and its manifestations in multiple forms, including nature and the environment (1.59). The framing narrative of this text recounts three cosmic battles between the Divine and the Demonic at different unspecified cyclic times. The divine side is represented by different gods and goddesses, including the animals associated with them, while the demonic is exemplified by anti-gods, variously referred to as asuras, daityas, dƗnavas and rƗk‫܈‬asas. The cosmic order is sustained through a continuously dynamic process of creation, preservation and destruction for re-creation; it is also maintained through the restoration of the divine order. In this scheme, every creature, deity,

 4

This study departs from many others in its exclusive focus on ecology and the environment. The extant studies on this text mainly concentrate on the topics of mythical battles and divine powers of the goddess. For a detailed discussion of scholarly studies of this text and rituals, see Nawaraj Chaulagain, Hindu Kingship: Ritual, Power and History (Ph. D. Dissertation; Cambridge: Department of South Asian Studies, Harvard University, 2013).



186

Chapter Eleven

and anti-god (or demon) has his or her own interdependent place and position, and they mutually reinforce each other by operating within the cosmic design.

2. The Divine Order as Ecological and Demonic Control as Anti-ecological In this text, the divine actions are primarily for the preservation of the natural order while the demonic control is utterly destructive of it. The three cosmogonic narratives recounted in this text (the first in chapter I; the second in chapters II through IV; and the third in chapters V through XIII) have a common thematic pattern: (1) The gods lose the cosmic battle with the demons and, consequently, lose sovereignty of the triple world (heaven, in-between space, and the earth); (2) the gods pray to the goddess to protect them and the created world against the demons; (3) the goddess assumes, or reincarnates herself in one or another form, fights off the demons, and restores order. These stories together illustrate that there is an eternal battle in the universe (and within every individual) between the good and the evil, the light and the darkness, and the divine and the demonic, with the ultimate victory of the former over the latter. From the ecological perspective, it restates the perpetual conflict between those who are part of (or who maintain) the ecosystem and natural order (divine side) versus those who are against it (demonic side). The first narrative, for example, recounts a story about the beginning of a time cycle (cosmic eon) after a period of dissolution of the universe. The creator god BrahmƗ arises from the lotus that comes from the navel of the supreme god Viৢ৆u, who himself undergoes a process of cosmic sleep in an eternal ocean with his mount as the multi-headed cobra called Ananta—i.e., “Infinite.” At the juncture of this liminal time of recreation, two demons arise from Viৢ৆u’s earwax and try to undo BrahmƗ’s creative act. The creator god is now completely helpless; therefore, he invokes the powerful goddess (pervading the body of Viৢ৆u in the form of sleep) and requests her to leave Viৢ৆u’s body so that he can wake up and kill the demons in order to resume the process of creation. This story can be interpreted ecologically. For example, creation is symbolized by the lotus, which the demonic forces attempt to destroy with their weapons. Here a contrast between the creation and destruction is represented by these two images—the lotus and the weapon. Similarly, the cobra with his name “infinite” implies the limitlessness and pervasiveness of the Divine. This picture also shows the interdependence between different types of beings in the world (gods and goddesses, humans and

The Protection of Nature and the Environment

187

animals, and so on). However, the story also suggests that both the godly and the ungodly (anti-godly) forces are divine creations themselves and, in fact, required for the continuation of the cyclic order. Similarly, the second narrative presents the demon Mahiৢa as assuming absolute sovereign power of the universe and misusing that power for his own benefit. After grabbing power through battles, he denies others the rights (for example, to share food for survival) and responsibilities for interdependent living (for example, recognizing each other’s position and power). As in the first narrative, it illustrates that the demons are antiecological and destructive to the earth:5 .

In anger he of great valor, pounding the earth with his hooves, Hurled up mountains with his horns and bellowed. The earth, trampled by his rapid whirling(s), was crushed, And the ocean, flailed by his tail, flooded everywhere. Clouds were torn into pieces, rent by his swaying horns. Mountains by the hundreds, thrown about by his breath, fell from the sky. (3.24-3.26)

The narrative employs strong and violent images while describing the actions of the demons. For example, the demonic actions of pounding the earth, hurling and throwing the mountains, trampling and crushing the earth, flailing the ocean, and tearing and rending the clouds illustrate their destructive actions and their adverse impact on nature and environment. The third narrative similarly presents the demons as abusive and antiecological. For the sake of the wealth and power of the entire universe, they forcefully seize the dominions of natural elements such as Fire, Air, Water, Earth and Space, represented respectively by the deities Agni, VƗyu, Varu৆a, Prࡢ thvƯ and Indra. Then, the demons appropriate the natural resources for themselves, denying interdependent co-existence. This is in sharp contrast with what the divine side represents. For example, after the goddess fixes the chaos created by the demons and restores the order, nature regains its natural rhythm of life and everything operates in an orderly fashion:

 5

All translations are from T. B. Coburn’s translation of the DevƯ MƗhƗtmya; T. B. Coburn, Encountering the Goddess: A Translation of the DevƯ-mƗhƗtmya and a Study of its Interpretation (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1991).



188

Chapter Eleven The flaming clouds of portent that formerly had gathered became tranquil, And rivers once again flowed within their banks, when he (the demon) was slain. When that wicked one was dead, the whole universe became soothed, Regaining its natural condition once more, and the sky became spotless. ………………………………………………………………………… Favorable winds began to blow, and the sun shone brilliantly. The sacred fires blazed peacefully, and the sounds that had been produced throughout the quarters died away. (10.24-10.28)

The scenario of the “flaming clouds of portent,” rivers not flowing within their banks (overflowing rivers), the agitated universe, the loss of natural condition, unfavorable winds and sun light, and unwholesome sounds imply severe ecological crises after the demons (and demonic forces) overtake and exploit the ecosphere (2.5, 11.42, 11.45). In contrast, when the divine forces regain control, the ecological order is restored to its natural condition.

3. The Battles: Both Terrestrial and Cosmic The battles recounted in the DevƯ MƗhƗtmya are not merely cosmic, transcendental and happening once in every eon. The narratives are ahistorical, and at least in this context, they embody a universal message for audiences of all times and places. A closer reading of the text reveals that these cosmic battles are presented as occurring in this world and directly impacting the earth and its creatures. In the first, for example, the demons Madhu and Kai৬ava request the god Viৢ৆u to “slay [us] on a place where the earth is not flooded with water” (1.76). In the second one, millions of demons fall on the earth after they are destroyed by the goddess (2.60, 3.14, 3.22). The demons use the earth (e.g., mountains) itself in their attempt to kill the goddess, (3.16, 3.26, and 3.34) and their dead bodies overcrowd earth, making it impassable (2.64). In the third narrative, the goddess is presented in the form of PƗrvati—literally, the daughter of the mountain (Parvat). She resides here on the earth and in the HimƗlayan mountain (5.6, 5.41, 5.56), bathes in the holy river Ganges (5.37), and battles with the demons (8.40-8.61). In actuality, the goddess is never away from the world and its creatures. She is constantly invoked to protect this world and the entire universe (154-1.67, 4.2-4.26, 5.7-5.36), and she reincarnates to restore the order whenever it is threatened by disorderly forces. This suggests that the narratives are not outside of time and space but very much related to the problems of real life situations.

The Protection of Nature and the Environment

189

In the narratives, the divine side is presented as just, and believing in the principle of interdependence and relative agencies of multiple powers (of gods and goddesses). On the other side, the antigods (asuras) are unjust; they rely solely on their physical force. They are also greedy and lustful for unlimited wealth and power. They consequently seize Prakrࡢ ti (i.e., nature and ecology), which is represented in the narrative by such images as the sacred “ParijƗta tree” (5.47) and “un-withering lotuses” (5.49), which the demons forcefully take away from the gods. The divine side values women as living portions of the goddess, while demons are presented as androcentric and misogynist. The demons are possessive and consider themselves to be appreciative of women: “We regard you as the jewel among women in the world, O Goddess. You should come to us, for we are the enjoyer of jewels” (5.63). They devalue the divine strength and power of women and are insatiable in their greed: “All the gods, led by Indra, were no match in battle/For this Shumbha [demon] and the others. How can you, a woman, go into battle with them?” (5.73). Further, they are abusive and violent, and they absolutely lack reverence for the creative and sustaining power of the goddess, women and the nature. For example, the demon king says that the goddess is a mere woman and demands that she be brought to him so that he can make her a queen consort, even without her consent: “Forcibly bring that wicked woman here, upsetting her by dragging her by the hair” (6.3, 6.7, 6.8, 6.19, 6.20). Although the demons are presented as physically strong, they are dominated by the qualities of darkness, delusion (tamas), and wickedness. They are materialistic, exploitative, and insensitive to others’ lives and needs. More importantly, they are presented as “haters of dharma” (11.29)6 which in

 6

The word dharma is derived from the root dhar, meaning “to hold” or “to uphold.” The words dharƗ and dhara۬i, meaning the earth, are formed from the same root dhar because the earth upholds and sustains everything (Macdonell, 130). Arthur Anthony Macdonell, A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, With Translation, Accentuation, and Etymological Analysis Throughout (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 2003). Dharma “implies movement, change, dynamic qualities, and the chief characteristics of the natural law. Thus, its opposite adharma signifies the law of statics and non-motion, and hence by comparison “unnatural.” Initially, it was applied to cosmological theory and to sacerdotal and social rules by which the community, the gods, and the universe were held together” (Stutley, 76). In some passages in the Rigveda (RV), it refers entirely to sacrificial procedure, such as the kindling of fire in accordance with ancient custom (III.17.1), in order to ensure that the worship of the gods is carried out “as the laws of men ordain.” (III.60.6). In BrƗhama۬as, it generally means





190

Chapter Eleven

the contexts of the narrative primarily means that they are against the divine order.

4. Frame Narrative of the DevƯ MƗhƗtmya and Ecological Consciousness in the Human World In the DevƯ MƗhƗtmya, the divine side is presented as the realm of dharma while the demonic side represents adharma (anti-dharma), with these aspects having their counterparts in the human world. Those on the side of dharma (the goddess, gods, and humans) are kind and loving to all creatures, even to the ones who reject their worldviews and banish them, while those on the side of adharma are selfish, unloving, and opportunistic. In the frame narrative of the DevƯ MƗhƗtmya, for example, the king Suratha (literally, having a good chariot) is presented as “a king over the whole earth,” “protecting all creatures well, like his own children,” and also kindly disposed to thinking about the wellbeing of all creatures, including animals (1.3). Interestingly, both this king and another merchant called SamƗdhi (literally, meditative absorption) come to the “dense forest” (or woods) after they are conquered and banished from their respective spheres of life (kingdom for the king and family for the merchant), seeking solace and refuge in the lap of nature, which is presented as a form of the goddess herself. To regain their lost connection, they turn to a sage called Medha (literally, wisdom) who is dharmagoverned and dharma-embodied, and who resides in a deep forest filled with undomesticated and harmless animals and birds, with every entity living in perfect harmony with each other as part of nature (1.9). The hermitage of this sage is simple, unadorned and without any materialistic luxury. As an embodiment of nature and ecological wisdom, the sage imparts wisdom to those who come to him with life’s problems: It is true that men have knowledge, but are they alone? For all cattle, birds, and animals have knowledge, too. The knowledge that beasts and birds have, men also have

 “duty,” but in the Dharmasnjtras (or DharmaĞƗstras), it is regarded as a code of rules designed to ensure the cohesion of the community (categorized under Ğrauta, grֈ hya, and dharma in the sense of the temporal duties and customs, with these three constituting the ‘whole duty of man’). See Margaret and James Stutley, Harper’s Dictionary of Hinduism: Its Mythology, Folklore, Philosophy, Literature, and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1877), 76.

The Protection of Nature and the Environment

191

And that which men have, they have, too; they are both equal to each other. (1.34-1.37)

The text paints an idyllic picture of the world of dharma (both of divine and human), in which the divine, human, and animal kingdoms are in complete harmony. Similarly, in other sections of the narratives, the deities are presented with their animal mounts, and all of them live together without being in conflict with each other. For example, Viৢ৆u abides with his mount as the multi-hooded eternal cobra (1.49, 2.29). Likewise, ĝiva rides on a bull and is covered with cobras. Among the goddesses, PƗrvati rides on a lion; BrƗhma৆Ư rides on swans; MƗheĞvarƯ rides on a bull and wears serpents as her bracelets; KaumƗrƯ rides on a peacock; Vaiৢ৆avƯ rides on a Garu‫ڲ‬a (an eagle-like mythical being); HariĞakti rides on a boar; NƗraĞiূhƯ rides on a man-lion; and AindrƯ on an elephant with serpents as her ornaments (8.14cff., 11.13). All these goddesses are divine powers and life forms of their male counterparts, and they support, empower and complement each other.

5. Incarnation Narratives for the Protection of the Earth The text recounts that the goddess has reincarnated in this world manifold times (1.65, 11.3, 11.18, 11.38-39) to restore dharma on earth and to accomplish “the divine mission” (1.48). 7 In fact, the goddess is presented as the embodied dharma. As the earth, she is also called dharƗ and dhara۬Ư, the one that upholds and sustains (everything) and that also leads people to liberation right here on earth (11.4). The text firmly maintains that the dharma of the goddess does not fail among nations because it is primarily about protecting the natural rhythm of life, and because with her guidance, the righteous (dhƗrmika) people “always attentively perform all righteous actions (dharma) on a daily basis” (4.15). For this reason the goddess is constantly invoked for the protection of the earth, which is her own form, and the creatures who are sustained by her.



7 This is in line with what the Bhagavad Gita (IV.7-8) declares: “Whenever there is decay of righteousness (dharma). . . . And there is exaltation of unrighteousness (adharma), then I [god] Viৢ৆u will come forth . . . for the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil-doers, for the sake of firmly establishing righteousness. For this purpose, I am born from age to age.” Qtd in. p. 32 (Harper’s Dictionary of Hinduism).



192

Chapter Eleven

Part II: Hindu NavarƗtri and Ecological Worship In line with the sacred stories of the Devi MƗhƗtmya, the navarƗtrƯ (festival) honors the goddess in her many different forms, including the earth, plants, waters, vegetation (ĞƗkambharƯ), rivers (Ganges), mountains (Himalayas), water pitchers, trees, virgins, and all women. In the context of the festival, worshiping the goddess means worshiping the elements of nature manifested in varied forms. The festival illustrates that the goddess (also, “nature” in this case) is the beginning and end, as part of the operative process of all life. Barley seeds are planted on the earth-bed on the first day, honoring nature as the source of life and a manifestation of the goddess. At the end of the festival, the earth-bed and ritually consecrated clay images (divine icons) of the goddess are finally taken back and immersed into water (i.e., the pond, river, or ocean). The text gives a strong eco-feminist sensibility, explicitly stating that all females and all mothers are portions of the goddess herself (11.5, 5.31) and that any form of abuse and discrimination is demonic. Throughout the festival, this text (DevƯ MƗhƗtmya) is regularly recited, theoretically nine times every day in temples and at home, and the rituals create and illustrate a meaningful world by connecting and reuniting the worshipers with the divine world of nature.

1. Driving Away of the bhnjtas (uncanny elements) and the Ritual Transformation of the Body One such ritual is what is called the bhnjtaĞuddhi—i.e., the purification of the physical body of the worshiper, through which the grosser elements of the body are transformed into more subtle ones until all elements attain purity and are finally absorbed into the Supreme Soul (paramƗtmƗ/Brahman). The earth is connected and transformed into water; earth and water into fire; earth, water and fire into wind; earth, water, fire, and wind into space. These five elements are then absorbed into the conception of individuality (ahaۨkƗra), then into intellect (mahƗtattva, great principle), and then into prakrࡢti (the original producer of the material world), and finally, into the Supreme Self (paramƗtmƗ), which is the goddess herself in her transcendental expression. This ritual-meditative process connects and reunites the worshiper with the elemental forces (i.e., broadly, nature), illustrating an integrative and holistic world.

The Protection of Nature and the Environment

193

Supreme Self Prakrֈ ti Intellect Individuality Space Wind Fire Water Earth

2. Wishing Peace in Nature and Everywhere In the purification ritual described earlier, there is a two-way evolution and involution, which is believed to create a purified body for the worshiper. During a series of ritual activities, the worshiper recites many hymns, such as the following that invokes the goddess (and other deities) for the peace and prosperity of the entire world: Hari oূ prࡢ thivƯ ĞƗntir, antarikৢaূ ĞƗntir, dyauত ĞƗntir, Ɨpaত ĞƗntir, oৢadhayaত ĞƗntir, vanaspatayaত ĞƗntir, viĞve me devƗত ĞƗntiত, sarve me devƗত ĞƗntiত, ĞƗntiত ĞƗntiত ĞƗntibhiত| TƗbhiত ĞƗntibhƯত sarvaĞƗntibhiত ĞamayƗmo’haূ, yad iha ghoraূ, yad iha krnjraূ yad iha pƗpaূ tac chƗntaূ, tac chivaূ, sarvam eva Ğam astu naত|| Hari oۨ. [May there be] peace on earth, peace in the atmosphere, peace in the sky, peace in the waters, peace in the herbs, peace in the forest; peace [be] in all the gods [for me], peace to peace; by peace, I am creating peace in what is terrible here. What here is cruel, what here is evil, may that be



194

Chapter Eleven made peaceful, that [it may be] propitious/friendly; may all be peaceful for us. (AVĝ 19.9.14; VS 36.17; TA 4.42.5)8

3. Worshiping the Earth The navarƗtri ritual calls for the preservation of the earth. For example, in the following verse, the worshiper asks the demonic forces to stay away from the ritual pavilion and not harm the earth. The earth is also worshiped (bhnjmipnjjƗ) as the goddess for the orderly operation of the world:9 Oূ bhnjr asi bhnjmir asi aditir asi viĞvadhƗyƗs viĞvasya bhuvanasya dhartrƯ| prࡢ thivƯূ yaccha prࡢ thivƯূ drࡢ ূha prࡢ thivƯূ mƗ himsƯত. (VS 13.18; TS 4.2.9.1, 7.1.1.2.1; ĝB 7.4.2.7). Oূ. You are the earth, you are the ground, you are Aditi, the maintainer/supporter of the whole world, (which is) the basis of all things. Restrain the earth, make the earth firm, [and] do not injure the earth.

On the first day of navarƗtri, many objects related to the world of nature such as plants and their leaves, herbs, earths/clays, fruits, grains, cow products, waters, and clay pitchers are prepared for their use in worship. These include, for example, five sprigs or shoots of plants (collectively called the pañcapallava) such as the mango tree (Ɨmra), roseapple tree (jambnj), wood-apple tree (kapittha), citrus medica (bƯjapnjraka), and aegle marmelos or bael (bilva); 10 seven types of earth (saptamrֈ ttikƗ)—from the elephant’s step, horse’s hoof, wheel of the chariot, anthill, battlefield, cowshed, and crossroads; eight kinds of

 8

W. D. Whitney, The Atharva Veda SaۨhitƗ (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1905), 288. 9 AryƗl, NavarƗtra tathƗ Yamapañcaka PnjjƗvidhi, 16. Although the earth and Aditi are linked as one, it does not appear to be so in the Rigveda, which mentions her name (Aditi) about eighty times. While the earth is (RV 1.6) even referred to as Indra’s consort, Aditi is presented as the mother of Indra, of kings (RV 2.27), of the gods (RV 1.113.19), and of the Ɩdityas—that group of seven or eight gods including Mitra, Bhaga, Dakৢa, AূĞa, Varu৆a, and Aryaman (RV 2.27.1). Both Aditi and the earth, however, are connected in terms of their motherhood and in their supportive (enforcing rֈ ta) roles, but the former appears as an independent deity without a male consort in the Rigveda. 10 For the variation of this set of names, see Monier Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, 576.

The Protection of Nature and the Environment

195

fragrant substances (a‫ܒ܈‬asugandha); 11 and all types of medicinal herbs (sarvau‫܈‬adhi).12 Jewels of different types, sacred substances of the cow (which is regarded as the earth and mother from the early Vedic texts), and other objects indicating good fortune, such as bracelets, glass beads, vermillion, black pigment around the eyes, mirrors, combs, thread, and cloth (saubhƗgya dravya) are also prepared for use in devotional services to the goddess.

4. Installation of Clay Pitchers Another important highlight of the navarƗtri occasion is the installation of the clay pitchers and their worship as forms of the goddess. The sacred substances used inside each earthen pitcher/vessel for the installation, such as water from seven different rivers, herbs, grains such as rice and barley seeds, clays from seven different places, plant sprouts, and mango leaves, among others, suggest a divine world of plenty and creativity pervaded by the power of the goddess.

5. Planting Barley Seeds on the Earthen Bed The occasion celebrates fertility and creativity. One such example is the planting of barley seeds and other grains on an earthen bed, formed of the clay and/or sand brought from sacred locations. A special geometric diagram is constructed on this bed and the seeds are planted by reciting appropriate mantras (formulaic expressions) related to the goddess and her abundant creative power. The goddess is worshiped as ĝakti, the divine, cosmic, and germinating power. Fifty-one or one hundred and eight holy places of the goddess (ĞƗktipƯ‫ܒ‬has) are invoked at different places of this

 11

The eight perfumes (a‫ܒ܈‬asugandha) are those of the bilva tree (ĞrƯkha۬‫ڲ‬a), aloe (agaru), camphor (kapnjra), deer musk (kastnjrƯ), yellow pigment of the cow (gorocana), saffron/crocus sativus (ku۪kum), red dye obtained from the cochineal insect and from the resin of a particular tree (lƗk‫܈‬Ɨrasa), and juice that exudes from the temple of an elephant in rut (mada). AryƗl, NavarƗtri tathƗ Yamapañcaka PnjjƗvidhi, 6; Apte, 282. 12 This mainly consists of beeswax (ku‫ܒ‬a), turmeric, a particular plant from which a drug and red dye are made (ja‫ܒ‬ƗmasƯ, nardotachys jatamasi), berberis nepalensis, fossil production/ bitumen (ĞilƗjit), a particular kind of marsh-growing plant called bojho (rhizomatous herb chewed as an antidote for sore throat and the roots of which are hung around the neck to cure fever, and a particular type of grass called cyperus rotundus (mothe, in Nepali).



196

Chapter Eleven

diagram and worshiped.13 The bed containing the barley and other seeds is regularly sprinkled with sacred waters collected from various sacred rivers, and the rituals connect and reconnect the worshiper with the world of nature.

6. The Awakening of the Goddess in Nine Different Plants Beginning on the sixth day, plants of various types are worshiped as forms of the goddess. Special prayers are also offered to the goddess in the form of a wood apple tree, asking for her (the tree’s) permission to chop the branches that are used for ritual purposes. Nine different forms of the goddess are then awakened in the following plants (navapattrikƗbodhana), which are consecrated with holy waters, cow products, fruit juices, and perfumes:14 the banana plantain, edible root (colocasia antiaquorum), turmeric, clerodendrum phlomidis (jaya), wood apple tree (bilva/bel), pomegranate, aĞoka tree (saraca indica), arum plant (alocasia indica), and rice.15 The list shows that these are some of the most important life-sustaining

 13

Matsya PurƗ۬a 13; DevƯ-bhƗgavata-purƗ۬a 7.30; KƗlikƗ-purƗ۬a 18; MahƗbhƗgavata-purƗ۬a 11; Brֈ haddharma-purƗ۬a, Madhya-kha۬‫ڲ‬a 10. 14 It is believed that the autumnal navarƗtri was an expanded form of the spring fertility festival (which appears to be a more ancient one) as it incorporated martial and metaphysical elements. For this reason, the autumnal navarƗtri is referred to as untimely (akƗla). ĝivapriyƗnanda mentions that, in contrast to the spring goddess festival, the autumnal navarƗtri falls in dak‫܈‬inƗyana, when the sun appears to move south of the equator, a very inauspicious period: “Most rituals that are undertaken during this period, and the festivals that fall within it, are for protection and immunity from the harmful effects of nature and malevolent beings (21). ĝivapriyƗnanda, Mysore Royal Dasara (New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1995). The Atharvaveda-PariĞi‫ܒ܈‬a and Devi MƗhƗtmya (12.11) refer to the popularity of the autumnal navarƗtri festival. Kane states that the rainy season was the time for rest for the ancient kings, who often spent this time in worship-related activities, and that it was appropriate to designate this time as the period of rest (sleep) for the gods. Viৢ৆u is also said to go to sleep during the monsoon (Kane, V. 109). 15 PratƗp ĝƗh, 101. Coomaraswamy associates the worship of navapatrikƗ with the tradition of yak‫܈‬a and yak‫܈‬Ưs, the supernatural beings living in forests. A. K. Coomaraswamy, Yak‫܈‬as, 2 Vols (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1971), 32. Cf. Sarat Chandra Roy, “On the Cult of the Jujube-Tree,” Man in India, vol. 4 (19812004): 98-110. It appears that the much more ancient cult of worshiping trees and vegetation may have been integrated later into the tradition of DurgƗ worship. It is also believed that the tradition of navapatrikƗ was a survival of the cult of DurgƗ as a vegetation-spirit or the tree goddess (e.g., vanadurgƗ, DurgƗ of the forest).

The Protection of Nature and the Environment

197

plants: 16 the barley and rice are major staple grains; the bel (aegle marmelos), banana, and pomegranate are popular fruits; the bel, turmeric, arum plant, pomegranate and even the bark of the aĞoka (literally, that which has no grief) tree are used as herbs; turmeric is an indispensable ingredient in cooking and regarded as having healing properties; and the arum colocasia is a very popular food eaten in a variety of ways. The Nine Plants and the Goddesses Plants Banana plantain kacvƯ (arum colocasia) turmeric barley bel pomegranate aĞoka mƗna rice/paddy

Worshiped as the goddess BrahmƗ৆Ư KƗlikƗ DurgƗ KƗrttikƯ ĝivƗ RaktadantikƗ ĝokarahitƗ CƗmu৆ঌƗ LakৢmƯ

7. Worshiping the Tree of Victory and Consecrating Oneself with Barley Seedlings Two nature-related activities are done on the tenth day of the festival, called the day of victory-tenth (vijayƗdaĞamƯ). The barley seeds planted on the earthen bed on the first day fully grow by the tenth day, and people receive these seedlings as direct blessings from the goddess. A form of creeper called the ĞƗmƯ tree (prosopis spicigera, or mimosa suma) is also worshiped as the goddess of victory (aparƗjitƗ, i.e., as the unconquered and unconquerable one) and the worshiper feels consecrated and endowed with power.17

 16

RƗ৆a, 28; AryƗl, 47: “raۨbhƗ kaccƯ haridrƗ ca jayantƯ bilvadƗ‫ڲ‬imau| aĞoko mƗnavrֈ k‫܈‬aĞca dhƗnyƗdi navapatrikƗ‫ۊ‬.” This is in keeping with the pan-Indian tradition of worshiping the leaves of the plants as various forms of the goddess. See PratƗpchandra Ghosh, DurgƗ PnjjƗ: With Notes and Illustrations (Calcutta: Hindoo Patriot Press, 1871), 67-68; Rodrigues, 129-130. 17 For details about this ritual in relation to the annual lunar calendar and the phases of the moon, see Bihani Sarkar, “The Rite of DurgƗ in Medieval Bengal: An Introductory Study of Raghunandana's DurgƗpnjjƗtattva with Text and





198

Chapter Eleven

8. The Homa Rituals Everyday During the navarƗtri, fire rituals are performed every day by offering vegetarian items such as grains and clarified butter into the fire. It is believed that the god Agni (the fire deity, or literally, simply fire) conveys the sacrifice to the goddess in the form of smoke (in the manner described in Rigveda VII.11.5), 18 and the goddess grants her favor when she is pleased and satisfied. 19 From the ecological perspective, the regular sacrifices are believed to sustain the order of the universe, variously referred to as rֈ ta (“the active force of truth”), or (in the post-Vedic literature) as dharma. Sacrifices are also said to regulate the movement of the planets and provide the worshipers (and other earth-bound creatures) with life-sustaining boons, such as rain and fertility: The lord of all creatures, having created beings and deities, declared thus: by sacrificial action you will attain prosperity; this is for you the desired milch cow, with this you cherish gods (cosmic powers) and the gods will cherish you. By mutual care and concern, there will reign general prosperity for all. The deities, being satisfied by the performance of yajña (fire ritual), supply the needs of humans. But one who enjoys these gifts without offering them in return is certainly a thief. 20 (BhƗgavadgƯtƗ, III.10-13)

Part III 1. The Ritual and Its Violent Side Despite all the positive aspects of this nature-friendly theological vision, the associated mythologies and rituals nonetheless have violent aspects. This text and the navarƗtri rituals also present the goddess and other deities as fiercely warlike, and they tend to legitimize and justify the use of weaponry and violence (13.14). The perpetual battle and the attendant bloodshed are regarded as integral to the operative process of the universe itself and even understood symbolically as an internal battle

 Translation of the Principal Rites,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 22, pp 325-390 (2012). 18 Jamison, trans. The Rigveda, 897. 19 Ibid, 512. 20 O. P. Dwivedi, “Dharmic Ecology,” Hinduism and Ecology: The Intersection of Earth, Sky, and Water, Christopher Key Chapple and Mary Evelyn Tucker, eds., (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 24-25.

The Protection of Nature and the Environment

199

between the divine and demonic aspects within each individual. In the context of sacrifice, it is argued that sacrificial killing (for example, in the battle myths and the rituals of animal sacrifices at different places of South Asia) is not actual killing and that the demons who die in the battlefield and animals that are said to represent demons in sacrificial rituals directly go to heaven and attain liberation.21

2. Actual Scenario versus Religious Worldview and Practices Although the text and practice illustrate a liberating vision about nature, the navarƗtri rituals do not seem to have actually seriously motivated people to protect nature and the environment in South Asia. Medha’s sage lifestyle, a sample of what may be called simple living and high thinking oriented to the attainment of knowledge and wisdom in the midst of nature, and his wisdom on the equality of all creatures in the sense-based world stand in sharp contrast to the glamour, materiality, and violence that are often part of the navarƗtri. Although there is a call for the destruction of demonic qualities such as anger, greed, jealousy, delusion, and lust for wealth and power (as seen in the narratives of the eternal battle between the divine and the demonic), this message does not seem to have transformed the behavior of the participants in any significant and permanent way. Interpreted from the ecological perspective, the attribution of demonic qualities to different animals that are immolated in sacrificial rituals for others’ benefit challenges the notion of the equality and co-existence of all creatures. Further, in the history of South Asia, Hindu kings (for example, the Nepalese ĝƗh dynasty, for example, from the 16th through the 18th CEs), aspiring rulers, and others have appropriated these myths and rituals to empower themselves with arms and weapons, and for the mindless conquest of other peoples’ land, property, and religion, suggesting that the text and ritual occasion are hardly about the protection of nature and the environment. Instead of justice (e.g., animal rights) and equality (e.g, gender equality), the rituals as they variously play out in Hindu society have also ironically promoted injustices and inequalities by legitimizing the patriarchal and high caste Brahmanic and priestly social order and hierarchy. Despite the text’s portrayal of a bucolic picture of the goddess residing on a snowy peak as the daughter (PƗrvati) of the mountain

 21

Dhana ĝamĞer RƗ৆Ɨ, ĝƗradƯyadurgƗpnjjƗpaddhati (Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy, 1975), 56.



200

Chapter Eleven

(HimƗlaya-Parvata) and bathing in the pure, holy, and heavenly river Ganges, the actual scenario of such rivers, with its dangerously high level of sound and other forms of pollution in modern India, is just the opposite. The uncleanliness, human-made pollution, and ecological degradation have led to what Diana Eck calls “a cultural and theological crisis.” As Eck argues, the rivers (for example) that are said to have descended to earth as sources of salvation are now, in their earthly form, in need of salvation themselves.22

3. Our Responsibility to Save the Planet Yet, by setting the divine and demonic realms of the dharma and adharma in opposition to each other, the text and the rituals emphasize the importance of nature and the natural order, and call for the restoration of purity, beauty, auspiciousness, and cleanliness of environment. The narratives teach us that greed, anger, selfishness, and lust for wealth and power lead to unwholesome behaviors and conflicts. The sage Medha’s story teaches that we should therefore transcend the notions of “I and mine” in interpersonal relationships and cultivate simple lifestyles for the protection of nature and environment. The text imparts the lesson that reverence to the goddess should in fact transcend the sphere of one’s private worship and devotion, and it should equally encompass one’s devotion to and the protection of nature.

Conclusion An important narrative moment of the DevƯ MƗhƗtmya can help one relate to the ecological problems in the modern world. In the third narrative, for example, the demons attempt to lure the mountain goddess PƗrvatƯ—endowed with light, splendor and awesome power—into marrying their demon king. Many attempts by the demons fail to convince her and they try to forcefully abduct the goddess; the demons then resort to actual physical assault and violence. In the process, the goddess’s battle with the demon general RaktabƯja (literally, blood-seed) comes into play. In the battle, each drop of the demon’s blood that falls on earth produces another demon of the same magnitude and power, symbolizing the proliferation of the demonic power on earth, and soon the entire earth is

 22

Diana L. Eck, India: A Sacred Geography (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2012), 187-88.

The Protection of Nature and the Environment

201

filled by innumerable demons of the same type. As an ultimate saving act for the entire creation, the mountain goddess produces the most powerful and violent form of herself, the dark goddess KƗlƯ. She then swallows all the blood emerging out of all the demons produced by the blood of RaktabƯja without letting any drops fall and infect the earth. This scenario of the text can help us reflect on the consequences of human beings’ unholy actions against nature and the environment. Humans who desacralize and violate the divine nature in their greed for unlimited power and wealth are actually, as the text suggests, no different from the demon RaktabƯja and the other demons of the narratives, waiting to be destroyed and swallowed up by mother earth herself.

Bibliography Apte, Vaman Shivaram. The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, 3rd edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003. AryƗl, BalarƗm. NavarƗtri tathƗ Yamapañcaka PnjjƗvidhi: DevƯ DevatƗkƗ Yantraharu Sahita. Kathmandu: KeĞava AryƗl and BhƗnurƗj AryƗl, 2005. Chapple, Christopher Key and Mary Evelyn Tucker. Hinduism and Ecology: The Intersection of Earth, Sky, and Water. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. Chaulagain, Nawaraj. Hindu Kingship: Ritual, Power and History (Ph.D. Dissertation). Cambridge: Department of South Asian Studies, Harvard University, 2013. Coburn, T. B. Encountering the Goddess: A Translation of the DevƯmƗhƗtmya and a Study of its Interpretation. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1991. Coomaraswamy, A. K. Yak‫܈‬as, 2 vols. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1971. Dwivedi, O. P. “Dharmic Ecology,” In Hinduism and Ecology: The Intersection of Earth, Sky, and Water. Edited by Christopher Key Chapple and Mary Evelyn Tucker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. Eck, Diana L. India: A Sacred Geography. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2012. Gadgil, Madhav and Ramachandra Guha. Ecology and Equity: The Use and Abuse of Nature in Contemporary India. New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 1995. Ghosh, PratƗpchandra. DurgƗ PnjjƗ: With Notes and Illustrations. Calcutta: Hindoo Patriot Press, 1871.



202

Chapter Eleven

Haberman, David L. River of Love in an Age of Pollution: The Yamuna River of Northern India. California: University of California Press, 2006. Jamison, Stephanie W. and Joel P. Brereton, trans. The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. Oxford: Oxford University of Press, 2014. Kane, P. V. History of DharmaĞƗstra, Ancient and Medieval Religious and Civil Law, vol. III. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1930-62. Macdonell, Arthur Anthony. A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, With Translation, Accentuation, and Etymological Analysis Throughout. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 2003. RƗ৆Ɨ, Dhana ĝamĞer. ĝƗradƯyadurgƗpnjjƗpaddhati. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy, 1975. Roy, Sarat Chandra. “On the Cult of the Jujube-Tree,” Man in India, vol. 4 (1981-2004): 98-110. Rodrigues, Hillary. Ritual Worship of the Great Goddess the Liturgy of the DurgƗ PnjjƗ with Interpretations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2003. Sarkar, Bihani. “The Rite of DurgƗ in Medieval Bengal: An Introductory Study of Raghunandana's DurgƗpnjjƗtattva with Text and Translation of the Principal Rites,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 22: 325-390, 2012. ĝƗhdev, Pratapsiূha. Brֈ hat PuraĞcaryar۬ava. 4 vols. Kathmandu: Nepal Press, 1974. Stutley, Margaret and James. Harper’s Dictionary of Hinduism: Its Mythology, Folklore, Philosophy, Literature, and History. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1877. ĝivapriyƗnanda. Mysore Royal Dasara. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1995. Whitney, W. D. The Atharva Veda SaۨhitƗ. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1905. Williams, Monier, Ernst Leumann, and Carl Cappeller. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 2002.

PART III PRACTICING THE IMPERATIVES

CHAPTER TWELVE POPE FRANCIS, CARE FOR CREATION, AND POPULAR MOVEMENTS MARVIN L. MICH1

Abstract: An examination of the leadership of Pope Francis as he continues his ministry to socially excluded communities which he began in Buenos Aires. The essay focuses on papal support of popular movements that are addressing issues of land, lodging, labor, and care for creation. Two Vatican sponsored world-wide conferences were held in October 2014 and July 2015 to strengthen the effectiveness of popular movements and to express the collaboration with the Pope and his curia. The encyclical on care for creation, Laudato Si’, is reviewed as it clearly links care for creation with care for the poor under the heading of integral ecology.

A Front Row Seat Sergio Sanchez, a poor waste picker from Buenos Aires sat in the front row of the Papal Inaugural Mass on March 19, 2013 in St. Peter’s Square among the rich and powerful.2 His place of honor in the “center” of the Church’s celebration of a new papal era is evidence of the new vision and

 1

Marvin Mich is the director of advocacy at Catholic Family Center (Catholic Charities) in Rochester, NY. He is a leader in Roc/ACTS, a community organization in Rochester, NY. His publications include Catholic Social Teachings and Movements (1998); The Challenge and Spirituality of Catholic Social Teaching (2011) and with co-author George Dardess, In the Spirit of St. Francis and the Sultan: Catholics and Muslims Working Together for the Common Good (2011). 2 “I Poveri Accanto ai Potenti: Una Presenza Voluta dal Papa,” L’Osservatore Romano, March 20, 2013.

206

Chapter Twelve

direction of the Pope Francis. Sergio and Archbishop Bergoglio were old friends from their working together in Buenos Aires. This was not Sergio’s last visit to Rome. He would return 19 months later, in October, 2014, with over 200 other “socially excluded” people, to attend the first-ever meeting of popular movements at the Vatican. Nine months after that in July 2015 he would see Pope Francis at the World Meeting of Popular Movements in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia.3 At this meeting Pope Francis would continue to focus on those on the periphery of power and support their popular movements as they struggle to protect the land, have dignified labor, and find safe lodging. The two would come together in Rome a third time on October 31, 2015 when Pope Francis baptized Sergio’s child, who is named Francisco.4 No doubt this will not be the last time the Pope and this leader of the Movimiento de Trabajadores Excluidos (MTE) meet in friendship and common cause.

Archbishop of Buenos Aires Jorge Bergoglio was born in Buenos Aires and was appointed archbishop of the city in December, 1998. A few years later Argentina went through an economic crisis. According in Austen Ivereigh “one of the most pitiful images of the post-2001 crisis” was “the appearance of the cartoneros—men, often boys, naked from the waste up, who at night scour the garbage of Buenos Aires for recyclable materials to sell.”5 2,000 of these cartoneros (waste pickers) formed the Movement of Excluded

 3

In this essay we use the terminology “popular movements” because this is the language of Pope Francis and the grass roots groups he has met with. In the United States we may use the term “social movements” or “community organizations.” A helpful collection of essays on this topic can be found in the Journal of Catholic Social Thought 10, no. 2 (2013). Also see Kevin Ahern, Structures of Grace: Catholic Organizations Serving the Global Common Good, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2015. 4 “Papa Francisco bautiza un hijo de dirigente cartonero,” 11/19/2015. From the waste-pickers’ website: www.cartoneando.org.ar/content/papa-francisco-bautizahijo-de-dirigent-cartonero. Also see: “El Cartonero del Papa,” www.defonline.com.ar. 5 Austen Ivereigh, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope (Picador: New York, 2015), 329. “Cartonero comes from carton meaning cardboard. They are cardboard collectors. The agreed upon translation of the Spanish is “waste-picker.”

Pope Francis, Care for Creation, and Popular Movements

207

Workers with the help of Juan Grabois, an activist lawyer whose father was a friend of Archbishop Bergoglio since the 1970’s. Archbishop Bergoglio supported the MTE from its beginning. He met with them on a regular basis to assist with planning and strategizing. He also became their pastor and friend, supporting them, praying with them, marrying them, and baptizing their children. As Sergio noted Bergoglio was “the only person who was at our side when the struggle was hardest.”6 Sergio Sanchez and the waste pickers are labeled “socially excluded” because they are either unemployed or working in the informal economy. This means that they are not formally recognized by government statistics and labor unions. According to the United Nation’s International Labor Organization, seventy percent of workers in India and the Philippines and forty percent of workers in Latin America and Asia are employed in the “informal economy.” In Spain and Greece fifty percent of young workers are unemployed. These are the socially excluded who numbered 1.3 billion people in 2003 and are expected to reach two billion people by 2030.7 Cardinal Bergoglio was not afraid of naming the injustice experienced by the waste-pickers during a Mass he celebrated on September 23, 2008 at Our Lady of Emigrants Church in the port area. A few nights earlier he had seen a cart full of flattened cardboard boxes being pulled along the street. He expected to see a horse pulling the cart only to discover it was being pulled by two children less the twelve years old. While city laws had banned animal-drawn transport, he asked, “what was this? Was a child worth less than a horse?”8 The Mass with the waste-pickers and seamstresses became an annual event in July in the central Plaza de la Constitucion. Tens of thousands of exploited workers, prostitutes, and migrants gathered over the next five years with their pastor. He listened to their struggles and organizing efforts and offered his support and the encouragement of the Gospel. This annual liturgy brought the socially excluded from the periphery into the center of Buenos Aires. Cardinal Bergoglio exposed the exploitation happening in the shadows and opened the eyes of the citizens of Buenos Aires to the

 6

L’Osservatore Romano, loc. cit. Mike Davis, Planet of Slums, Verso, London and New York, 2006, 26 and “The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements,” UN Habitat, 2003, xxv as quoted in The Emergency of the Socially Excluded, Proceedings of the Workshop, December 5, 2013, M. Sanchez Sorondo, ed., Vatican City State, 2015, The Pontifical Academy of Science, found at www.pas.va. Hereafter cited as Proceedings. 8 Ivereigh, 330. 7



208

Chapter Twelve

slavery in their streets. Cardinal Bergoglio brought this experience with him to Rome. Now he had an international stage as leader of the global Catholic Church from which he focused the light of the Gospel on the excluded and exploited workers. To understand the vision Pope Francis has for the Catholic Church we have to step back and see him in the context of the Argentine church. According to two Venezuelan theologians, Rafael Luciani and Felix Palazzi, Pope Francis’ aim is to establish a whole new way of being church, one that recognizes the serious effects of the present structural crisis and returns to the path traced out by the Second Vatican Council.9 In short, this new way of being church “takes on a prophetic quality inspired by the theology of the people which understands pastoral action in relation to the church’s insertion in the reality of the poor and her appreciation of the values that emerge” from the grassroots. This new way of being church “arises from a preferential option for those living on the margins and from a desire to make use of their ability to generate processes of conversion in all of us who belong to the church and the larger society.”10 The Pope’s vision of the church is rooted the Latin American Bishops’ interpretation of Vatican II as articulated in documents of the Medellin Conference in 1968 and the assembly of the bishops of Argentina held in San Miguel in 1969. These meetings of bishops viewed the Vatican II Council through the lens of the options for the poor that were articulated by both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI. Pope John XXIII called for “a church of the poor” in 1962 and Pope Paul VI called for the recognition of “the face of the Christ in every poor person, as his sacrament” in 1968.11

 9

Rafael Luciani and Felix Palazzi, “A Rooted Vision: The Latin American origins of Pope Francis’ Theology,” America (February 1, 2016): 18. The authors point out that the pastoral and theological approach of the Argentine bishops “is still little known outside the Spanish-speaking theological world.” In doing research for this essay I was surprised by how much of the documentation for the two World Meetings of Popular Movements was only available in Spanish. For example, the “Final Documents” of both the meeting at the Vatican in 2014 and in Santa Cruz in 2015 were only available in Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian. I was able to negotiate these texts with my modest reading ability in Spanish and Italian. It does not help the English-speaking world to become informed of these resources if the texts are not available in English. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid.

Pope Francis, Care for Creation, and Popular Movements

209

Special attention was given to el pueblo (the people), understood as “a common culture rooted in a common history and committed to the common good.”12 The 1969 Declaration of the San Miguel meeting did not view el pueblo in sociological or Marxist terms as liberation theology was doing. Rather, it saw the people as active agents of their own history; and that “the activity of the Church should not only be oriented toward the people but also primarily derive from the people.”13 The starting point for this theological and pastoral approach should be “direct connection with the people and serious study of the people’s common culture and ethos.” This understanding of the work of the church was born of the experience of forty years of ministry of the “slum priests” (curas villeros) who ministered to the communities often built on illegal dumps or alongside contaminated water streams in Buenos Aires. The slum dwellers were immigrants from Paraguay and Bolivia, as well as Argentine migrants from the rural areas. The priests initially came to the slums with the intention of changing the situation in these slums. But the priests ended up being changed themselves, as they discovered the rich popular piety and deep faith of the people. As Father Jorge Vernazza, one of the slum priests, wrote “it was the reality of the people of the villas with whom we dealt, generously and without prejudice, who eventually opened our eyes to the richness of the people’s devotion.”14 As Cardinal Bergoglio worked with the slum priests he came to realize that in the slums he received more than he gave. One of the slum priests, Father Toto, put it this way: “here in the villas they live values that have been lost elsewhere: the people know each other, and the neighbor is very important. To have the basics, to survive, you have to depend on others. And that produces a strong sense of community. . . .” 15 Archbishop Bergoglio came to believe that the people of the slums could teach the wealthy people in the tall apartment buildings how to create fraternal bonds. As president of the Argentine bishops’ conference Cardinal Bergoglio brought this understanding of the poor to the gathering of 200 Latin American bishops in Aparecida, Brazil for the three-week meeting of the Conference of Latin American Bishops (CELAM) in May 2007. He spoke

 12

Ibid. Ivereigh, 95-96. 14 Andrea Tornielli and Giacomo Galeazzi, This Economy Kills; Pope Francis on Capitalism and Social Justice (Collegeville, MM: Liturgical Press, 2015), 140. 15 Ivereigh, 306. 13



210

Chapter Twelve

of those on the peripheries of society—”a world of vulnerability and fragility, a place of suffering and longing and poverty, yet also joy and hope—the place where Christ had chosen to reveal Himself in contemporary Latin America.”16 Austen Ivereigh notes that it was Bergoglio’s genius for identifying trends and giving them a new, startling language that led the bishops to vote overwhelmingly for Bergoglio to take charge of writing the concluding document of the meeting.17 The 200 bishops of Latin America supported this vision. The Aparecida document was the fruit of the Argentine Church carrying the flame of Latin-American theology over twenty years, safeguarding the insights of liberation theology from the pitfalls of liberal and Marxist thinking. It had done so by sticking close to the poor and their culture . . . which Bergoglio’s Argentine team ensured took pride of place in the document.18

Pope Francis When Jorge Bergoglio was elected Pope on March 13, 2013 he continued the trajectory of his decades-long ministry to the excluded. For example, in his encyclical, The Joy of the Gospel (Gaudium Evangelii), released on November 24, 2013, he used blunt language to point out the treatment of the excluded: “[T]oday we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is a news item when the stock market loses two points. This is a case of exclusion (53).”19 The pope turned to his staff in the Vatican bureaucracy to focus attention on the crises of the socially excluded. The Pontifical Academy of Science organized a one-day conference titled “The Emergency of the Socially Excluded” which was held on December 5, 201320 One of the

 16

Ivereigh, 298. Ivereigh, 299. 18 Ivereigh, 300. 19 When quoting papal encyclicals I will give the paragraph number in a parentheses. 20 Six presentations were given at the workshop. The presenters were: Juan Grabois, activist lawyer in Buenos Aires, co-founder of the Excluded Workers Movement and the Confederation of Popular Economy Workers in Argentina; Veerabhadran Ramanathan, professor of climate and atmospheric sciences, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California; Jeffery D. Sachs, director of 17



Pope Francis, Care for Creation, and Popular Movements

211

presentation was given by Juan Grabois who focused on the “Capitalism of Exclusion, Social Peripheries, and Popular Movements.” At the end of his paper Grabois gave a personal testimony of his appreciation for the support of Cardinal Bergoglio during their struggles to support the wastepickers. He also said he did not expect change to come from the privileged and powerful. Rather, he had hope that “popular power” of the ninety nine percent would be organized to fight for their dignity and give birth to a new society.21 After the conference and after discussions with Juan Grabois and leaders in the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Pope Francis expressed his desire for a meeting of representatives of the excluded themselves.22 A working group was formed which included Grabois and Joao Pedro Stedile, the leader of Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement (MST).23

 The Earth Institute, Columbia University; Giuseppe Tognon, professor of history and philosophy of education, Libera Universita Maria Santissima Assunta (LUMSA), Rome; Mary Anne Wolf, professor of citizenship and public service, Tufts University; and Romano Prodi, former prime minister of Italy and currently UN special envoy for Sahel. See: Proceedings. 21 Proceedings, 67. 22 This essay was presented at the Interfaith Conference held at Nazareth College in Rochester, NY on May 24, 2016. On August 17, 2016 Pope Francis changed the name and the structure of the Pontifical Commission on Peace and Justice. It is now known as the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Development. I chose to use the older name in this essay. See its new charter at: http://m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/motu_proprio/documents/papafrancesco_20160817_statuto-dicastero-servizio-sviluppo-umano-integrale.html. 23 The planning group identified the objectives of the meeting of the “excluded” as follows: 1. To give voice to those who normally fail to make themselves heard, offering them an opportunity to share their experiences; 2. To accompany and encourage them in their daily efforts as protagonists of their own development, appreciating their indispensable contribution to the promotion of a society that upholds full respect for the human dignity of all its members; 3. To examine the models of economic development critically, on the basis of the participants’ testimony as witnesses of the harmful consequences of the current dominant model; 4. To read Evangelii Gaudium together and, on this basis, to seek truly inclusive alternatives; 5. To promote occasions for dialogue between grassroots movements (whether or not of Christian origin) and the Church at all its levels (universal, regional, and national), and so to stimulate the local Churches to get involved with grassroots movements. See: Michael Czerny and Paolo Foglizzo, “The Strength of the Excluded: World Meeting of Popular Movements at the





212

Chapter Twelve

Popular Movements Meeting in Rome October 201424 The groundbreaking meeting of grassroots movements took place in Rome on October 27-29, 2014. Gathered in the Vatican for the first time were representatives of 100 grassroots movements and organizations from around the world. Also attending were thirty bishops and other church representatives and twenty staff members of church groups and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).25 Cardinal Peter Turkson, as president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, which was one of the sponsors of the meeting, reminded attendees that Pope Francis had consistently urged the Church “to go to the peripheries of human existence and embrace the excluded, the marginalized, those who are rejected and in danger of being discarded.” He went on to say, “both as Church and as societies, we must learn to include the excluded. This means to reach out to those on the periphery and welcome the marginalized to become full members of our communities, economies, and societies.” He then spelled out in more detail what that means: First, to listen humbly: not only to the sufferings, but also to their expectations, hopes, and to the proposals that the marginalized themselves have. Secondly, they must be the protagonists of their own lives, and not simply passive recipients of the charity or plans of others. They must be

 Vatican,” http://www.jesuit.org.uk/strength-excluded-world-meeting-popularmovements-vatican. 24 The length of this essay does not allow for a discussion of how “popular movements” or “community organizations” in the United States relate to this topic. In 1970 the U.S. Catholic bishops started the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) which is an annual collection in the U.S Catholic Church that funds community organizations led by low income people to address the systemic causes of poverty. Since 1970 CCHD has contributed over $300 million to more than 8,000 low-income led community-based projects. Some of these community organizations address issues of environmental justice. For example, in Baltimore the United Workers Association, which receives funding from CCHD, led a successful campaign to stop what would have been the nation’s largest trashburning incinerator from being built less than a mile away from two schools. Community members are now in dialogue with the city and other stakeholders to phase out the current incinerator and explore green alternatives. See: www.usccb.org/cchd. 25 Czerny and Foglizzo, 1.

Pope Francis, Care for Creation, and Popular Movements

213

protagonists of the needed economic and social, political and cultural changes. In order to do so, they must organize themselves into popular groups and movements.

Cardinal Turkson named his expectations for the meeting: “The World Meeting of Popular Movements promises to be a great dialogue with a view to on-going communication, cooperation, and coordination amongst the grassroots movements and between them and the Church at every level.”26 Father Michael Czerny, S.J., a staff member of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, captured the importance of this meeting. “The World Meeting of Popular Movements has a very special meaning. It helps to lay out the priorities of the pontificate of Pope Francis. And above all, it illustrates how he wants the Church to fulfill its mission in the world.”27

Participants in the “Informal Economy” The participants at this historic meeting in the Vatican were those employed in the “informal economy.” According to the U.N.’s International Labor Organization (ILO) the informal economy refers to the goods or services produced by workers who lack formal legal coverage; so they are considered “informal.” The lack of legal recognition is due to the fact that the relevant laws are not enforced or the laws themselves are inappropriate, burdensome, or excessively costly—all which leads to a lack of compliance. The informal economy is precarious, insecure, and lacking in protection of basic human rights. Such an economy is not a matter of choice or preference. Rather, “it proves to be the only available strategy for survival.” 28 The participants from the “socially excluded” peripheries include those who struggle for land, lodging, and labor such as: landless peasant farmers, sharecroppers, day laborers, seasonal farm workers, and subsistent fishermen (land); homeless, slum dwellers, squatters, occupiers of abandoned house, and so forth (lodging); urban recyclers, waste pickers (cartoneros), street vendors, vendors at traffic



26 Holy See Press Office, October 24, 2014. www.Vatican.va/content/salastamps/it/bollettino/pubblico /2014/10/24, 2. 27 Czerny and Foglizzo, 2. 28 Ibid.



214

Chapter Twelve lights, windshield washers, “watch your car” helpers, and domestic workers (labor).29

These are the invisible workers who work “off the books.” They are not listed in the official statistics. To invite the “socially excluded” and those on the periphery to the Vatican is “truly novel,” according to Vatican insider Fr. Michael Czerny. He continues: “For almost always and in nearly every context, the center dominates the periphery. By inviting the periphery to the center, the WMPM [World Meeting of Popular Movements] set in motion a contrary dynamic, a mirror-image movement from the outskirts towards the middle. This constitutes a profound reconfiguration of the center-periphery relationship.”30 A final comment on the list of invitees: the invitees were not screened for their religious affiliation. According to an Italian delegate at the meeting, less than half of the participants were Catholic, while the others belonged to other Christian denominations, other religions, or no religion.31 The three day conference followed the “see-judge-act” methodology utilized in Catholic Social Teaching and found in Pope John XXIII’s 1961 encyclical, Mater et Magistra, paragraph 236. The first day focused on examining the experience of the marginalized popular movements. They named the difficulties, sufferings, and challenges they experienced in diverse areas of the world. The conversation uncovered deep connections and similarities. On the second day, the participants gathered for a morning Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica led by Cardinal Turkson. During the liturgy three symbols were brought up to the altar: a basket of fruit and vegetables, a model of a slum-dweller’s house, and a nearly life size replica of a waste-pickers cart. Each symbol connected with a key word in the language of the conference: Tierra, Techo, Trabajo (Land, Lodging, Labor). The highlight of the second day was the address given by Pope Francis in the Old Synod Hall in the Vatican. In his address, Pope Francis gave his reading of the current situation of the global reality which is marked by profound injustices that causes great suffering, including: “uprooting of peasants, land grabbing, lack of access to water, hunger and the scandal of wasting food, families without housing, youth unemployment, and ‘informal’ workers deprived of their rights.”

 29

Ibid. Ibid. 31 Czerny and Foglizzo, footnote 13 on page 6. 30

Pope Francis, Care for Creation, and Popular Movements

215

In his remarks, the Pope goes beyond naming or “seeing” the realities to the second step of the methodology. He “judges” the immorality and injustices of these “evils.” In his judgment, these evils “are not inevitable. They are the result of an underlying social choice in favor of an economic system that puts profit above people.” These choices and injustices are the effect of “a throw-away culture at work that considers humanity itself, human beings, as a consumer good, which can be used and then thrown away.”32 The Pope then pivots from “seeing” and “judging” to “action.” He points out, “The poor not only suffer injustices, they also struggle against it.” Rather than passively waiting for a solution from outside, “you want to be protagonists. You get organized, study, work, issue demands and, above all, practice that very special solidarity that exists among those who suffer, among the poor.” In the Pope’s analysis, this protagonism, rooted in solidarity, generates innovative solutions. This solidarity is the soil from which grassroots movements spring up. The Pope praises their creativity and resourcefulness: [S]o many of you who are excluded workers, the discards of this system, have been inventing your own work with materials that seemed to be devoid of further productive value . . . . But with the craftsmanship God gave you, with your inventiveness, your solidarity, your community work, your popular economy, you have managed to succeed, you are succeeding . . . .33

Pope Francis then moves to the deeper level of analysis and points to the “popular culture” which holds the community together, often rooted in traditional and indigenous values. The solidarity of their popular culture pervades the lives of those living on the fringes, on the outskirts. It helps to generate relationships among the excluded and a sense of the common good. According to Czerny and Foglizzo, “this is the fundamental reason why Francis keeps alerting the Church to the way of the outskirts, in order to re-learn that culture and those values that have been forgotten in the rich centers.”34



32 Pope Francis, “Address of Pope Francis to the Participants in the World Meeting of Popular Movements,” October 28, 2014, 3-4; http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/october/documents/papafrancesco_20141028_incontro-mondiale-movimenti-popolari.html 33 Papal Address, October 28, 2014, 4-5. 34 Czerny and Foglizzo, 4.



216

Chapter Twelve

This solidarity becomes a true and powerful engine of history. Pope Francis believes that “Solidarity, understood in its deepest sense, is a way of making history, and this is what the grassroots movements are doing.” This work includes the nonviolent struggle to overcome the structural causes of poverty and injustice. “This must be done with courage but also with intelligence, with tenacity but without fanaticism, with passion yet without violence.”35 Pope Francis also lifts up the notion of the “culture of encounter” that he sees within the popular movements. He explains: I know that you are persons of different religions, trades, ideas, cultures, countries, continents. Here and now you are practicing the culture of encounter, so different from the xenophobia, discrimination, and intolerance which we witness so often. Among the excluded, one finds an encounter of cultures where the aggregate does not wipe out the particularities. That is why I like the image of a polyhedron, a geometric figure with many different facets. The polyhedron reflects the confluence of all the partialities that in it keep their originality. Nothing is dissolved, nothing is destroyed, nothing is dominated, everything is integrated.36

Pope Francis had a few remarks on care for creation as part of this short address. He noted how those on the periphery feel the impact of pollution and climate change. “Climate change, the loss of biodiversity, deforestation are already showing their devastating effects in terrible cataclysms which we see and from which you the humble suffer most— you who live near the coast in precarious dwellings, or so economically vulnerable that you lose everything due to a natural disaster.” He reminds them that creation is a gift for all people and then tells them about his upcoming encyclical on ecology which “rest assured that your concerns will have their place in it.”37 Pope Francis then shared his support and advice for the work of the popular movement: With all this I attach great importance to the proposal which some of you have shared with me, that these movements—these experiences of solidarity which grow up from below, from the subsoil of the planet— should come together, be more coordinated, keep on meeting one another as you have done these days.

 35

Papal Address, October 28, 2014, 6. Ibid. 37 Papal Address, October 28, 2014, 5. 36

Pope Francis, Care for Creation, and Popular Movements

217

As he comes to the end of his address Pope Francis lifts up the importance of popular movements. “Moving towards a world of lasting peace and justice calls us to go beyond paternalistic forms of assistance; it calls us to create new forms of participation that include popular movements and invigorate local, national and international governing structures with that torrent of moral energy that springs from including the excluded in the building of a common destiny.” Finally, he signals his commitment to them: “I accompany you wholeheartedly on this journey. From our hearts let us say together: No family without housing, no farm worker without land, no worker without rights, no one without the dignity that work provides.”38 On the third day of the conference participants focused on identifying actions and commitments to coordinate the diverse grassroots movements and their collaboration with the Catholic Church at the global level. Two documents were written: a final declaration and a letter to leaders of popular movements. In the Final Declaration and Letter to Popular Movements the participants from the popular movements expressed their great admiration and appreciation for the leadership and personal commitment of Pope Francis to the struggles of the socially excluded. Pope Francis is clearly at home in meeting with members of popular movements of the socially excluded. He has built up that rapport after years of meeting with them in Buenos Aires, and his ministry among the poor. The leaders of the popular movements clearly feel at home with this pope. He has welcomed them to the Vatican and he has given them a space to organize and build relationships across national boundaries. Pope Francis has signaled that he will continue to meet with them and support the gifts that they bring to the table. He will continue to “walk together” with the excluded and help their voices to be heard in the halls of power.

Laudato Si In his earlier encyclical, Joy of the Gospel, Pope Francis gave a hint of his concern for creation: “Thanks to our bodies, God has joined us so closely to the world around us that we can feel the desertification of the soil almost as a physical ailment, and extinction of a species as a painful disfigurement” (215). Now he gives his full attention to this concern for the Earth and all creatures. On May 24, 2015, Pope Francis released his

 38



Papal Address, October 28, 2014, 6-7.

218

Chapter Twelve

much-anticipated encyclical, Laudato Si’, (On Care for our Common Home). While it is a lengthy document, about 40,000 words, it is written in a very accessible style. The pope himself offers a summary of the key themes that he addresses throughout the six chapters that “will not be dealt with once and for all, but reframed and enriched again and again” (16). These themes are: the intimate relationship between the poor and the fragility of the planet, the conviction that everything in the world is connected the critique of new paradigms and forms of power derived from technology, the call to seek other ways of understanding the economy and progress, the value proper to each creature, the human meaning of ecology, the need for forthright and honest debate, the serious responsibility of international and local policy, the throwaway culture, and the proposal of a new lifestyle (16).

In this essay I address only a few themes listed above, namely, how the poor and excluded are affected by planetary degradation and are also part of the solution. Recognizing the controversy and resistance of some people to talking about climate change the Pope appeals to all people. “We need a conversation which includes everyone. . . . All of us can cooperate as instruments of God for the care of creation, each according to his or her own culture, experience, involvements, and talents.” In short, “We require a new and universal solidarity” (14). For Francis, the poor who are rooted in their traditional cultures are experts in living solidarity; a solidarity that goes beyond human life to include a sacred appreciation of all creatures and the whole Earth. To signal that kind of openness to all voices, the Vatican invited an unlikely spokesperson to address the media at its press conference. Naomi Klein, a Canadian who describes herself as “a secular Jewish feminist,” joined three Catholic men in leading the press conference on July 1, 2014. Another American journalist who had been covering the Vatican for twenty years quipped that she never thought she would hear the word “feminist” from the stage in the Vatican.39

 39

Naomi Klein, “A Radical Vatican?” The New Yorker, July 10, 2015, 3.

Pope Francis, Care for Creation, and Popular Movements

219

As a leader in a broad-based movement addressing climate change, Naomi Klein noted a significant shift in thinking when Pope Francis states that “the Bible has no place for a tyrannical anthropocentrism unconcerned for other creatures” (68). Klein remarked that challenging anthropocentrism is “ho-hum stuff for ecologists, but it’s something else for the pinnacle of the Catholic Church. You don’t get much more human-centered than the persistent Judeo-Christian interpretation that God created the entire world specifically to serve Adam’s every need.”40 Christianity spread in Europe by challenging the sacred power of the natural world held by pagans and animists. Think of the tradition of St. Boniface cutting down the oak tree that was considered sacred by the Germanic tribes. “By asserting that nature has a value in and of itself, Francis is overturning centuries of theological interpretation that regarded the natural world with outright hostility.”41 It is helpful to point out that Cardinal Turkson, who was a major force behind the encyclical, and Pope Francis both come from the global South. Cardinal Turkson is from Ghana and Pope Francis from Argentina. Klein notes that in many areas of the global South the more anti-nature element of Christian doctrine never entirely took hold. “Particularly in Latin America, with its large indigenous population, Catholicism wasn’t able to fully displace cosmologies that centered on a living and sacred Earth, and the result was often a Church that fused Christian and indigenous world views.42 The Irish theologian, Father Sean McDonagh, who was part of the drafting process for the encyclical echoes the importance of this new direction. “We are moving to a new theology.” McDonagh goes on to explain that it is not only the Latin Americans who figured out how to reconcile a Christian God with a mystical Earth. The Irish Celtic tradition also managed to maintain a sense of the “divine in the natural world. Water sources had a divinity about them. Trees had a divinity to them.”43

 40

Klein, 5. Ibid. 42 Klein, 6. 43 Klein, 7. Tom Hayden, another Irish Catholic author, refers to the pre-Christian Celtic spirituality as “the lost gospel.” “My Irish ancestors . . . were warriors with a heroic view of life, and who communicated with spirits in the land and sea . . . The early Irish created a culture that was energized and organized according to nature’s sacred cycles . . . .Even after the Irish were converted to Christianity, their ties to nature spirituality remained so deep that theirs became the “greenest” church in Europe.” See: Tom Hayden, The Lost Gospel: A Call for Renewing Nature, Spirit, 41





220

Chapter Twelve

Pope Francis has a deep respect for the cultures of indigenous people in Latin America and for their faith life, which is a blending of their Christian and pre-Christian beliefs. In Laudato Si he points out that ecology “involves protecting the cultural treasures of humanity in the broadest sense. More specifically, it calls for greater attention to local cultures when studying environmental problems” (143). He continues a few paragraphs later: “. . . it is essential to show special care for indigenous communities and their cultural traditions. . . . For them, land is not a commodity but rather a gift from God and from their ancestors who rest there, a sacred space with which they need to interact if they are to maintain their identity and values” (146). Pope Francis was true to his word when he spoke to the leaders of the popular movements in October 2014. The concerns of the excluded are evident in the encyclical. “Today . . . we have to realize that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” (49). Francis believes “It is essential to seek comprehensive solutions which consider the interactions with natural systems themselves and with social systems. We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental.” He links together: “Strategies of a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature” (139). This leads us back to the pope’s support of popular movements and his attendance at the second World Meeting of Popular Movements in Santa Cruz, Bolivia.

World Meeting of Popular Movements, Santa Cruz, Bolivia On July 7-9, 2015 more that 1,500 leaders from popular movements met in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia for the World Meeting of Popular Movements. Like the meeting that was held in Rome the previous October, this meeting was organized by the Pontifical Council for Justice

 and Politics (San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1996), 106-115. As discussed in my treatment of Catholic views on ecology in my book Catholic Social Teaching and Movements (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1998), 385413.

Pope Francis, Care for Creation, and Popular Movements

221

and Peace with the collaboration of diverse popular organizations.44 This meeting also focused on Tierra, Trabajo, and Techo (Land, Labor, and Lodging) with the underlying themes of peace and care for creation. On July 9, the final day of the World Meeting, Pope Francis addressed the participants reminding them of their earlier gathering: Several months ago, we met in Rome, and I remember that first meeting. In the meantime I have kept you in my thoughts and prayers. I am happy to see you again, here, as you discuss the best ways to overcome the grave situations of injustice experienced by the excluded throughout our world.

He noted that there is a good amount of support for popular movements among Catholics: Many people in the Church feel very close to the popular movements. That makes me very happy! I am pleased to see the Church opening her doors to all of you, embracing you, accompanying you and establishing in each diocese, in every justice and peace commission, a genuine, ongoing and serious cooperation with popular movements. I ask everyone, bishops, priests and laity, as well as the social organizations of the urban and rural peripheries, to deepen this encounter.

He then spoke of the essential role of those on the margins to help bring about change: You, the lowly, the exploited, the poor and underprivileged, can do, and are doing, a lot. I would even say that the future of humanity is in great measure in your own hands, through your ability to organize and carry out creative alternatives, through your daily efforts to ensure the three “L’s” [labor, lodging, land]—do you agree?— and through your proactive participation in the great processes of change on the national, regional and global levels. Don’t lose heart!

Then the Pope lifted up three major tasks: 1. The first task is to put the economy at the service of peoples. . . . Let us say NO to an economy of exclusion and inequality, where money rules, rather than service. That economy kills. That economy excludes. That economy destroys Mother Earth.

Pope Francis notes that popular movements play a unique role: “Along this path, popular movements play an essential role, not only by making

 44



See the Movimientos Populares website: www.mp.org/quienes-somos.

222

Chapter Twelve

demands and lodging protests, but even more basically by being creative. You are social poets: creators of work, builders of housing, producers of food, above all for people left behind by the world market.” 2. The second task is to unite our peoples on the path of peace and justice. “The world’s peoples want to be artisans of their own destiny. They want to advance peacefully towards justice. . . . Let us say NO, then, to forms of colonialism old and new. Let us say YES to the encounter between peoples and cultures.”

He offered a special word for the indigenous Latin Americans: “To our brothers and sisters in the Latin American indigenous movement, allow me to express my deep affection and appreciation of their efforts to bring peoples and cultures together . . . where each group preserves its own identity by building together a plurality which does not threaten but rather reinforces unity.” 3. The third task, perhaps the most important facing us today, is to defend Mother Earth. . . . Our common home is being pillaged, laid waste and harmed with impunity. . . . People and their movements are called to cry out, to mobilize and to demand—peacefully, but firmly—that appropriate and urgently-needed measures be taken. I ask you, in the name of God, to defend Mother Earth. I have duly addressed this issue in my encyclical letter Laudato Si’.

At the end of his address he said: “the future of humanity does not lie solely in the hands of great leaders, the great powers, and the elites. It is fundamentally in the hands of peoples and in their ability to organize. . . . I am with you. . . . Keep up your struggle and, please take great care of Mother Earth. Thank you and I ask you, please, to pray for me.”45

 45

Pope Francis, Participation at the Second World Meeting of Popular Movements, Address the Holy Father, Expo Feria Exhibition Centre, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, July 9, 2015; http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/ speeches/2015/july/documents/papa-francesco_20150709_bolivia-movimentipopolari.html

Pope Francis, Care for Creation, and Popular Movements

223

Conclusion Pope Francis has clearly made a place at the table for the marginal and excluded peoples of the world. By inviting them to Rome and meeting with them in Bolivia he has given them space to build relationships with each other and with church leaders. He has encouraged them to get organized and he has honored their creativity and culture. By embracing a “culture of encounter” and a “theology of the people” Francis honors the indigenous spirituality of the people that care for the earth. He goes so far as to expect that the poor will educate the wealthy about the value of solidarity and working for the common good. Clearly, Pope Francis is living out the biblical and ethical principle of “option for the poor” in concrete and effective ways. He also has strengthened the link between care for creation and care for the poor. These can no longer be seen as distinct issues but part of an “integral ecology.” One of the accomplishments of this essay is to shed some light on the back-story of Pope Francis’ pastoral and theological vision for the church that is rooted in a fifty-year tradition in Argentina and other Latin American countries. It is an approach that builds on the insights of Vatican II, Medellin, San Miguel document, and the work of Argentine theologians and slum priests. It is a theological and pastoral tradition that is little known outside the Spanish-speaking theological world. With an understanding of this Argentine theological-pastoral perspective, communities that do not speak Spanish will have a fuller appreciation of the Pope’s statements and actions. Pope Francis challenges citizens in the U.S. and Western Europe to pay attention to the poor within their borders, to listen to their stories, honor their gifts, and walk with them in the struggle for justice for all people and for the Earth.

Bibliography Ahern, Kevin. Structures of Grace: Catholic Organizations Serving the Global Common Good. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2015. Dorr, Donal. Option for the Poor and the Earth: Catholic Social Teachings. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY, 2012. Ivereigh, Austen. The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope. Picador: New York, 2015. Journal of Catholic Social Thought 10, no. 2, 2013. The entire issue focuses on popular movements and Catholic Social Teaching.



224

Chapter Twelve

Tornielli, Andrea and Giacomo Galeazzi. This Economy Kills: Pope Francis on Capitalism and Social Justice. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2015. Website for resources from the two Vatican-sponsored World Conferences on Popular Movements: www.movimientospopulares.org.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN THREE SAGES: CONVERSATIONS ON ECOLOGY DR. MONICA WEIS SSJ1

Abstract: Despite widespread criticism of Christianity by historian Lynn White Jr. (1967), several voices, namely marine biologist Rachel Carson, Trappist monk Thomas Merton, and Pope Francis have challenged contemporary society to recognize our inter-dependence with all creation and our human responsibility to work for ecological justice. This paper examines the importance of personal and communal transformation as one avenue to environmental integrity and care for our common home.

In 1967 medieval historian Lynn White, Jr. criticized Christianity for sowing the “seeds of environmental destruction.”2 He based his critique on a widespread but inaccurate interpretation of God’s command in Genesis (Gen 1:28): “to subdue the earth.” 3 Unfortunately, this view of human superiority led to treating nature as mere commodity to serve our needs. White’s broadly publicized essay sparked violent reaction, mainly because the problem of human arrogance is larger than Christianity. Indeed,

 1

Monica Weis SSJ, professor emerita at Nazareth College, has taught various courses in American literature and rhetoric. She was a Fulbright Visiting Professor at the University of Pannonia, Vesprem, Hungary (Fall 2011) and has lectured and published widely on Thomas Merton. Her most recent book is Thomas Merton and the Celts. 2 Lynn White, Jr., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” Science 155 (March 10, 1967): 1205–07; see also Bill McKibben, ed., American Earth: Environmental Writing Since Thoreau. (New York: Library Classics of the United States), 2008. 3 Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version.

226

Chapter Thirteen

extreme anthropocentrism can be traced to ancient myths and to the Western intellectual tradition with its roots in Greek philosophy. But White’s essay also awakened Christian thinkers to recover the classical rhetorical distinction between utilitas (something useful for practical purposes) and bonum (something inherently good and valuable in itself). Believing, as we do now, that matter and spirit are intertwined and that creation reflects an aspect of the Divine, all creation must be viewed not merely as utilitas—commodity for human consumption and exploitation— but as bonum, inherently worthy of respect and care. Perhaps the most noted voice today espousing the value of all creation is that of Pope Francis in his 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ in which he supports the German bishops’ principle of the “priority of being over that of being useful” and invites serious dialogue among experts representing various disciplinary perspectives to create what the Pope calls an “integral ecology.” 4 Indeed, Francis cautions, if we do not approach nature with “awe and wonder. . . . our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on [our] immediate needs.”5 Since the promulgation of Laudato Si’ there have been multiple critiques of the document—most of them positive—primarily because Francis’ view of our common home resonates with environmental thinkers from various fields of religion, science, and anthropology. The main themes of his document can be summarized thus: human beings are a major contributor to climate change and environmental degradation; biblical texts must be read in their context; science and technology cannot be the predominant paradigm of decision-making because they shape our life, especially when dictated by powerful interest groups; today’s problems call for an integrated vision that gathers the best knowledge from multiple academic and social perspectives; and our interdependence requires us, through dialogue, to create a common global plan.6 And the bottom line: personal conversion of attitudes and lifestyle must precede and support international political initiatives. There is no question that Laudato Si’ is a challenging document that puts Christianity in good company with other religious traditions that revere and take seriously our responsibility for the health of our planet.

 4

Pope Francis, Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. (Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), 2015. Publication No. 7-502. See in particular Chapter Four and paragraphs #137–62 and #69. 5 Ibid., #11. 6 See in particular paragraphs #23, 67, 107, 137, 218, 164 in Laudato Si’.

Three Sages: Conversations on Ecology

227

However, there are other, earlier American voices who have contributed significant new understanding to the care for our common home, published voices like Rachel Carson and Thomas Merton about whom I would like to speak today. First, Rachel Carson. Trained as a marine biologist and winner of the National Book Award for her popular The Sea Around Us, Rachel Carson astounded the world with her landmark exposé of the dangers of DDT in her 1962 best seller, Silent Spring.7 Having been persuaded by a friend to investigate why all the songbirds in her yard had died along with the mosquitoes, Carson’s lyrical, yet thoroughly researched, book shocked the literary and scientific worlds. The agri-chemical industry retaliated by allocating $225,000 to discredit her. Carson was vilified as a “hysterical female,” a “pseudoscientist,” a “bird and bunny lover,” and a “charlatan researcher.”8 Some fifty-plus years later, we realize Rachel Carson’s wisdom. Although considering herself an agnostic, finding her spirituality in the beauty of marine life, Carson took comfort in thinking of the afterlife as so many rivers flowing into a larger ocean. 9 Her gift of wonder at the beautiful intricacies of nature and her commitment to its inherent value (bonum) compelled her to proclaim an important scientific truth, namely, the interdependence of all creation—soil, air, water, animals, and human beings—as well as our responsibility to protect ourselves by protecting nature. From her perspective on the DDT crisis, that responsibility was best accomplished by biological, not chemical, means. Prior to 1962 the word “environment” was not a public policy term; two years earlier, conservation matters had been only peripherally mentioned at both the Democratic and Republican conventions. Carson’s meticulous research, combined with her devastating explanation of the dangers of pesticides, not only put the issue of pesticides into the public debate that resulted in a Congressional hearing, but directly led to the establishment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and the U.S. ban on production of DDT in 1972. Widely regarded as the most influential book in the last fifty years, Silent Spring is credited with inaugurating a new era of environmental concern, a watershed moment of new vision and activism. In presenting Rachel Carson posthumously with



7 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962). See also the biography by Linda Lear, Rachel Carson: Witness for Nature (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1997). 8 See my discussion of Rachel Carson in The Environmental Vision of Thomas Merton (Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2011), 9–21. 9 Lear, 444–5.



228

Chapter Thirteen

the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1980, President Jimmy Carter said: “she created a tide of environmental consciousness that has not ebbed.”10 Let me turn now to another published voice of the 1960s: Thomas Merton. Born in France one hundred years ago to artist parents, educated in France, England, and Columbia University in New York City, Thomas Merton was drawn to Roman Catholicism as an adult and soon after become a Trappist monk at the Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani in Kentucky. A well-known spiritual writer, chiefly for his 1948 autobiography The Seven Storey Mountain,11 still available in bookstores to this day, Merton became aware of Carson’s book weeks after it was published. On January 12, 1963 before television interviews had persuaded the American public to support her position, Merton wrote to Carson, congratulating her on her “fine, exact and persuasive book.”12 Merton sensed in Carson a kindred spirit who offered both information and insight at the cutting edge of an issue: information with far-reaching consequences and profound insight into our responsibility for the earth. Merton wrote: “Though you are treating of just one aspect, and a rather detailed aspect, of our technological civilization [DDT], you are, perhaps without altogether realizing, contributing a most valuable and essential piece of evidence for the diagnosis of the ills of our civilization.”13 Merton also realized that Carson’s research was a perfect illustration of how we not only disregard the inherent value of small things such as garden pests (their bonum), but also exhibit “portentous irresponsibility” on the grand scale, namely in the world of politics and war. Merton phrased it thus: “[W]e dare to use our titanic power in a way that threatens not only civilization but life itself . . . your book makes it clear to me that there is a consistent pattern running through everything that we do, through every aspect of our culture, our thought, our economy, our whole way of life . . . it seems that our remedies are instinctively those which aggravate the sickness: the remedies are expressions of the sickness itself. I would almost dare to say that the sickness is perhaps a very real and very

 10

J. North Conway, American Literacy: Fifty Books that Define our Culture and Ourselves (New York: William Morrow & Company, 1993), 243 and Thomas J. Lyon, The Incomparable Land: A Guide to American Nature Writing (Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions, 2001), 13. 11 Thomas Merton, The Seven Storey Mountain (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1948). 12 Thomas Merton, Witness to Freedom: Letters in Times of Crisis, ed.by William H. Shannon (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1994), 70–72. 13 Ibid., 70.

Three Sages: Conversations on Ecology

229

dreadful hatred of life . . . .”14 How telling and prophetic an insight for us today who are—as many believe—mired in a culture of death. To make his point to Carson that we have relinquished wisdom in favor of technology, Merton creates an analogy between our radical actions to exterminate the Japanese beetle, that “dire threat,” and our ability to exterminate the larger enemy through nuclear war. Both, insists Merton, rely on the same logic. Once we have labeled a non-human species or human beings as “Other,” we arrogantly believe in our right to eradicate the undesirable. “In order to ‘survive’,” Merton observes, “we instinctively destroy that on which our survival depends.” Despite the danger to nature, to ourselves and to our children, government leaders and politicians are bent on convincing us that our actions are “harmless.”15 While Merton traces our “awful irresponsibility” and instinctive propensity for destructiveness to “the doctrine of the ‘fall’ of man and original sin”—a blindness that contemporary nature writer Barbara Kingsolver has dubbed our “crisis of perception”16—Merton is quick to acknowledge our status as a fallen, yet graced, species because of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. “The whole world itself, to religious thinkers,” he notes “has always appeared as a transparent manifestation of the love of God, as a ‘paradise’ of His wisdom, manifested in all His creatures, down to the tiniest, and in the wonderful interrelationship between them . . . That is, to say, man is at once a part of nature and he transcends it. In maintaining this delicate balance, he must make use of nature wisely.” Our vocation, continues Merton, is “to be in this cosmic creation, so to speak, as the eye in the body,” a vocation to defend and preserve the harmony and “delicate balance” in nature. Unfortunately, “man has lost his ‘sight’ and is blundering around aimlessly in the midst of the wonderful works of God.”17 Such a statement in the 1960s emphasizes Merton’s own prophetic awareness of our unique human dignity and our interdependence with all creatures on this planet. Grounding his thinking, as he notes in this letter to Rachel Carson, in the writing of psychologist Erich Fromm and Zen scholar D. T. Suzuki, Merton distances himself from Western Cartesian philosophy in favor of a “cosmic perspective”—a broad vision that sees all creation as relationship, and our human dignity springing from a true sense

 14

Ibid., 70–1. Ibid., 71–2. 16 Barbara Kingsolver, Small Wonder (New York: HarperCollins, 2002). 17 Merton, 71. 15



230

Chapter Thirteen

of our shared creaturehood. Merton would have us reject hubris in favor of humility—a word whose root is humus, earthiness—a recognition of the clay and stardust that we are. Merton’s letter to Rachel Carson is more than a congratulatory message to a well-known writer; it is a revelation of his well-grounded and everexpanding sacramental view of nature. Having focused his professional writing and social justice efforts on right relationships among people— writing on racism, the rights of indigenous people, the dangers of atomic energy and technology, as well as the moral imperative for making peace through non-violent means—Merton was now articulating a new insight: responsibility for the earth. Reading Silent Spring was, for Merton, a graced moment—a moment of revelation and revolution—because it allowed him to see how human justice is related to eco-justice. In 1963 when he wrote to Rachel Carson, Merton had been a Trappist monk for more than twenty years. His academic training in literature, his natural gift for writing, and his extended experience in spirituality and contemplation made him a responsive reader of Silent Spring. Although from different backgrounds and fields, Carson and Merton had discovered important characteristics of life on this planet. Carson’s professional life, which involved intense training in observation, led to her vision of the interdependence of all creation and the human challenge of acting for wholeness; Merton’s monastic life, which also involved intense training in awareness, led to his vision of our complete dependence on Divinity, our interdependence with each other, and the challenge of acting in nonviolent ways toward all creation. Carson’s discipline was marine biology; Merton’s silence and solitude. Carson’s practice of the scientific method prepared her to confront the problem of dying songbirds; Merton’s practice of regular communal prayer and extended periods of solitude and contemplation prepared him to embrace the world and its problems with compassion and justice. Carson’s love for the world, coupled with a love of words, enabled her to write astute, graceful, persuasive books that contributed to the field of nature writing and, in the case of Silent Spring, triggered modern environmental thinking; Merton’s love for the world, coupled with a fascination for words and commitment to the Word of God, enabled him to inspire thousands with his writing on spirituality, prayer, and East-West dialogue, and stretched him in his later years to see how justice for human beings must of necessity involve justice for the planet.18

 18

For a fuller discussion of this point, see my article in The Merton Annual 19 (2006): 128–41.

Three Sages: Conversations on Ecology

231

In both writers, there is a sense of responsibility for environmental health that comes from attentiveness to their surroundings and commitment to a coherent vision of the cosmos. In both writers, there is what eco-critic Jonathan Bate has called ecopoesis—a deep longing for belonging that is intimately related to the “song of the earth itself.” 19 Both Carson and Merton are pondering the essential question facing each of us today as individuals and as a human community: “How shall we live?” How shall we/can we belong?” In light of new scientific data, both writers see the urgency of attempting an answer to that question. For Carson the answer can be found in human action, namely eradication of chemical pesticides in favor of biological controls; for Merton, the answer to non-violence for the earth means developing what environmentalist Aldo Leopold calls an ecological conscience. In “The Wild Places,” 20 Merton’s last published essay before his untimely death in 1968, he reviews Roderick Nash’s book, Wilderness and the American Mind, 21 which cites Leopold’s land ethic: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”22 Merton applauds this principle of responsible decision-making and at the end of his book review poses a challenging question: Can Aldo Leopold’s ecological conscience, which is essentially a peace-making conscience, become effective in America today? We would have much to overcome. The “very character of the war in Vietnam,” writes Merton, “—with crop poisoning, the defoliation of forest trees, the incineration of villages and their inhabitants with napalm—presents a stark enough example to remind us of this most urgent moral need.”23 Fast-forward and apply this counsel to life today and we have Pope Francis’ challenge to us in Laudato Si’. Can we through honest and sincere

 19

Jonathan Bate, The Song of the Earth (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 75–6. 20 Thomas Merton,“The Wild Places,” Catholic Worker (June 1968) and The Center Magazine (July 1968) 40–44. Rpt in Preview of the Asian Journey ed. by Walter Capps, (New York: Crossroad Publishing Co., 1989) and in its original, longer version in Thomas Merton: Selected Essays, ed. by Patrick F. O’Connell, (Maryknoll NY: Orbis, 2015), 442–51. 21 Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967). 22 Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (New York: Oxford University Press, 1949). See pp. 201–226. 23 See “The Wild Places,” Thomas Merton: Selected Essays, 451.



232

Chapter Thirteen

dialogue develop an ecological conscience or to use Pope Francis’ words: can we participate in a “revolution of tenderness”24 that acknowledges the interdependence of every creature on the planet? Can we create an “integral ecology” that extracts the best wisdom from economics, anthropology, politics, science, religion, and ethics to change our hearts from slavish consumerism to a commitment to foster true human freedom and the common good?25 My comments suggest that a personal conversion is the basis of any movement forward. Rachel Carson was persuaded by her friend to take on the challenge of the problems of DDT, a “conversion” that resulted in intense criticism and personal suffering, as well a new communal awareness and political change. Thomas Merton, having read Carson’s book, also underwent a personal conversion, one that expanded his vision and caused him to see the largeness of social justice—beyond human beings to the entire planet. And as Pope Francis reminds us at the end of his Laudato Si’, subtitled “On Care for our Common Home,” our conversion must have four characteristics: a sense of gratitude for the world as God’s loving gift; awareness of our communion with all creatures; development of our own creative gifts for the benefit of our planet; and, in response to our faith and the mystery of the universe, a serious responsibility to work for ecological integrity. 26 Of course, we cannot do this alone. Personal conversion is the first step toward national and international dialogue. As Pope Francis reminds us, “true ecological approach always becomes a social approach. We hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” 27 We must exhibit transparency in the decision-making so that a greater sense of “responsibility for the common good” (the bonum of all things) may underpin our political and economic decisions.28 The fourteenth-century spirit of St. Francis that Lynn White applauded in 1967 as the only commendable expression of Christianity has found American voices in Rachel Carson and in Thomas Merton—and a yet fuller flowering in the words of our contemporary Francis. Can we, as Merton challenges, develop an “ecological conscience? Can we, as Pope

 24

Pope Francis, Remarks during Mass in Cuba (22 September 2015). https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-calls-revolution-tenderness-cuba. 25 Laudato Si’ #196. 26 Ibid., #106. 27 Ibid., #49. 28 Ibid., #182–88.

Three Sages: Conversations on Ecology

233

Francis invites, create an “integral ecology” through a “new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet?29

Conclusion After examining the writings of Rachel Carson, Thomas Merton, and Pope Francis, it is clear that they are visionaries who see beyond the misguided misinterpretations of Hebrew and Christian sacred texts and have the courage to challenge us to respond to our true human vocation: to acknowledge our interdependence with all creation and to be responsible for the current and future health of our earthly home.

Bibliography Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962. Lear, Linda. Rachel Carson: Witness for Nature. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1997. Merton, Thomas. “The Wild Places.” In Thomas Merton: Selected Essays, edited by Patrick F. O’Connell, 442–51. Maryknoll NY: Orbis, 2015. —. “Letter to Rachel Carson” (12, January 1963). In Witness to Freedom: Letters in Times of Crisis, William H. Shannon, ed. 70–72. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1994. Pope Francis. Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. Publication No. 7-502. Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2015. Weis, SSJ, Monica. “Kindred Spirits in Revelation and Revolution: Rachel Carson and Thomas Merton.” In The Merton Annual 19, edited by Victor A. Kramer.128–141. Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 2006. Weis, SSJ, Monica. The Environmental Vision of Thomas Merton. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2011.

 29



Ibid., #14.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN PROSPECTS FOR DIALOGUE BETWEEN RUSSIAN ORTHODOX AND MUSLIMS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS ANDRII KRAWCHUK1

Abstract: This paper studies approaches to environmental issues reflected in authoritative Orthodox Christian and Muslim discussions, with attention to their selection and interpretation of scriptural texts in elaborating visions of environmental responsibility. In their analyses of the environmental crisis, both Patriarch Alexy II and Seyyed Hossain Nasr recognize the centrality of such scriptural themes as stewardship and harmony with nature, while substantive differences remain in their particular historical contexts, their images of humanity, and the specific challenges of fidelity to tradition today.

In Orthodox Christianity, the most readily available and comprehensive discussion of environmental issues in English has come from the Greek Orthodox Church. As senior patriarch of the Orthodox world, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew put forward a diagnosis of the ecological crisis and seeks solutions through collaboration across religious boundaries. While appreciating the roles of scientists and political leaders in developing

 1

Andrii Krawchuk ([email protected]) is professor of religious studies at the University of Sudbury, Canada. Author of Christian Social Ethics in Ukraine (Toronto, 1997), co-editor with Thomas Bremer of Eastern Orthodox Encounters of Identity and Otherness: Values, Self-Reflection, Dialogue (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), and Churches in the Ukrainian Crisis (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), he is currently studying interreligious dialogue and intercultural ethics in the wake of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

236

Chapter Fourteen

practical solutions, as a religious leader he also signals the need for active engagement by people of faith—beginning with his own Orthodox Christian community. In the face of stereotypes of Orthodox Christianity as a locus of rigid traditionalism, the breadth and depth of Patriarch Bartholomew’s vision for the “greening” of Orthodoxy are little short of astonishing. Despite its comparatively smaller representation in Englishlanguage works, the Russian Orthodox Church has not been indifferent to environmental issues. The Moscow Patriarchate’s anthology Orthodoxy and Ecology (1997) traced Russian Orthodox ecological thinking from the nineteenth century to the present, and the subsequent synodal document The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church (2000) included a key section on ecology. More recently, the Russian Holy Synod followed up with a new statement, “The position of the Russian Orthodox Church on the current problems of ecology” (2013). Like its Greek counterpart, the official Russian church grounds its official teaching in Biblical exegesis and theological reflection on the spiritual basis of human moral responsibility. The result is a program for conscientization, teaching, and practice in which deeper issues relating to the spiritual and environmental dimensions of the crisis are addressed, such as the place and function of theocentrism, the spiritual basis of a respectful relationship with nature, and the mobilization of moral responsibility for restorative action both inside the church and beyond. The official Russian Orthodox discourse on ecology relies on texts from Genesis 1–3 and Romans 1 and 8 to lay out ethical readings of creation and dominion, the Fall and the sovereignty of God. In responding to the ecological crisis it likewise turns to biblical and patristic sources first of all. Qur’anic scholarship and Muslim theology on the environmental crisis (Masri 1992; Ammar 2001; Özdemir 2003; Nasr 2003; Yasin 2011) reflects a consensus that in developing alternatives to insufficient environmental sensitivity, what is needed is not a new theology but a recovery of the original Islamic environmental ethic. Presented in the Qur’an, that ethic is comprised of such core principles as: Tawhid, the oneness and sovereignty of God; the unity and equality of all creation; human vice-regency on earth as a sacred trust and part of the covenant with God; and moral accountability in the afterlife. Beyond the sharp distinction between Creator and creation, the Islamic ethic includes scriptural calls to recognize that the power delegated to humanity comes with a responsibility to protect and improve nature, and to ensure that human deeds reflect a recognition of the oneness of the entire human community in God’s creation.

Prospects for Dialogue between Russian Orthodox and Muslims

237

In their respective approaches to the environmental crisis, both Orthodox Christianity and Islam recognize the urgent need for interreligious cooperation. The issue is recognized as global, and strategies founded on intercultural and interreligious cooperation offer the promise of greater effectiveness in both local and international contexts. Our aim here is to study Orthodox Christian and Islamic discourses on the environment and to identify areas of common ground and differences, with a view to advancing dialogue and cooperative action, and potentially extending such initiatives to other areas of mutual concern.

Russian Orthodox Perspectives Alexy II (Ridiger), patriarch of Moscow from 1990-2008, addressed ecological matters in his article, “A Christian Perspective on the Ecological Problem.” After introducing the ecological crisis in the context of other global issues that demand the attention of Orthodox Christians, Alexy turned to the notion of human dominion over nature, as instituted in the Book of Genesis: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen 1:28).2 Yet, as opposed to other religions of the ancient Near East, which divinized and submitted to the forces of nature, in the tradition of Abraham humanity received a moral obligation for responsible stewardship—caring for the well-being of all created existence.3 Stewardship was key to theosis, the spiritual elevation of humanity and all nature to communion with the fullness of the Creator. So the Biblical idea of dominion was not reducible to the domination of nature, but was part of an ethical account of human responsibility in the world. After creation, the next pivotal moment for understanding the biblical account of humanity’s relationship with nature was the fall: the free choice to abandon the divine, spiritual realm in favor of the material world. The fall separated humanity from the source of life and from the whole created order. The punishment was not only mortality, but a struggle for survival

 2

All Biblical quotations used here are from the Revised Standard Version. Alexy II (Ridiger), Patriarch of Moscow. “Khristiianskii vzgliad na ekologicheskuiu problemu.” [A Christian Perspective on the Ecological Problem]. In Pravoslavie i ekologiia. [Orthodoxy and Ecology]. V.L. Shlenov and L.G. Petrushina, eds. (Moscow: Moskovskii Patriarkhat, Otdel religioznogo obrazovaniia i katekhizatsii, 1993), 98.

3



238

Chapter Fourteen

against a hostile nature and the “thorns and thistles” of the earth (Gen 3:18). 4 Patriarch Alexy further noted that the desire for a restored relationship with nature was present in the biblical call to the people of Israel to live in harmony with nature and to observe its laws, notably in the Psalms, which sing of God as the lord and ruler of natural order that is full of obedience and praise for its Creator; and in the prophetic descriptions of nature, which “anticipate its future transfiguration.”5 That quest for a restored relationship with nature was carried over into Christianity. Through Christ, the chaotic, disrupted relationships with God and nature were incorporated into, or subsumed under, the divine plan for salvation. For Patriarch Alexy, this meant that the realization of human finitude came with a silver lining. It could open up a path toward a reconstructed relationship and “awaken repentance, that is, the possibility of a new love.”6 Human dominion had not been revoked, but was only diminished to a potentiality. The responsible stewardship of nature could be restored through arduous human effort, a long historical process of development and a Christian transformation of social and economic conditions.7 One historical example of such a restoration occurred in the monasteries of Kyivan Rus’ (present-day Ukraine and Russia). Under their religious leadership and initiative, neighboring secular communities transformed dense forests and swamps into fertile, arable lands and gardens. Driven first of all by their dedicated life of prayer, the monastic communities were also inspired by the Biblical teaching on the assigned purpose of nature in relation to humanity (ɨ ɫɥɭɠɟɛɧɨɦ ɧɚɡɧɚɱɟɧɢɢ ɩɪɢɪɨɞɵ) and by the practice of Christian asceticism, which restricted human needs to what was essential for life.8 Even as it contributed to improvements in agriculture, monasticism also advanced another kind of dominion—that of the spirit over the sinful nature of humanity. Through spiritual discipline and selfmastery, humanity was enabled to recover some of its original authority and dominion over nature. Crucial to that authority was its specific grounding in love, as opposed to egoism. As exemplified in the lives of the great Christian ascetics, it was love that disposed all creatures to accept

 4

Alexy, “A Christian Perspective on the Ecological Problem,” 100. Ibid. 6 Ibid., 99. 7 Ibid., 99-100. 8 Ibid., 101. 5

Prospects for Dialogue between Russian Orthodox and Muslims

239

human dominion. The authenticity of the restored relationship hinged on trust and love, rather than on coercion. The final stage of historical development, which for Alexy accounts for the origin of the ecological crisis, is the period of the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the rise of capitalism. The Patriarch describes the ensuing shift in attitudes toward nature: From the beginning, natural resources became the object of greedy exploitation and were reduced to a mere economic calculation of fiscal or monetary worth. Whereas in the Middle Ages humanity’s relationship with the natural environment had been connected with Christian asceticism, with a sense of responsibility towards creatures . . . and with a religiouslymotivated observance of the laws of nature, the contemporary period has infused human progress with fierce competition and national rivalry, and these have given rise to bitter wars. In the struggle of individual, national, and state egoisms, human dominion over nature has regressed to an economic despotism without any moral sense and which is therefore destructive of both nature and humanity. Such is the origin of the ecological problem, which gestated for a long time in the womb of European civilization as it departed from Christian traditions.9

Much like the biblical Fall, the rise of capitalism was linked to a moral path by which humanity became disconnected from its organic relationships with creation and the Creator. For Alexy, the root cause was found not in scientific, technical, or economic innovations but at the level of the human spirit. And the effective solution would necessarily have to address the problem at its root. The task of liberating creation from decay and death required the spiritual and moral renewal of humanity, which also responded to the Gospel call to divine perfection (Mt 5:48).10 While the Creator’s protection was key in preventing people of faith from falling into despair, humanity was called back to its original role of responsible stewardship, and that was achievable by way of repentance (2 Pet 3:9).11 Christians were called to personal transfiguration and a similar healing transformation of nature; indifference to the salvation of the world was not an option. According to Patriarch Alexy, “It is not a passive anticipation of the end of time, but Christian moral action that manifests our faith in the imminent transformation of creation.”12 By “moral action”

 9

Ibid., 103. Ibid., 108. 11 Ibid., 109. 12 Ibid. 10



Chapter Fourteen

240

he was referring first of all to a spiritual struggle with destructive forces inside human beings, such as: economic, political and national rivalries, egoistic interests, and the lust for power. For indeed, the very same cluster of evil inclinations that was destroying nature also threatened the survival of humanity.13 Inspired by Scripture and the example of ascetic monks, Christians were called to a new mode of life. By discarding “the lower, temporal values in favor of higher, spiritual values,” Christians would be able to grasp spiritually their moral responsibility in relation to the natural world.14 Implicit in the patriarch’s message was the idea that ecologically sensitive moral action was an essential component of Christian identity— to be a Christian was to accept the moral responsibility of stewardship and care for the whole created order: We Christians cannot remain indifferent to facts like the damage, destruction or the irrational exploitation of our natural environment. We must direct our moral action towards its healing and its protection. It is our Christian duty to protect nature, to support social, national, and international efforts to that end, and to tirelessly explain to society the moral principle of humanity’s dominion over nature . . . and to embrace with love the whole cosmos, which has been shattered by sin, so that in the end it may be transfigured by grace.15

Because of the organic unity of all creation, the Fall affected not only humanity but the whole natural world. For Alexy, rationalism and capitalism had likewise impacted all creation. The remedy would be for humanity to restore its relationship with nature. In spiritual terms, that was also a necessary step on the path to ultimate unity with the Creator. In this Christian perspective, the primary locus of the ecological crisis is the spiritual environment, where human nature and dominion, both reduced by the Fall and subsequent human history, are at stake in an ongoing struggle between good and evil. Russian Orthodoxy frames its discourse on human moral responsibility within a cosmology that encompasses both material and spiritual reality. Christian morality cuts through both planes, and they are inseparable in the grand project of recovering the primordial relationship within creation. What may at first appear to be a list of esoteric abstractions in the description of evil—

 13

Ibid. Ibid., 110. 15 Ibid., 111. 14

Prospects for Dialogue between Russian Orthodox and Muslims

241

egoism, envy, rivalries—actually refers to a cluster of misguided human priorities, distorted values that had become detached from their authentic Christian bearings. Their cumulative outcome over time has been a materialistic culture and the ecological crisis. In countering those directions, an authentic practice of Christian morality and spirituality demands awakened commitment to responsible, alternative action in the world. Beginning with the Biblical accounts of human origins and of the disruption of human relationships—among themselves, with other creatures, and with the Creator—Patriarch Alexy sees signs of meaningful spiritual progress in medieval asceticism and a subsequent regression since the Renaissance. Despite the advances of scientific and technical innovation, in Alexy’s estimation the predominant Western civilization cannot boast of similar achievements on the spiritual plane. For people of faith who are called to act for change, the ecological crisis is not first and foremost a technical or scientific problem, but a spiritual one. Its decisive solution begins with a moral transformation in the human psyche, which can then be applied to the world.

Islamic Perspectives Connecting with the Russian Orthodox perspective on the ecology presented by Patriarch Alexy II, Islamic scholarship has significantly noted that numerous Qur’anic texts deal with humanity’s central obligation of khilafah (dominion, specifically in the sense of vice-regency, trusteeship, or stewardship) towards nature. Nawal Ammar discusses the Qur’anic description of the role of humans as managers or trustees, which as others point out entails a relationship of friendship toward the natural order.16 In the Qur’an, humans became vice-regents only after other parts of creation had been offered that same function: “God offered his trust to heaven and earth and mountain, but they shied away in fear and rejected it. Humans only carried it.” (Al-Ahzab 33:72). The core value and essential trait of Muslim identity, submission to the one God, also informs environmental consciousness. In light of Tawhid, the oneness of God, all creation, human and non-human, shares a number of key characteristics—reflecting and worshipping God; demonstrating

 16

Saniotis, Arthur, “Muslims and Ecology.” Contemporary Islam 6 (2012), 157; Hope, Marjorie and James Young, “Islam and Ecology.” Cross Currents 44:2 (Summer, 1994), 180.



242

Chapter Fourteen

order, purpose, and balance; and being part of communities 17 . Islamic scholars have noted that Tawhid includes a kind of interactive, communitarian component that arises from the balance and harmony of the universe (Saniotis, Wersal, Ozdemir, Nasif). This balance is demonstrated by the interdependency of ecosystems. In its fullest sense, human submission to God involves a recognition and a sense of fellowship with all other creatures, which reflect the Divine purpose and in their own ways submit to the will of the Creator. Ultimately, Tawhid becomes the moral “basis of human action and thought, penetrating every dimension of subjective and social life” (Sarder, Shariati, Saniotis). The third foundational principle of the Islamic environmental ethos, akhirah, or accountability for present actions in the hereafter, reinforces the message of the first two principles.18 One’s performance of responsible action in the divinely instituted role of steward is morally significant not only in the present life, but will be evaluated in the afterlife. Likewise, one’s entitlement to an eternal reward will be determined on the basis of respect for the Divine oneness, which is centered in God but also reflected in the unity-in-diversity, balance, and harmony of the created universe. The Qur’an further connects the meaning of the creation to God’s intent. God did not create in vain, but as a moral test for humans to do good and to fulfill their responsibility as vice-regents (Ad-Dukhan 44:38). Islamic scholars al Faruqi and Izzi Dien understand the creation of humanity as reflecting God’s intent to protect the universe through the appointment of stewards. Here, moral considerations are in play: humans are entrusted with this responsibility because of their ability to distinguish between good and evil (Ash-Shams 91:7-8; Al-Balad 90:8-9) and their capacity to control harm and corruption (An-Nazi’at 79:40). The ethical assignment of vice-regency follows from the human capacity of moral discernment. Despite some textual differences, the Qur’anic understanding of human dominion resonates with Orthodox Christian interpretations, which emphasize the moral-spiritual dimension as central to an authentic, spiritually effective approach to the ecological crisis. Among the many Islamic scholars who have written about environmental issues in recent years, the distinguished Iranian-born professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr stands out as one of the most perceptive and prolific. Author



17 Nawal Ammar. “Islam and Deep Ecology.” In Deep Ecology and World Religions: New Essays on Sacred Ground (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001), 196-7. 18 Saniotis, “Muslims and Ecology,” 157; Hope, “Islam and Ecology,” 180.

Prospects for Dialogue between Russian Orthodox and Muslims

243

of numerous books on the Islamic tradition, the spiritual dimension of nature, and the relationship between humanity and nature, he argues that the origin of the environmental crisis may be traced to the paradigm shift in the perception of nature that occurred in seventeenth-century Europe. Renaissance humanism put forward a de-sacralized image of nature that was devoid of any spiritual content or meaning, and which transformed nature into an object of materialist exploitation.19 Humanity’s earlier sense of organic connectedness to the natural world was dissolved in favor of a dichotomous relationship, and the notion of responsible stewardship was replaced by an attitude of human domination and control. These ideas, attitudes, and practices were introduced into Muslim majority countries by Western European colonizers from the eighteenth century onward.20 This resulted in a fundamental shift in Muslim practices. From their beginnings, Muslim majority countries had developed an environmental ethic and systems of environmental management, which included diverse enlightened practices, such as the establishment of conservation zones (hima) and wildlife sanctuaries (haram); state-leased land grants for efficient agriculture; charitable community endowments by the wealthy; and measures to protect water resources.21 Colonialism undid such practices of ecological stewardship and instead prioritized the exploitation of nature. Colonization brought consequences for Muslim countries that were both profound and enduring. Even after colonial powers had relinquished their hold on Muslim majority countries in the twentieth century, the Western paradigm of an objectified, exploitable nature continued to shape consciousness and public policy. A case in point was the Aswan Dam project in Egypt. Completed in 1970, it converted 1.3 million acres of arid land into an agricultural region, but also had massive ecological ramifications. Mineral-rich silt deposited in the reservoir was lost to agriculture and farmers had to rely on artificial fertilizer, the interruption of the Nile’s seasonal flooding increased soil salinity, and the introduction of canal irrigation contributed to the spread of diseases. Similarly, Islamic environmental awareness was fundamentally distorted, almost beyond recognition. Nasr noted a regrettable irony in the extent to which trust towards Western civilization became ingrained in the East—even when



19 Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Encounter of Man and Nature: the Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man (London: Allen and Unwin, 1968), 19. 20 Saniotis. “Muslims and Ecology,” 165-6. 21 Ibid, 158-9.



244

Chapter Fourteen

skepticism about modern science and technology began to spread in the West, people in the East still clung to the foreign empirical paradigm.22 For Nasr, the grave distortion of Islamic environmental consciousness called for a retrieval of the primordial understanding of nature as sacred and revelatory. In this worldview, the organic unity and harmony of humanity and all creation would be restored. Nature, recognized once again as an icon that points to divine reality, would be “read” as a source of a higher, sacred knowledge, much like scripture.23 Indeed, Nasr refers to scripture and nature as the two “grand books of divine knowledge.”24 The main thrust of Nasr’s critique of Western ideas is epistemological. He rejects the claim of Western science to be the only valid science of the natural world. On the contrary, he argues, it has destroyed the spiritual dimension of nature, whereas the ecological crisis can only be overcome through a rediscovery of the sacred in nature and in oneself.25 In order for that to happen, the Western epistemological paradigm, the “desacralized mode of knowing,” must be dismantled.26 Nasr’s symbolic view of nature is of particular interest to an OrthodoxMuslim dialogue on the environment—it rejects the Cartesian model that reduced nature to an object of material exploitation, it affirms the organic unity of humanity and all creation, and it posits nature as a valid source of divine knowledge and spiritual enlightenment, as an iconic “window” into a higher reality.27 For Nasr, nature is a symbol that points to the divine reality and teaches humanity about God.28 In practical terms, this means that Islamic communities must make every effort to recover a metaphysical framework for the whole enterprise of science. Such had been the shape of pre-colonial Islamic science. From a traditional Islamic perspective, the study of animals was significant not only in uncovering



22 Nasr, Religion and the Environmental Crisis (New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Center for the Arts, 1993), 19. 23 Saniotis, “Muslims and Ecology,” 165-6. Tariq Ramadan shares Nasr’s insight that viewing nature as revelation has both spiritual and ecological merit. Turkish philosopher Ibrahim Ozdemir also believes that the main environmental culprit is Western science, which under the influence of humanism and materialism objectifies and materializes nature. He calls for an appreciation of nature as aweinspiring, majestic, and animated by a sacred life force. Saniotis, 166–7. 24 Hope, “Islam and Ecology,” 190. 25 Ibid., 182, 188. 26 Ibid., 190. 27 Saniotis, “Muslims and Ecology,” 166. 28 Hope, “Islam and Ecology,” 190-1.

Prospects for Dialogue between Russian Orthodox and Muslims

245

new biological and behavioral facts but also in generating new qualitative insights into “our own inner reality.” Likewise, Islamic science studied plant life with minute attention to empirical detail, not as an end in itself but to in order to derive spiritual lessons.29 Nature as symbol serves both to reconnect humanity with the rest of creation and to recuperate the sense of interdependence and relational respect that is essential to authentic stewardship. The view of natural phenomena as an integral part of the science of God explains why a purely secular science was not, nor could have been, born in the Islamic world. The Qur’anic verse, “We shall show them Our Signs upon the horizon and upon themselves” (Fusillat 41:53) was crucial to Islamic consciousness because it placed the focus of the study of phenomena on signs, rather than on empirical facts. Indeed, neither the Arabic language nor the Persian has a word for “fact.” As Nasr observes, “There is nothing which is only a fact; everything is a sign, a vestige, an ayah of God.” 30 In Islamic science, nature was nothing less than the “vestiges of God,” and everything in it was connected with the sacred realm. Nasr’s grand project of recovering the sacred dimension of nature also encompasses another crucial area of human knowledge, the operation of memory. While nature may undergo certain transformations over time,31 he argues that its underlying, sacred realities are immutable and that they reflect the paradise whose memory is still embedded within our spiritual being.32 The same path towards renewed harmony with nature that looks retrospectively to traditional, pre-colonial Islam also contemplates the primordial human-nature relationship at the very origins of the created order.

Conclusion As with the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexy’s ethical-spiritual approach to the environmental crisis, the Islamic perspective developed by Seyyed Hossein Nasr centers on a critical re-orientation of human activity

 29

Ibid., 188. Nasr, Religion and the Environmental Crisis, 26. 31 Nasr admits a certain amount of change in nature, but contests the theory of evolution on multiple grounds as yet another effort to advance human dominance and hegemony over other forms of life. 32 Hope, “Islam and Ecology,” 188, 192. 30



246

Chapter Fourteen

back to its ideal pattern—the pattern of balance and harmony, which is found in the divine Tawhid and reflected in all creation.33 In addition to the theme of khilafah—stewardship and the ethical-spiritual approach— Muslim scholars writing about the environment share another remarkable similarity with the thought of the Russian patriarch: their assessment of the historical root of the environmental problem. Nasr and others situate that source squarely in the historical moment of the European Renaissance, a period which saw a paradigm shift away from the view of nature as an icon reflecting, symbolically, a higher reality, towards the distorted image of an object of exploitation.34 Nasr notes a subsequent, materialistic desacralization of nature, and the human quest to dominate and control nature. Muslim ecologist Fazlun Khalid has observed that as Islam came into contact with other cultures its communities in various countries lost touch with their traditional sense of environmental responsibility. For Tariq Ramadan, it is Western hegemonic modernity, the successor to Cartesian materialism, the embrace of Western consumerism, and legalistic distractions looking at secondary issues (such as how to properly slaughter animals) that have distanced many Muslims from an awareness of the creational verses of the Qur’an.35 According to these authors, the solution may be expected through a recovery of Qur’anic teaching on the environment and a rejection of Western consumerism, a renewed sense of the symbolically-charged depth of nature, and a setting aside of its materialistic reduction and exploitation. The goal of purifying Islam of Western influences ultimately returns to the goal of recovering God’s moral challenge to humanity: to be worthy and authentic stewards of creation. The central notion of human stewardship cuts through both Russian Orthodoxy and Islam. As for the importance of an ethically-oriented spirituality, and the critique of materialistic consumerism, they are front and center in the teachings of both traditions: the recovery of humanity’s capacity for its own salutary transformation and that of the environment requires a spiritual-moral awakening and a shedding of the attachment to external, material values. Elaborated for all intents and purposes independently of one another and with no evident cross-citation, the Orthodox Christian and Islamic traditions share remarkably similar core

 33

Saniotis, “Muslims and Ecology,” 157. Ibid., 165. 35 Ibid., 166. 34

Prospects for Dialogue between Russian Orthodox and Muslims

247

ideas about the source of the environmental crisis and about the path towards an effective solution. A crucial difference in the ecological visions between the two traditions lies in their respective images of humanity. Islam never subscribed to or developed the Western idea of a Promethean man, who rebelled against heaven 36 , and Russian Orthodoxy inveighs against “Western values” as contrary to its “traditional values” and as the cause, at least in part, of environmental ills. But any thoroughgoing post-Soviet critique of environmental abuses cannot ignore significant factors that were much closer to home in Russia.37 The communist-era image of the “homo Sovieticus,” an obedient puppet, who faithfully conformed to the will of the almighty State, was only one of the operative images that shaped social cohesion and submission. There was also the larger-thanlife, heroic Superman, whose monumental grandeur and Promethean proportions concretized an image of Soviet humanity as superior to all other humans, to the forces of nature—and to God. Key founding ideas of Russian communism may have been hatched in Western libraries, but after inspiring a revolution they took root in the Soviet regime and today many Russians look back with fondness at the legacies of Stalin and Brezhnev. The Russian Church, which treads a fine line between Soviet nostalgia and

 36

Nasr, Religion and the Environmental Crisis, 27. Just as Egypt had its Aswan Dam project, a pivotal Soviet environmental catastrophe was that of the Aral Sea in Central Asia. In the 1960s, Soviet irrigation projects diverted two major rivers that fed the world’s fourth largest lake. By 2007, the Aral Sea had declined to ten percent of its original area (68,000 sq. km., or 26,300 sq.mi.). One of the planet’s worst man-made environmental disasters, it destroyed the lake’s ecosystems and a prosperous fishing industry, leaving vast plains with salt and toxic chemicals, spread by dust storms throughout the region. The rationale for the river diversion was to produce cotton for export. See “The Aral Sea Crisis,” www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm; Mark Synnott, “Sins of the Aral Sea,” ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/aral-sea/synnott-text; “Aral Sea,” britannica.com/place/ Aral-Sea. The 1986 meltdown of Chernobyl nuclear reactor Number Four, the world's worst nuclear disaster, also had staggering environmental consequences on an international scale. It released more than fifty tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere (several times that produced by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki), with winds spreading it over Northern and Eastern Europe and contaminating millions of acres of forest and farmland. Some 5,000 Soviet citizens died from radiation-induced cancer and other illnesses, while millions of others experienced various adverse effects. “1986 Nuclear Disaster at Chernobyl,” www.history.com/this-day-inhistory/nuclear-disaster-at-chernobyl.

37



248

Chapter Fourteen

a prophetic critique of the prevailing oligarchy, may yet recognize that the credibility of its environmental witness will be assessed not on the merits of politically expedient declarations, but by the robustness of its theology and its capacity to cultivate sensitivity, respect, and responsible stewardship toward the created natural order.

Bibliography Al-Jayyousi, Odeh Rashed. Islam and Sustainable Development: New Worldviews. Farnham: Gower Publishing Limited, 2012. Alexy II (Ridiger), Patriarch of Moscow. “Khristiianskii vzgliad na ekologicheskuiu problemu.” [“A Christian Perspective on the Ecological Problem”]. In Pravoslavie i ekologiia. [Orthodoxy and Ecology]. Edited by V.L. Shlenov and L.G. Petrushina. Moscow: Moskovskii Patriarkhat, Otdel religioznogo obrazovaniia i katekhizatsii, 1993. pp. 93–111. Ammar, Nawal. “Islam and Deep Ecology.” In Deep Ecology and World Religions. New Essays on Sacred Ground. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001. pp. 193–211. Butler, Michael E. and Morriss, Andrew P. Creation and the Heart of Man, an Orthodox Christian Perspective on Environmentalism. Grand Rapids: Acton Institute, 2013. Chryssavgis, J. “The World of the Icon and Creation: an Orthodox Perspective on Ecology and Pneumatology.” In Christianity and Ecology: Seeking the Well-being of Earth and Humans. Edited by Dieter T. Hessel and Rosemary Radford Ruether. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press: Harvard University Center for the Study of World Religions, 2000. pp. 83–96. Hope, Marjorie, and James Young. “Islam and Ecology.” Cross Currents 44:2 (summer, 1994), 180–92. Foltz, Richard C., F.M. Denny, and A. Baharuddin, eds. Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed Trust. (2003). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. ‫ދ‬Izz al-Din, Mu‫ތ‬il Yusuf. The Environmental Dimensions of Islam. Cambridge, England: Lutterworth Press, 2000. Johnston, David L. Earth, Empire, and Sacred Text: Muslims and Christians as Trustees of Creation. London, Oakville: Equinox, 2010. Masri, A. “Islam and Ecology.” In Islam and Ecology. Edited by Fazlun M. Khalid and Joanne O’Brien. London: Cassell, 1992. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. The Encounter of Man and Nature: the Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man. London: Allen and Unwin, 1968.

Prospects for Dialogue between Russian Orthodox and Muslims

249

—. “Islam, the Contemporary Islamic World, and the Environmental Crisis.” In Islam and Ecology. Edited by Richard C. Foltz, et al. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. —. Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis in Modern Man. Chicago: Kazim, 1997. —. Religion and the Environmental Crisis. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Center for the Arts, 1993. Özdemir, Ibrahim. The Ethical Dimension of the Human Attitude towards Nature: a Muslim perspective. Merter, Istanbul: Insan Publications, 2008. —. “Toward an Understanding of Environmental Ethics From a Qur‫ތ‬anic Perspective.” In Islam and Ecology. Edited by Richard C. Foltz, et al. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Saniotis, Arthur. “Muslims and Ecology.” Contemporary Islam 6. pp. 155–71, 2012. Shlenov, V.L., and L.G. Petrushina, eds. Pravoslavie i ekologiia. [Orthodoxy and Ecology]. Moscow: Moskovskii Patriarkhat, Otdel religioznogo obrazovaniia i katekhizatsii, 1997. Theokritoff, Elizabeth. Living in God’s Creation: Orthodox Perspectives on Ecology. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009. Yasin, Mohamed Yunus. “Humanity and the environment: al-An‫ދ‬Ɨm 6:141-42; 6:38; al-Rnjm 30:41, al-Naতl 16:112.” In Humanity: Texts and Contexts: Christian and Muslim Perspectives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. pp. 128-131, 143, 2011.



CHAPTER FIFTEEN THE FLOWERING OF INDIA: A MUGHAL MANIFESTO FOR ENVIRONMENTALISM MICHAEL D. CALABRIA, OFM1

Abstract: With a Muslim population that is soon to become the largest in the world, India’s Muslim community has an important role to play in raising environmental awareness. This paper examines the environmental ethos of the Mughal Dynasty (1526-1857) especially as expressed in art and architecture from the reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan. I will argue that the ubiquitous use of floral decoration in Mughal art and architecture reflects an Islamic reverence for the natural world. An appreciation for Mughal aesthetics may serve as a manifesto for environmentalism in today’s South Asia and in the international community.

Introduction At the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, much attention was focused on India due to its continued heavy dependence on fossil fuels for generating electrical power. Indeed, the World Health Organization found in 2014 that Delhi had the worst air quality of 1,600 cities around the world, and it

 1

Michael D. Calabria, OFM, Ph.D. is a Franciscan friar with a doctorate in Islamic studies from Exeter University, UK. He serves as the director of the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies and assistant professor of Islamic studies at St. Bonaventure University. His most recent publications include a study of Islamic decorative motifs in the Basilica of St. Francis in Assisi (in: The World of St. Francis of Assisi. Siena: Betti Editrice, 2017), and care and concern for the poor in Mughal India (in: Poverty & Wealth in Judaism, Christianity, & Islam. Palgrave Macmillan 2016).

252

Chapter Fifteen

Figure 1. The “almost dead” Yamuna River as seen from the Ram Bagh, Agra.

is estimated that in another ten years, Delhi will record the world’s largest number of premature deaths in the world due to air pollution. 2 In fact, thirteen of the top twenty worst cities for air pollution are in India.3 On land, pollution is also widespread: waste is left to decay and seep into the groundwater, soil, and air. Not surprisingly, neighborhoods around garbage dumps have higher incidences of respiratory and skin diseases, dysentery, and food poisoning.4 Water pollution, too, plagues India. Eighty per cent of sewage flows untreated into India’s rivers.5 The Yamuna, the river that flows through Delhi and past the incomparable Taj Mahal in Agra, has been deemed “almost dead” by India’s Central Pollution Control

 2

Gardine Harris, “Cities in India Among the Most Polluted, W.H.O. Says,” New York Times, May 8, 2014: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/world/asia/citiesin-india-among-the-most-polluted-who-says.html?_r=0; Katie Valentine, “India’s Air Pollution Cuts Life Expectancy by 3 Years,” Our World, 2015.02.25: http://ourworld.unu.edu /en/indias-air-pollution-cuts-life-expectancy-by-3-years 3 CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/worlds-worst-air-pollution-citieswho-1.3355300. 4 Poulomi Banerjee, “Gone to Waste: How India is Drowning in Garbage,” Hindustan Times, Feb. 9, 2016: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/india-scities-are-faced-with-a-severe-waste-management-crisis/story-vk1Qs9PJT8l1bPL CJKsOTP.html. 5 “India River Pollution: 80 Percent of Indian Sewage Flows Untreated into Country’s Rivers,” The World Post, 03/05/2013: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/india-river-pollutionsewage_n_2810213.html.

The Flowering of India: A Mughal Manifesto for Environmentalism

253

Board6 (fig. 1). That India struggles to maintain the delicate balance between economic development and environmental concerns is perhaps not surprising for a country of 1.3 billion people (2016),7 the second most populous country in the world and home to one third of the world’s poor. What is perhaps more surprising is that India’s religious communities, comprising Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsees, Christians of various dominations, and Muslims (Sunni and Shi’a), have not had been more effective in protecting the environment, since all of these faith traditions value the creation as a manifestation of Divine presence, power, and munificence. Indian Muslims, as the second largest religious community in India, numbering some 180 million (2011 census) and soon to be the largest Muslim population in the world, can provide an important religious and spiritual foundation for a healthier (and holier) interaction with the creation and the use of natural resources. It is beyond question that Islam has a clear and fundamental environmental ethos, as has been demonstrated by numerous scholars. 8 Succinctly put, the creation, with its diversity of natural phenomena and life forms, is a sign (Ɨya) of God’s creative Will and Wisdom, as well as of God’s Beauty and Bounty, Glory and Goodness, Magnificence, Mercy, and Munificence. Nature, according to Islamic thought, is “a means through which God communicates with humanity,”9 and “both a medium and a receptacle of revelation.” 10 The Qur’an repeatedly notes that God has created all, that God possesses all, provides for humanity by means of creation’s resources, and that humanity is



6 Chetan Chauhan, “Yamuna a dead river, says report, even as focus on Clean Ganga,” Hindustan Times, Apr 18, 2015: http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/yamuna-a-dead-river-says-report-even-asfocus-on-clean-ganga/story-4R6VXEcjNOlLSelnREqrxN.html; Julie McCarthy, “Can India’s Sacred But ‘Dead’ Yamuna River Be Saved?,” NPR, May 11, 2016: http://www.npr.org/2016/05/11/477415686/can-indias-sacred-but-dead-yamunariver-be-saved. 7 Worldometers. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/ 8 See especially the many papers presented at the 1998 conference on Islam and ecology held at the Center for the Study of World religions, Harvard Divinity School that were published as: Islam and Ecology: a Bestowed Trust, Richard C. Foltz et al., eds. (Cambridge: Harvard, 2003). 9 S. Nomanul Haq, “Islam and Ecology: Toward Retrieval and Reconstruction,” Ecology: a Bestowed Trust, 126. 10 Abdul Aziz Said and Nathan C. Funk, “Peace in Islam: an Ecology of the Spirit,” Ecology: a Bestowed Trust, 165.



254

Chapter Fifteen

responsible for the care of the creation which naturally bows down to God in worship.11 This paper examines the environmental ethos of South Asia’s greatest Islamic dynasty, namely the Mughals (1526-1850), especially as expressed in the art and architecture from the reigns of the emperors Jahangir (r. 1605-1627) and Shah Jahan (r. 1627-58). I will argue that the ubiquitous— one might even say obsessive—use of floral decoration in Mughal art and architecture reflects an Islamic reverence for the natural world, that it conveys the Islamic concept of tawƩƯd (the oneness of God), and the Sufi notion of the oneness of being (waƩdat al-wajnjd). I will propose that an appreciation for Mughal art and architecture may serve as a manifesto for environmentalism not only in contemporary South Asia, but for the entire international community as vibrant and tangible reminders of the beauty of the natural world, its divine origin, its significance as natural revelation, and humanity’s duty to serve as responsible and competent “gardeners.”

Floral Foundations In the seventh and eighth centuries CE, when the Islamic caliphate spread into lands that were formerly part of the Roman and Byzantine empires, Muslim craftsmen naturally drew upon the artistic and architectural heritage of their predecessors, as they did likewise in Central and South Asia. Thus, we see in early Islamic architecture the use of decorative vegetal motifs in the mosaics adorning the interior of ‘Abd alMƗlik’s Dome of the Rock (Qubbat al-Sakhra—691 CE) in Jerusalem and the exterior of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus (706-714/5 CE) inspired by Roman and Byzantine designs, as well as Sassanian motifs.12 Particularly within religious contexts, however, due to concerns about idolatry, such natural forms were gradually abstracted, giving way to complex geometrical designs. While vegetal elements and floral motifs continued to appear in Islamic decorative arts, it has been noted that plants play a supporting role

 11

See Surat Rahman, for example. Finbarr B. Flood, “Faith, Religion, and the Material Culture of Early Islam,” in Byzantium and Islam: Age of Transition, 7th-9th Century, Helen C. Evans and Brandie Ratliff, eds. (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2012), 244-257; Judith McKenzie, The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt, 300 BC-Ad 700 (New Haven: Yale, 2007), 356-367.

12

The Flowering of India: A Mughal Manifesto for Environmentalism

255

in Islamic art until the sixteenth century.13 It is only with the emergence of the three great Muslim empires of the early modern period—Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal—that flowers take center stage in the arts to an unprecedented degree. For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on the Mughals who achieved an unparalleled naturalism in floral decoration.

Beginning with Babur From the very beginning of their dynasty, the Mughals seem to have been deeply drawn to nature, especially flowering trees and plants, delighting in their beauty, color and scent. In his memoirs (the Baburnama), Babur, the first Mughal ruler of Hindustan (r. 1526-30), described the flowers near Peshawar: On Thursday we went out to the riverbank as the sun was coming up…How strange the field of flowers appeared under its influence. Nothing but purple flowers were blooming in some places, and only yellow ones in other areas. . . . Like a painting, on all sides of the hill yellow and purple flowers in regular clumps were arranged in hexagon shapes.14

After his decisive victory over the Lodi sultans at Panipat (1526) near Delhi, he ventured further into Hindustan, noting in detail its diverse fruits and flowers.15 In Agra, Babur created a formal garden, the Ram Bagh, on the banks of the Yamuna River planted with roses, narcissus, and tamarind trees, and traversed with watercourses that would become a hallmark of Mughal floriculture16 (fig. 2). In time both imperial and private gardens would line the banks of the Yamuna from one end of the city to another. Outside of Kabul, Babur had already built the Bagh-e-Babur,17 and near Jalalabad, the “Garden of Fidelity,” (Bagh-i-Wafa). 18 He expressed his

 13

Sheila R. Canby, Islamic Art in Detail (London: British Museum, 2005), 80. For the introduction and spread of floral decoration in the Mongol period, see: Islamic Art at the Musée du Louvre, Sophie Makariou (Paris: Hazan, 2012), 320-3. 14 The Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor, Wheeler M. Thackston, ed. (New York: Modern Library, 2002), folio 232-232b. 15 Baburnama 282b-288. 16 Baburnama, 299b-300. 17 http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5469/ 18 Barburnama, f. 132. Victoria and Albert Musuem, London: IM.276-1913 and IM.276A-1913 (http://collections.vam.ac.uk \/item/O17687/painting-bishndas/)





256

Chapter Fifteen

love of flowers in the names of his daughters, each one combined with the Persian word for rose (gul): Gulbadan Begum, meaning “with a body like a rose,” Gulrang Begum meaning “rose-colored,” Gulchihra Begum, “with a face like a rose,” and Gulazar Begum, or “rose garden.”

Figure 2. The green expanse and pathways of the Ram Bagh of Babur in Agra (ca. 1528 CE). It is also called Bagh-i Gul Afshan – “The flower scattering garden.”

The Mughal affection for roses continued with Babur’s grandson, the emperor Akbar (r. 1556-1605 CE) who introduced the Persian rose-water festival (called Ab-i-Pashan, Id-i-Gulabi, or Gulab-Pashan) into Hindustan. Marking the beginning of the rainy season, celebrants sprinkled rose water on one another, and the emperor presented rose water sprinklers to his children, courtiers, and servants filled with rosewater, and essence of hyacinth and orange flowers.19 Already during Akbar’s reign, we see particular artistic sensitivity to natural forms in illustrations for the Diwan of the Persian poet Anvari (1126-1189) that Akbar commissioned. In one of the minatures, the poet

 (http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O114438/babur-supervising-the-laying-outpainting-bishndas/) 19 http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/art/27294. The festival (celebrated on 13th Tir) was instituted by the emperor Akbar (Akbarnama, v. 2, 24.). It was celebrated by Jahangir (Tnjzuk-i-JahƗngƯrƯ, v. 1, 265) and depicted in a painting now in the Reza Library, Rampur (Album 1, fol. 5a). Shah Jahan also celebrated the festival. See: Shah Jahan Nama, 542 (where it is called Jashn-i-Gulabi) and Qazwini’s history in: W.E. Begley and Z.A. Desai, Taj Mahal: the Illumined Tomb (Cambridge: Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, 1989), 40.

The Flowering of India: A Mughal Manifesto for Environmentalism

257

entertains a young companion in a meadow of flowering trees—the two seated on a platform perched high amid the leafy branches of a tree as birds look on.20 In another painting, two men are tending to flowers and trees in a garden at the center of which is a square pool with ducks swimming under the water spray. 21 This trend towards naturalism will reach its peak under Shah Jahan (see below).

Jahangir It is perhaps from his great-grandfather Babur in particular that the emperor Jahangir (r. 1605-27) inherited his great love for flowers and gardens. During his frequent travels in Kashmir, time and again he noted flowers in bloom, stopped to inspect them, enjoyed their scent, described their form and color, and even composed poems about them. On one journey he was so delighted with the oleander flowers he saw that he ordered the horsemen and footmen in his entourage to put bunches of the flowers on their heads.22 Another time he wrote with delight: Kashmir is a garden of eternal spring . . . a delightful flower-bed, and a heart-expanding heritage for dervishes. . . . Wherever the eye reaches, there are verdure and running water. The red rose, the violet, and the narcissus grow of themselves; in the fields there are all kinds of flowers and all sorts of sweet-scented herbs more than can be calculated. In the soul-enchanting spring the hills and plains are filled with blossoms; the gates, the walls, the courts, the roofs, are lighted up by the torches of banquet-adoring tulips. . . .23

On another occasion he noted: “As far as one could see, in a beautiful garden, Ja‘farƯ flowers had bloomed, so that one might say it was a piece of Paradise.”24 Although Jahangir clearly delighted in the beauty of Kashmir’s wild flowers and untamed natural beauty, he and his wife, the empress Nur Jahan, also established several formal gardens along the Yamuna in Agra

 20

Annemarie Schimmel and Stuart Cary Welch, Anvari’s Divan: a Pocket Book for Akbar (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1983), 77-79. 21 Schimmel and Welch, 85-87. 22 The Tnjzuk-i-JahƗngƯrƯ, or Memoirs of JahƗngir, Alexander Rogers, trans. (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 2003), v. 1, 97. 23 Tnjzuk-i-JahƗngƯrƯ, v.2, 143-4. 24 Tnjzuk-i-JahƗngƯrƯ 2, 173 (my emphasis).



258

Chapter Fifteen

and around Dal Lake in Kashmir. 25 The most famous of these was the Shalimar Garden (1620). Upon completion by Jahangir’s son Shah Jahan, this masterpiece covered an area of thirty-one acres, with an axial water channel punctuated with water sprays that cascaded down three terraces planted with trees and flowers, and featuring pavilions and verandas.26 On the pavilion that Shah Jahan built at the center of the uppermost terrace is inscribed an oft-repeated couplet by the Persian poet Amir Khusrau: “If there is a paradise on earth, it is here, it is here, it is here.” The Mughals were clearly passionate about gardens. In addition to the many gardens in Kashmir, each of the royal residences—in the forts at Agra, Delhi and Lahore—boasted expansive gardens of flowers and fruit trees with central pools and numerous water channels with water sprays and slides (chƗdar) over which water rippled from one level to another. One of Shah Jahan’s chroniclers recounted the emperor’s expenditures for building projects, and specifically mentions the “heart-pleasing gardens, which add to the decoration of the universe and augment the beauty of the world, and through which Paradise-like Hindustan has taken on immeasurable splendor.”27 All such gardens were based on the Persian char-bagh, “a garden divided into four square plots by intersecting water channels and walkways” 28 to simulate to the four gardens and rivers of Paradise as described in the Qur’an (al-RaƩmƗn 55.46-62 and MuƩammad 47.15). The chronicle of Shah Jahan’s reign (Shah Jahan Nama) likened his Shalimar Garden in Kashmir to Paradise for it is “irrigated by a canal resembling the Kausar, the nectar-flowing river of Paradise.”29 Given its association with Paradise, the char-bagh was the perfect setting for funerary monuments, such as was realized for the mausolea of the emperors Humayun (Delhi), Akbar (Sikandra), Jahangir (Lahore), and Shah Jahan (Agra), as well as for empresses, other women of the royal family, and nobles (fig. 3). Writing about the Taj Mahal, which Shah Jahan built as the final resting place for

 25

Ellison Banks Findly, Nur Jahan: Empress of Mughal India (New York: Oxford, 1993), 244-259. 26 George Mitchell and Amit Pasricha, Mughal Architecture and Gardens (Antique Collectors’ Club, 2011), 313-19. Findly, Nur Jahan, 256-7. 27 Begley and Desai, Taj Mahal, 137. 28 Mitchell and Pasricha, 30. 29 Shah Jahan Nama, 126. Al-Kawthar is mentioned briefly in the Qur’an (108.1). Simply meaning “abundant good,” it has been understood by some exegetes as a river in Paradise. See: The Study Qur’an, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, ed. (New York: Harper One, 2015), 1559, n. 1.

The Flowering of India: A Mughal Manifesto for Environmentalism

259

his wife and himself, the royal chronicler Muhammad Salih Kambo described it as situated “in a Paradise-embellishing garden” that serves “as a replica of the ‘Gardens beneath which rivers flow’.”30

Figure 3. The garden tomb of I’timad ud-Dawla (1622-28 CE), father of the empress Nur Jahan, in Agra.

Although there is some floral and vegetal decoration in the stonework at Akbar’s city of Fatehpur Sikri,31 it is only with the reign of Jahangir that floral decoration becomes prominent in Mughal architecture. It is likely that Jahangir himself was responsible for introducing such elements into the funerary complex he built for his father Akbar (ca. 1613) at Sikandra. On the monumental gateway that leads to the mausoleum beyond, a large flower pattern covers the face of the central arch. A Persian inscription on the gateway announces: “These are the gardens of Eden, enter them to live forever!”32 Indeed, Akbar’s marble cenotaph is itself a garden, decorated with flowering plants in raised relief over which insects and wisps of

 30

Begley and Deasi, Taj Mahal, 144. Catherine Asher, Architecture of Mughal India: The New Cambridge History of India 1: 4 (Cambridge, 1992), 61. 32 Abdul Rehman and Shama Anbrine, “Unity and Diversity of Mughal Garden Experiences,” Middle East Garden Traditions: Unity and Diversity: Questions, Methods and Resources in a Multicultural Perspective, Michael Conan, ed. Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture 31 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2007), 225. 31



260

Chapter Fifteen

clouds hover,33 and in the antechamber of the burial vault, the upper walls and ceiling are decorated with intricate floral patterns and arabesques.34 Jahangir’s wife, the empress Nur Jahan, likewise evoked paradisiacal imagery in the extensive floral decoration for her parents’ garden mausoleum in Agra. In addition to various geometric designs, both exterior and interior surfaces of the white marble tomb are decorated extensively with flowers, cypresses, vases and flowering arabesques of inlaid stone (pietra dura).35

Shah Jahan It is with the reign of Shah Jahan, however, that floral architectural decoration becomes ubiquitous, particularly in the stone inlay that is seen in Jahangir’s mausoleum in Lahore, in which the emperor’s cenotaph seemingly rests on a bed of red flowers. Shah Jahan’s artists perfected this technique in the most recognized work of Mughal architecture—the Taj Mahal. In both the central chamber under the dome and in the crypt, the graves of Shah Jahan and the empress Mumtaz below are designated with cenotaphs of white marble covered with pietra dura flowers. On the mausoleum’s exterior walls, flowers and wines are rendered in jasper, jade, turquoise, lapis lazuli, coral, cornelian, onyx, and amethyst among others.36 Inside and out, dados are decorated with flowers naturalistically rendered in delicate raised marble relief, forever in bloom. In the Delhi fort of Shahjahanabad, Shah Jahan built a complex of white marble pavilions (beg. 1638) also decorated with pietra dura flowers (fig. 4), just as in the pavilions and balcony of appearances (jharoka) at Agra fort (1636). In a detail of a painting from the Padshahnama, a chronicle of Shah Jahan’s reign, the emperor receives his sons sitting on a balcony of appearances replete with floral decoration as if he were actually in a garden pavilion.37



33 Susan Stronge, Painting for the Mughal Emperor: the Art if the Book, 15601660 (London: Victorua & Albert Museum, 2002), 169. 34 Asher, Architecture, 108. 35 Ebba Koch, The Complete Taj Mahal and the Riverfront Gardens of Agra (London: Thames & Hudson, 2006), 48-53. 36 Giles Tillotson, Taj Mahal (Cambridge: Harvard, 2008), 75. 37 Milo Cleveland Beach and Ebba Koch, King of the World: the Padshanama, Wheeler Thackston, trans. (London: Azimuth, 1997), pl. 12.

The Flowering of India: A Mughal Manifesto for Environmentalism

261

Figure 4. Pietra dura flowers from the Diwan-i Khas, Red Fort, Delhi. Reign of Shah Jahan (ca. 1639).

Clothing It is not simply that the Mughals loved gardens; they wore them. Jahangir’s love for flowers and the great outdoors may be seen in his own clothing, such as his embroidered riding coat.38 Made of satin-woven silk, the coat is decorated with a repeating pattern of wild animals on the hunt or in repose, birds in flight, and flowering plants and trees—poppies, daffodils, tulips, primroses, irises, and plum blossoms—inspired by Persian manuscript painting and European botanical prints. The Mughal fascination with floral fashions can be seen in many paintings of the periods, such as one depicting Jahangir with his father Akbar.39 Under his diaphanous jama, Jahangir wears yellow paijama-pants decorated with alternating bunches of flowers. Akbar wears a plain brown jama, but underneath he wears a rose-colored paijama sewn with gold flowers, and a



38 The Fabric of India, Rosemary Crill, ed. (London: Victoria and Albert, 2015), 108-109. 39 MMA 55.121.10.19v. Stuart Cary Welch et al., the Emperor’s Album: Images of Mughal India (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1987), no. 11.



262

Chapter Fifteen

floral sash (patka). In fact, floral sashes were de rigueur for men at the Mughal court and floral jamas quite common, especially during the reign of Shah Jahan when this painting was made. 40 In the aforementioned painting of Shah Jahan and his sons from the Padshahnama, we see numerous courtiers sporting jamas and patkas covered with floral patterns. In a painting made soon after Shah Jahan’s accession, flowers abound at every level of decoration. 41 The emperor, dressed in a pink jama covered with a floral design, stands on a platform around which floral carpets have been placed. On the innermost border, the verses of poet Mir ‘Ali are imbedded in a flowering arabesque motif. A second border, in blue, bears flowers, palmettes, and vines in gold. Finally, in the wide outermost borders grow golden flowering plants. Likewise, a portrait of Shah Jahan dated ca. 163842 displays a profusion of flowers. The emperor wears a pale green outer coat covered with pink flowers. He rests against a large cushion covered with purple flowers. His throne, which also bears a floral motif on its lower part, rests on a blue Persian-style carpet covered with a floral arabesque, and flowers grow along the upper edge of the carpet. Finally, the page’s border is decorated with alternating red and white flowers.

Book Arts Indeed, it is in the borders of pages from bound volumes of paintings that we especially see the floral art of the Jahangir and Shah Jahan periods. In a painting from ca. 1620 depicting Shah Jahan (still a prince at the time) with his son Dara Shikoh, birds of paradise, cranes, pigeons, partridges, and peafowl swoop and graze in the page’s borders amid narcissus, rose, poppy, and crocus flowers43 (fig. 5). Such flowery borders are not reserved for paintings of the emperor or royal family alone, but also frame depictions of officials, religious and literary figures, animals, and calligraphy. A painting of a dervish with a lion, for example, is framed by poetic verses around which white and pink flowers grow, then an

 40

A particularly fine example of a floral patka is in the collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (MFA 66.858); For floral jamas, see: MMA 29.135 and MMA 31.47. 41 MMA 55.121.10.24r. Welch et al., 198-201 (no. 58). 42 Andrew Topsfield, Paintings from Mughal India (Oxford: Bodleian Library, 2008), no. 31. 43 Metropolitan Museum of Art 55.121.10.36v. Stuart Cary Welch et al., The Emperor’s Album: Images of Mughal India (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1987), 194-195 (no. 55).

The Flowering of India: A Mughal Manifesto for Environmentalism

263

intermediate border with a golden flowering arabesque, and finally with a wide border of flowering plants with blossoms in an array of colors. As with older paintings, pieces of calligraphy were often reset into newer borders. Such is the case with a page of calligraphy from the “Late Shah Jahan Album.”44 While the calligraphy signed by Mir ‘Ali dates from the first half of the 16th century, the floral borders dates to ca. 1650-58. In this example, birds of various types fly and walk among well-spaced flowers with red, pink, lavender, and yellow blossoms.

Figure 5. Flowers and birds surround a painting of Shah Jahan and his son Dara Shikoh (ca. 1620 CE). From the Shah Jahan Album. © Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

 44

http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/folio-from-the-“late-shah-jahan-album”148626. For discussion of the Late Shah Jahan Album, see: Elaine Wright, Muraqqa: Imperial Mughal Albums from the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin (Alexandria: Art Services International, 2008), 106-139.



264

Chapter Fifteen

Flowers were not used only in decoration borders for paintings, however, but by the beginning of Shah Jahan’s reign, had become the subject of paintings themselves.45 Shah Jahan’s eldest son, Dara Shikoh, must have been particularly fond of such works judging by the many fine examples he included in the album of paintings he compiled ca. 1630-3.46

Carpets & Textiles If the Mughals were not enjoying the floral delights of an actual garden out-of-doors, then they were sitting, standing, or praying on a carpet of flowers, or surrounded by textile wall hangings and tent panels that brought the garden indoors. 47 Carpets from the reigns of Akbar and Jahangir employ the ebullience of Persian designs, especially scrolling vines, blossoms, and palmettes, to which an array of wild and mythological animals are sometimes added, as well as human figures. Although this style continues into later periods, in the reign of Shah Jahan we see a tendency to a more naturalistic representation of flowering plants, shown in profile singly or in well-spaced clusters growing from a baseline on carpets and floor coverings, as we have seen with the borders of paintings. Also from Shah Jahan’s reign come carpets with the so-called “lattice and blossom” motif, and those covered with repeating patterns of small flowers of various kinds and colors (millefleur). The bare pavilions and palaces of red sandstone and white marble that we see today in the Agra and Delhi forts would have been richly furnished with such carpets, drapes, floor, and wall coverings such that the occupants dwelled in a garden even while indoors. When out of doors, while travelling between one imperial capital and another, the Mughal court dwelled in tents festooned with flower arrangements sewn in cloth. From the Mughal perspective everything looked better when draped in a floral design. Even the imperial elephants would have been considered underdressed without a flower carpet laid over them!48



45 Three such paintings (ca. 1630) are in the Ashmolean Museum: Ll 118.70, Ll 118.71, Ll 118.72. Cf. Andrew Topsfield, Visions of Mughal India: the Collection of Howard Hodgkin (Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 2012), 74-75. 46 J.P. Lotsy and Malini Roy, Mughal India: Art, Culture and Empire (London: British Library, 2012), 124-137. 47 Daniel Walker, Flowers Underfoot: Indian Carpets of the Mughal Era (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1997). 48 Topsfield, Visions, nos. 20, for example.

The Flowering of India: A Mughal Manifesto for Environmentalism

265

Decorative Arts Thus far I have attempted to paint a picture of the Mughal’s love of flowers by referencing royal chronicles, the construction of elegant gardens, and their use of floral designs and motifs in clothing, architecture, book arts, carpets, and textiles. In fact, the Mughal floral fascination extended to decorating every item possible with flowers: doors and boxes of wood and ivory, trays and boxes of enamel, gold, rubies, and emeralds; thumb rings, pendants, Qur’an covers and pen boxes of nephrite jade and precious stones; foot stools and carpet weights of marble with pietra dura decoration, glass bases for water pipes (huqqa), and even steel daggers with hilts of gold and precious stones, and shields of leather and metal sported flowers.49 The sheer volume of Mughal art and architecture decorated with flowers, trees, and plants, in addition to actual gardens built for leisure or as the setting for funerary monuments, is indeed impressive, exceeding even their Safavid and Ottoman contemporaries. We can well imagine a member of the Mughal court dressed in flowery fashions, scented with rose water, reclining on a flower carpet, partaking of food from a tray with inlaid floral design, pouring over an illustrated book with floral borders, in a pavilion decorated with pietra dura flowers, situated in a garden with fountains and planted with fragrant flowers and trees. For some interpreters of the Mughal artistic tradition, flowers and gardens were symbols of the bounty, beauty, purity, and perfection of the imperial family and its beneficent rule. 50 Shah Jahan may have had to make this point particularly since not only did he come to the throne through fratricide, but his realm experienced a catastrophic drought and famine (1630-32) soon after he gained the throne.51 There is, however, I believe, a more comprehensive explanation for the Mughals’ floral ‘obsession’ that is rooted in their vision of nature.

 49

For examples, see: Arts de l’Islam: Chefs-d’oeuvre de la collection Khalili (Paris: Institut du Monde Arabe, 2009), 358-381; Susan Stronge, Made for Mughal Emperors: Royal Treasures from Hindustan (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010); and Manuel Keene with Salam Kaoukji, Treasury of the World: Jewelled Arts of India in the Age of the Mughals (New York: Thames & Hudson, 2001). 50 Koch, The Complete Taj Mahal, 222-224. 51 Michael D. Calabria, “Mughal Munificence: Care and Concern for the Poor in Islamic Hindustan from Tuladan to the Taj,” Presented Papers of Sacred Texts and Human Contexts Symposium, 2014 (Ashgate, forthcoming).



266

Chapter Fifteen

Flowery Words While all of the floral fussiness on the part of Mughal artisans, artists, and architects may seem excessive to contemporary aesthetics, it may be explained in part by classical Persian poetry and prose in which the Mughals delighted. One of the most popular works was the Gulistan written by Sa‘dƯ of Shiraz (d. ca. 1290). Its very title means “rose garden,” for each of the parables recounted is envisioned as a blossom that, because it never fades, is always fresh and meaningful. In the prologue to his work, Sa‘dƯ writes of God’s creative artistry in nature: He tells the custodian of the zephyr to spread a carpet of emerald, and he orders the wet-nurse of the springtime cloud to nurture the daughters of plants in the cradle of the earth. He clothes the trees in a green raiment of leaves with the robe of spring, and he places caps of blossoms on the heads of the children of the branches with the arrival of the vernal season. Through his power the nectar of a reed becomes superior honey, and a date seed turns into a towering palm through his nurturing.52

In a parable about an unfeeling ascetic, Sa‘dƯ reminds the reader that all of nature praises even as humans fail to: “Everything you see is crying out in recollection of Him: a heart that is all ears knows this. Not only does the nightingale sing praises to Him on the rose, but every thorn is also a tongue extolling Him.”53 Another Persian poet, Mahmud Shabistari (d. 1320 CE), likewise evoked a garden in the title his celebrated and widely read work titled Gulshan-e-Raz (“Rose Garden of Mystery”), writing that the very clay from which Adam was formed was “a garden of flowers.”54 Shabistari sees all of creation as emanating from the same source: All the parts of this world are like those plants that are really just one drop from the ocean of life… Look at the drops of rain arising from this sea. Countless are the forms and their names:

 52

Sa‘dƯ, The Gulistan of Sa’di, Wheeler M. Thackston, trans. (Bethesda: Ibex, 2008), 1. 53 Sa‘dƯ, 60. 54 Shabistari, Garden of Mystery: the Gulshan of Mahmud Shabistari, Robert Abdul Hayy Darr, trans. (Cambridge, UK: Archetype, 2007), 25.

The Flowering of India: A Mughal Manifesto for Environmentalism

267

Mist and cloud, rain and moist clay, plant life, animals and finally the Completed Person, all was just a drop of water at the beginning from which all these things have been formed.55

François Bernier (1620-88), a French doctor who served the Mughal court late in the reign of Shah Jahan, attests to the enduring influence of Shabistari’s Gulshan-e-Raz in the 17th century. He refers to Shabistari’s Gulshan-e-Raz when describing Sufism in a letter to a European acquaintance, undoubtedly having learned of it from Dara Shikoh, Shah Jahan’s Sufi son.56 Referring to the Sufis, Bernier wrote: “The Creation then, say these visionary doctors, is nothing more than an extraction or extension of the individual substance of God.” 57 Similarly, in the 19th century, Punjabi Sufi poet Shah Niaz (1742-1834 CE) wrote: The face of each beauty is the reflection of His face; the fragrance and color of each garden are His.58

Meaning For Sufi poets such as these, as well as the Mughals who delighted in their words, copied them, rendered them in beautiful calligraphy, and placed them amid decorated pages, the gardens in which they walked— and by extension the floral decoration with which they surrounded themselves—were reminders of God as Creator (al-KhƗliq), the Fashioner (al-MuĞawwir), the Provider (al-RazzƗq), the Generous (al-KarƯm), the Giver of Life (al-MuƩyƯ), the Living (al-ƨayy), and the Glorious (alMajƯd). As Emma Clark has observed: The great love and knowledge of plants, flowers and trees in, for instance, Islamic Spain and Mughal India, was a love born of the deep belief that the beauty of nature was a reflection of a transcendent truth; these plants

 55

Shabistari, 101. François Bernier, Travels in the Mogul Empire, AD 1656-1668 (Westminster: Constable, 1891; Repr. Forgotten Books, 2012), 346 and 348. 57 Bernier 347. 58 Islamic Mystical Poetry: Sufi Verse from the Early Mystics to Rumi, Mahmood Jamal, ed. (London: Penguin, 2009), 320. 56



268

Chapter Fifteen and flowers are the shadow of their heavenly archetypes, their beauty a radiation of God’s glory on earth.59

Implicit in the Mughal love of nature, in their art of every media, in architecture, and in literature, is the concept of tawƩƯd, or divine unicity, a foundational doctrine in Islam. Expressed in the words of the shahada – “There is no god, but God” (la ilaha ila Allah), tawƩƯd is understood by some Sufis not only to connote the oneness of the Deity, but the oneness of all being (waƩdat al-wajnjd), all life. For Sufis, this is the meaning of the Qur’anic passage: “Wheresoever you turn, there is the Face of God. For God is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing. (2.115)” Thus, Dara Shikoh, Shah Jahan’s son, and a Qadiri Sufi wrote: Shall I tell you of unity (tawƩƯd), so no misgiving persists? Apart from God there is nothing that really exists Those things that you see and think separate In essence all is one, but each of a name consists.60

When one observes the extent to which the Mughals covered everything—including themselves—with flowers, it is as if everyone— from prophets to princes and peasants, and from Muslim mullas to Hindu holy men and Portuguese priests—and every thing—from the birds of the air to the beasts of field and forest—has been subsumed by the Garden, such that everyone and everything becomes part of the Garden, is connected in the Garden, and indeed becomes the Garden, a vivid and visual gathering of all, immersed, entwined, and intertwined in an earthly Paradise in preparation for a Heavenly one.

Conclusion: a Manifesto Without a doubt, the Mughals created one of the most beautiful visual cultures of any Islamic empire since the seventh century, combining Timurid artistic and intellectual traditions from Central Asia with Islamic and Hindustani culture of South Asia, along with elements of Christian art from Western Europe. Having reached the height of its political power

 59

Emma Clark, “The Symbolism of the Islamic Garden,” Islamic Arts and Architecture, October 2, 2011: http://islamic-arts.org/2011/the-symbolism-of-theislamic-garden/ 60 Sufi Meditation and Contemplation: Timeless Wisdom from Mughal India, Scott Kugle, ed. (New Lebanon: Sulnjk, 2012), 158.

The Flowering of India: A Mughal Manifesto for Environmentalism

269

under Shah Jahan’s son Aurangzeb (who reigned as the emperor Alamgir 1658-1707), the Empire quickly declined in the eighteenth century, weakened by wars, succession crises, invasions, and European colonization. These changes are reflected in the arts. While Mughal carpets remain flowery, paintings from the eighteenth century exhibit plainer settings with monochromatic backgrounds of grays and blacks, and courtiers attired in simple white garments, accented perhaps only with a floral patka.61

Figure 6. In place of Agra’s Mughal gardens, the banks of the polluted Yamuna are now crowded with factories and dwellings.

These changes reflect not only the impoverishment of the Mughal court, but possibly also the impoverishment of the Mughal spirit as a new empire—the British Empire—now extended to lands once ruled by Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan. In 1858, Bahadur Shah II, the last Mughal emperor, and the surviving members of the imperial family, were driven from the gardens of the Delhi Fort into exile. As both theologians and secular scientists have noted, the rapid modernization and economic transformation of India under colonial rule in the nineteenth and twentieth century contributed significantly to environmental degradation, the effects of which are still felt today62 (fig.

 61

See, for example, the painting of Husayn Ali Khan Entertaining his Brothers (c. 1712-19), in: Mughal Paintings: Art and Stories, Sonye Rhie Quintavilla and Dominique DeLuca, eds. (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 2016), 250. 62 Madhav Gadgil and Ramachandra Guha, This Fissured Land: an Ecological History of India, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 2013); Mohammad Yusuf Siddiq, “An Ecological journey in Muslim Bengal,” Islam and Ecology, 460.



270

Chapter Fifteen

6). The decline and demise of the Mughal Dynasty signaled the end of Mughal culture and its flowery aesthetics and spirituality that might have served as visible reminders of the earthly Garden that humanity tends in gratitude for God’s munificence and mercy; the Garden of trees and flowers whose very leaves and thorns give obeisance to God; the watered Garden that reflects the paradisiacal abode of the righteous; the Garden of color, fragrance and beauty that evoke the Creator. With the demise of the Mughal empire went the Islamic ethos of environmentalism in South Asia, an ethos that had been expressed by architects, painters, poets, and craftsmen in every media for some three hundred years. Although India has experienced a post-colonial Islamic revival like many other countries in the Islamic world, this has not resulted in a greater environmental awareness among Indian Muslims overall, neither in Pakistan which, like India, faces severe environmental problems.63 Although the solutions to today’s pressing environmental issues may be found in the sciences, the inspiration and impetus may indeed rest with the arts. As Seyyed Hossein Nasr has noted: “A careful study of the traditional Islamic arts can be an important source of both knowledge and inspiration for creating human living spaces in harmony, rather than discord, with the natural environment.”64 Ubiquitous gardens through which waters flowed pure and clear, flowery fashions, blossoming book margins, architecture and objets d’art festooned with flowers that never fade—these were the constant reminders to the Mughals, the signs of the beauty and bounty of the creation, of the munificence of the Creator, of the oneness of God, of humanity, and indeed of all being. These are the signs, says the Qur’an, for a people who understand.



63 Zofeen T. Ebrahim, “Pakistan Offers Nothing to Paris Climate Summit,” Nov. 18, 2015: http://www.thethirdpole.net/2015/11/18/pakistan-offers-nothing-to-parisclimate-summit/; Arshad Ali, Shahid Iqbal, Ali Khan, “The Environmental Concerns and Issues,” International Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, v. 1, no. 1 (2015): 1-4. (PDF available at: files.aiscience.org/journal/article/pdf/70150002.pdf 64 Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “Ecology,” A Companion to Muslim Ethics, ed. Amyn B. Sajoo (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010), 79.

The Flowering of India: A Mughal Manifesto for Environmentalism

271

Bibliography Gadgil, Madhav and Ramachandra Guha. This Fissured Land: an Ecological History of India. 2nd ed. Oxford, 2013. Islam and Ecology: a Bestowed Trust, Richard C. Foltz et al., eds. Cambridge: Harvard, 2003. Koch, Ebba. The Complete Taj Mahal and the Riverfront Gardens of Agra. London: Thames & Hudson, 2006. J.P. Lotsy and Malini Roy. Mughal India: Art, Culture and Empire. London: British Library, 2012. Mitchell, George and Amit Pasricha. Mughal Architecture and Gardens. Antique Collectors’ Club, 2011. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. “Ecology” in: A Companion to Muslim Ethics. Edited by Amyn B. Sajoo. London: I.B. Tauris, 2010. Pp. Sa’di. The Gulistan of Sa’di. Wheeler M. Thackston, trans. Bethesda: Ibex, 2008. Shabistari, Mahmud. Garden of Mystery: the Gulshan of Mahmud Shabistari. Robert Abdul Hayy Darr, trans. Cambridge, UK: Archetype, 2007. Stronge, Susan. Made for Mughal Emperors: Royal Treasure from Hindustan. London: I.B. Tauris, 2010.



CHAPTER SIXTEEN MITIGATING DEFORESTATION IN THE CONGO BASIN AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: AN ETHIC OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY BASED ON AFRICAN SPIRITUALITY LÉOCADIE LUSHOMBO1

Abstract: This chapter argues that deforestation in the Congo Basin directly affects climate change in the world. It describes the factors and power dynamics which increase the degradation of the Congo Basin’s biodiversity and suggests that mining in warzones and refugees’ movements should not be overlooked in discourse on global climate security. This chapter also presents the ways African spirituality and the practice of the forestry community, which includes the participation of women, provide an ethic of environmental responsibility that can help address the degradation of biodiversity in the Congo Basin and a response to the contemporary environmental catastrophe.

 1

Léocadie Lushombo is a student from the Democratic Republic of the Congo doing her Ph.D. in theological ethics at Boston College. She completed her master’s degree in theological ethics at Catholic Theological Union (Chicago) and in sustainable development at the Universidad Pontificio Comillas (Madrid). She has worked as a consultant-trainer in an NGO on degradation of the environment, gender, and political rights in the DRC, Cameroon, and Peru. Her research interests are political participation and African ethics.

274

Chapter Sixteen

Introduction African spirituality affirms the idea that the worth of forests goes beyond the material dimension. Nature embodies religious meaning and the universe is composed of physical and spiritual dimensions that cannot be separated.2 The forests, more than being a source of food supplies and energy, are the dwelling places of the ancestors and fortify the spiritual life of the forest communities in Africa.3 In African spirituality, “the universe is a composite of divine, spirit human, animate and inanimate elements.”4 Such elements are interrelated “forces of life”5 which can be visible or invisible, and men play pivotal roles in maintaining their harmony. Thus, in African spirituality, more than breaking the harmony of the universe and increasing global warming, the deforestation of the Basin Congo disturbs the divine harmonies because forests as well as our environment are parts of a spiritual commonwealth in the midst of which God is with us.

1. Deforestation in the Congo Basin and Global Warming The Congo Basin’s forests are the second largest block of tropical forest in the world. They constitute a reservoir of biodiversity and are a vital regulator of global warming. They are located in six countries of Central Africa: Cameroon, Central African Republic, the DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo), the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and Gabon. At about 200 million hectares, the forests of the Congo Basin account for 67 percent of African forests6 and take in twenty to twenty-five billion metric tons of carbon, which is significant in regulating greenhouse emissions. Millions of people in these countries depend on these forests for food, shelter, and other activities. As the World Bank reports, more than thirty million people live in the forest zone of the Congo Basin, and approximately seventy-five million people from more

 2

Laurenti Magesa, African Religion: The Moral Traditions of Abundant Life (Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books, 1997), 74. 3 M. L. Daneel, African Earthkeepers: Wholistic Interfaith Mission (Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books, 2001), 107. 4 Magesa, African Religion, 39. 5 Ibid. 6 Anne M. Larson, Deborah Barry, and Ganga Ram Dahal, “Tenure Change in the Global South,” in Forests for People: Community Rights and Forest Tenure Reform, Anne M. Larson, ed. (Londonௗ; Washington: Earthscan, 2010), 7.

Deforestation in the Congo Basin and Global Climate Change

275

than 150 ethnic groups depend on the forest for food, healthcare, and welfare.7 How forests are managed has a real impact on the amount of O2 emitted into the atmosphere and therefore on the greenhouse effect. 8 Indeed, forests help to mitigate global warming; they should not be cut down without any strategy for replacing them.9 David Werth and Roni Avissar concluded that the effects of deforestation are no longer limited to the space in and around the regions where deforestation occurs, but they spread in mid and high latitudes. As they put it, Deforestation of Central Africa causes a decrease of precipitation of about 5%-15% in the Great Lakes region [in the US], mostly centered in Illinois with a peak decrease of about 35% in February. It also affects Ukraine and Russia (north of the Black Sea) . . . The impact of the deforestation of Southeast Asia is mostly felt in China and the Balkan Peninsula, with a decrease of 20% - 25% in Western Turkey during a large part of the year.10

Past studies have indicated that deforestation of the Amazon basin would result in an important rainfall decrease in that region, but that this process has no significant impact on the global temperature or precipitation and only local implications. Here it is shown that deforestation of tropical regions significantly affects precipitation at mid and high latitudes through hydrometeorological teleconnections. In particular, it is found that the deforestation of Amazonia and Central Africa severely reduces rainfall in the lower U.S. Midwest during the spring and summer seasons and in the upper U.S. Midwest during the winter and spring, respectively, when water is crucial for agricultural productivity in these regions. Deforestation of Southeast Asia affects China and the Balkan Peninsula most significantly.

 7

H. Carolyn Peach Brown et al., “Climate Change and Forest Communities: Prospects for Building Institutional Adaptive Capacity in the Congo Basin Forests,” AMBIO 43, no. 6 (October 2014): 759-760, doi:10.1007/s13280-0140493-z. 8 Aline Mosnir et al., “Dynamiques de Déforestation Dans Le Bassin Du Congo: Réconcilier La Croissance économique et La Protection de La Forêt,” International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Washington, D.C: The World Bank, 2013), 29-30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-9827-2. 9 Pope Francis, Laudato Si’ (Vatican, June 18, 2015), 24, 39. 10 Roni Avissar and David Werth, “Global Hydroclimatological Teleconnections Resulting from Tropical Deforestation,” Journal of Hydrometeorology 6 (April 2005): 140-41.



276

Chapter Sixteen

On the other hand, the elimination of any of these tropical forests considerably enhances summer rainfall in the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. The combined effect of deforestation of these three tropical regions causes a significant decrease in winter precipitation in California and seems to generate a cumulative enhancement of precipitation during the summer in the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. Furthermore, deforestation in Central Africa has similar effects with less rain in the southern part of the West-central United States in spring and summer, and in the northern part winter and spring. The elimination of these tropical forests—Amazonia, Central Africa, or the Southwest— would significantly increase the level of rain on the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. However, the combined effects of deforestation in these three regions result in a considerable loss in winter precipitation in California. Thus, the Amazon basin is a true system of redistribution for climate around the world. Indeed, the tropics receive two-thirds of the total rainfall on earth; when it rains the water changes from the gaseous state to the liquid state to evaporate again and these processes accumulate or release heat, which makes the Tropics the primary source of heat for redistribution on the earth.11 Pope Francis confirms Roni Avissar’s and David Werth’s stance when he states that “we are not disconnected from the rest of creatures, but joined in a splendid universal communion.”12 Therefore, it is more than urgent to recognize the bonds that link us together in our common home and the importance of the participation of all in the fight against deforestation in the Congo Basin and the Amazon; this equates to fighting against global warming. The world with its entire ecosystem is truly our common home. In order to protect our common home, it is interesting to look at the example of the DRC’s “power dynamics” of many stakeholders in the process of deforestation.

2. Factors and Power Dynamics in Deforestation in the Congo Basin Among the ethical challenges facing Africa, Laurenti Magesa cites the care for the earth or environmental well-being. He argues that “there were spiritual traditions in place in African religion that guarded against the destruction of the environment, as I will show it in a subsequent section

 11 12

Ibid. Pope Francis, Laudato Si’, 220.

Deforestation in the Congo Basin and Global Climate Change

277

depicting the grounds for an ethic of environmental responsibility in African spirituality, but with the coming of colonialism and colonial Christianity that emerged from it these were ridiculed and dismissed,”13causing a disaster on the African world’s environment.

Historical factors Colonization destroyed tropical ecosystems not only by plundering their resources, but also by disregarding their meaning. William M. Adams reinforces the latter stance when he explains that “Imperial exploitation could destroy both natural beauty and bounty.” 14 Emmanuel Katongole illustrates such an imperial exploitation referring to King Leopold’s violence and brutality in the Congo and states that “large areas of the forest were cleared, villages were resettled, quotas were assigned, compliance was recorded, and slackers were punished. And . . . the entire project of the civilization of the Congo was tied up with the rubber economy.”15 Thus, one can safely argue that deforestation of the Congo Basin took roots in the colonization period. Additionally, researchers blame the proximity to colonized areas as one of the factors that causes a decline in forest conditions.16 They argue that industrial logging in the Congo Basin started after World War II and has been increasing since then.17 As David Seddon and Daniel SeddonDaines explain, “Historically, mining of cobalt, diamonds, gold, copper and other base metals, such as zinc, and petroleum extraction accounted for about 75 percent of total export revenue, and about 25 percent of the

 13

Laurenti Magesa, “Locating the Church among the Wretched of the Earth,” in Catholic Theological Ethics in the World Church: The Plenary Papers from the First Cross-Cultural Conference on Catholic Theological Ethics, ed. James F. Keenan (New York: Continuum, 2007), 51. 14 M. Williams Adams, “Nature and the Colonial Mind,” in Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a Post-Colonial Era, W. M. Adams and Martin Mulligan, eds. (Londonௗ; Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications, 2003), 29. 15 Emmanuel Katongole, The Sacrifice of Africa: A Political Theology for Africa, The Eerdmans Ekklesia Series (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub, 2011), 12. 16 Larson, Barry, and Ram Dahal, “Tenure Change in the Global South,” 17. 17 Robert Nasi, Alain Billand, and Nathalie Vanviliet, “Managing for Timber and Biodiversity in the Congo Basin,” Forest Ecology and Management 268 (2012): 105.



278

Chapter Sixteen

country’s GDP.” 18 Following the above historical factors, a continued exportation of the rough main production of the Congo Basin’s resources, and not only timber, has damaged the environmental canopy of the region from the colonization, through the post-colonial era until our contemporary period.

Social and Economic Factors Wood and Non-Timber Forest Product (NTFP) constitute the main source of livelihood. Yet, with the exception of the Central African Republic, the Congo Basin’s countries are all net importers of foodstuffs.19 Despite the many trucks which continue to carry trees out of the forests’ areas for export in the DRC, for example, it is overpriced for the majority of the population. They cannot afford wood products which are enjoyed by those in other countries, whether industrialized or non-industrialized. Sam Lawson confirms my own observation when he argues that in 2012, 40 percent of the DRC’s timber was exported to the European Union and another 40 percent to China. 20 A 2012 publication of the European Commission confirms that the European Union’s countries and Asia are the leading export destination of the timber of the Congo Basin, and that Asia is reinforcing its position by exceeding 70 percent of the total exports since 2009.21 Similarly, the World Bank points out that forty-four million hectares (one quarter) of the Congo Basin’s forests are conceded to industrial logging whose main activity is exportation.22 Even acknowledging a shift from no certified forests in 1995 to about 4.8 million hectares of certified concessions in 2010 23 , several logging

 18

David Seddon and Daniel Seddon-Daines, A Political and Economic Dictionary of Africa, 1st ed., The Europa Political and Economic Dictionaries Series (Londonௗ; New York: Europa, 2004), 124. 19 Mosnir et al., “Dynamiques de Déforestation Dans Le Bassin Du Congo: Réconcilier La Croissance Économique et La Protection de La Forêt,” 126. 20 Sam Lawson, “Illegal Logging in the Democratic Reublic of the Congo,” Chatham House, April 2014, 20, http://www.illegal-logging.info/sites/default/files/ Lawson_DRCongo_PP_2014.pdf. 21 de Marcken P. et al., eds., “The Forests of the Congo Basin—State of the Forest 2010,” 2012, 60. 22 Mosnir et al., “Dynamiques de Déforestation Dans Le Bassin Du Congo: Réconcilier La Croissance Économique et La Protection de La Forêt,” 12. 23 Nasi, Billand, and Vanviliet, “Managing for Timber and Biodiversity in the Congo Basin,” 107.

Deforestation in the Congo Basin and Global Climate Change

279

companies are still not respecting national and international certification standards, and are destroying agricultural systems, polluting water, and causing the disappearance of species like forest elephants, Grauer’s gorilla, and the bonobo.24 As Pope Francis argues, the exportation of raw materials and the unbalanced use of natural resources by the industrialized world and mining multinationals cause much harm to local people in developing countries.25 Such harm is cautionary in the DRC’s case, where most of the logging activities are illegal. According to Lawson, “at least 87 percent of loggings in the DRC in 2011 were illegal.” 26 Also Johnson Nkem et al. reference that “illegal logging practices, for example, are on the rise . . . in tandem with increasing timber exports from the region to emerging markets in China.”27 It is important to trace the link between mining markets, violence, and climate change in relation to the degradation of the forests in the Congo Basin and not to overlook the extent to which miners are cutting down trees and destroying the Congo Basin’s biodiversity. Trading arms in mining does not only affect the economy of the region, but also affects humanity and global climate change.

Political and Institutional Aspects Considering the case of the DRC, the Stratégie-Cadre Nationale REDD+ of the DRC identifies two underlying factors increasing deforestation in the DRC: the influx of refugees since the Rwandan genocide and accelerated population growth. I argue that the movements of refugees and displaced people are another important factor related to degradation of the biodiversity of the Congo Basin, and should not be omitted from discourse on climate security. In the Eastern DRC, for example, deforestation was made worse by the movements of Rwandese refugees in 1994, who cut down a large numbers of trees in this area in

 24

Janet Nackoney et al., “Impacts of Civil Conflict on Primary Forest Habitat in Northern Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1990-2010,” Biological Conservation 170 (2014): 321. 25 Pope Francis, Laudato Si’, 51. 26 Lawson, “Illegal Logging in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” 21. 27 Johnson Nkem et al., “Shaping Forest Safety Nets with Markets: Adaptation to Climate Change under Changing Roles of Tropical Forests in Congo Basin,” Environmental Science & Policy 13, no. 6 (October 2010): 499, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.06.004.



280

Chapter Sixteen

search of shelter, but also by the political power of warlords around the mining war zones. The Security Council on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the DRC has revealed some forms of political power which have a serious impact on the degradation of natural resources in the DRC: those of warlords and the governments sustaining them in the Great Lake Region. According to the Security Council Report S/2012/843, Rwandan and Ugandan governments and armies, for example, are contributing to fund rebels’ movements while using profits resulting from the trafficking of Congolese minerals for the development of their countries.28 The report adds that Rwandan armed forces provide arms supplies, logistical support, soldiers, rebels (recruited from and in Rwanda), as well as support their political activities. Many of these so-called “Congolese rebels,” in collaboration with Rwandan and Ugandan mining are involved in trade and production of tin, tantalum, and tungsten, also called coltan. The report states that the “Rwandan exports of tantalum and tungsten have experienced a corresponding increase during 2012, while tin ore exports have decreased.”29 In addition, the insecurity in mining zones constitutes one of the main causes of the displacement of populations of people who, forced to leave their homes, are more and more in need of fossil fuels. As Janet Nackoney et al. reference, displaced people and refugees in the DRC’s conflicts “are forced to rely more heavily on their natural surrounding for food and shelter.” 30 They end up cutting down trees in order to survive. These power dynamics around wars in mining or “wars of coltan”31 are one of the factors that should be more emphasized in the degradation of the Congo Basin’s biodiversity.

 28

United Nations, “Letter Dated 12 November 2012 from the Chair of the Security Council Committee Established pursuant to Resolution 1533 (2004) Concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo addressed to the President of the Security Council,” Security Council, (November 15, 2012), 4, 01/15/2013, http://www.un.org/sc/committees /1533/egroup.shtml. 29 Ibid., 40. 30 Nackoney et al., “Impacts of Civil Conflict on Primary Forest Habitat in Northern Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1990-2010,” 321. 31 Coltan is an ore that contains two mineral substances: columbium, which is also called niobium, and tantalum. Tantalum is widely used to create performant and miniaturized capacitors, which in turn serve to create cell phones, laptops, and other electronic devices. The so call “war of coltan” in the mineral-rich eastern DRC has left millions dead and more than a million women raped.

Deforestation in the Congo Basin and Global Climate Change

281

Furthermore, we cannot ignore the lack of political will by the governments to protect the biodiversity of the Congo Basin. The DRC’s bishops illustrate such a lack of political will when they argue that security, peace, and national integrity seem not to be a priority for the DRC’s government and question whether the government is incapable, resigning, or complicit. 32 The mining and the regional governments are complicit, in addition to increasing greenhouse gas emissions; they enjoy economic power and government support at the national and regional level while people suffer from the consequences of so much plundering. One leader of a local network promoting Forestry Community in the DRC illustrates the ways very local poor communities are suffering from climate change: By cutting down any tree, the artisanal loggers disturb the climate. We use to have two seasons, the rainy and dry season. Now it is raining during the dry season and we experience drought during the rainy season. This results in the scarcity of fishes that we used to get in February and November.33

There is a need to look into the local resources and values that can help address the challenges of the degradation of nature in the Congo Basin and their negative impacts on people’s lives. African spirituality is a relevant means to be used to address such a problem; it provides an ethic of environmental responsibility that can help address the degradation of biodiversity in the Basin.

3. What African Spirituality Reveals About an Ethic of Environmental Responsibility The religious dimension of the approach to forests is seen throughout several African cultural and spiritual languages which affirm the idea of a spiritual relationship of forest communities in Africa with nature in general and forests in particular. As Magesa puts it, “What the African religious world view emphasizes, therefore, are relationships. . . . The relationships of the vital forces in the universe

 32

ASSEPB (Assemblée des Evêques de la Province Ecclesiastique de Bukavu, “Notre Cri Pour Le Respect Absolu de La Vie Humaineௗ: Message Des Évêques de La Province Ecclésiastique de Bukavu. Mon Âme Est Rassasiée de Malheurௗ; et Ma Vie Est Au Bord de L’abîme (Ps 88,4),” paragraph 10, 11, 12. 33 Interview by Theophile Gata, Mbandaka/Equateur, March 2016.



282

Chapter Sixteen constitute the complex of African Religion; the ‘management’ of these forces so that they promote the abundance of human and not diminish it constitutes the sum of Africa’s religious activity.”34

Such framework of vital forces suggests not only the sacredness of life of all beings, but also that the “relational nature of all reality buttress the African perception on reality as interrelated.”35 It also grounds the spiritual dimension granted to forests and the spiritual relationship between forests and the people. These are the basis for humans to protect forests, the earth, and the environment, as they are all interrelated. Teddy Chalwe Sakupapa clearly underscores the scope of an African conceptual framework of vital forces as the “one which highlights the centrality of life and the interrelatedness of beings (community).” 36 He argues that “within such a framework, the whole of reality is understood as interrelated, without any separation between the sacred and the secular.”37 Sakupapa affirms that the notion of vital force can be considered an “eco-pneumatological concept” 38 and a foundational intellectual, theological, and cultural infrastructure; there is potential to add value to the discourse on Christian quest and responses to the ecological crisis. Furthermore, the theologian Kwame Bediako illustrates the ways forest communities in Africa express such a spiritual relationship with forests. He sees vibrant theology in the prayers of a Ghanaian woman, who spells out her Christian sense of things with metaphors from African daily life.39 Bediako explains that for this Ghanaian woman, Jesus is a grinding stone, “the sharpest of all great swords who has made the forest safe for the hunters.”40 Jesus is the one from the deep forest who became a hunter among the hunters and saved his fellow hunters from the dangers of the forest.41 The Ghanaian woman, in identifying Jesus with a hunter savior of the forest, is deeply expressing her belief that forests are a source of life for souls and helps us understand how such belief grounds an ethic of environmental responsibility.

 34

Magesa, African Religion, 285–86. Teddy Chalwe Sakupapa, “Spirit and Ecology in the Context of African Theology,” Scriptura 111, no. 0 (June 12, 2013): 428, doi:10.7833/111-0-12. 36 Ibid., 426. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid., 429. 39 Kwame Bediako, Jesus and the Gospel in Africa: History and Experience (New York: Orbis Books, 2004), 9. 40 Ibid., 8-9. 41 Ibid., 11. 35

Deforestation in the Congo Basin and Global Climate Change

283

David G. Horrell points out several texts helping “to undergird an ethic of environmental responsibility” 42 in the Old and New Testament and argues that the texts of the Bible must be read through six eco-justice principles. I suggest reading African spirituality in relation to nature in light of Horrell’s eco-justice principles in order to grasp what it reveals as an ethic of environmental responsibility. The principle of intrinsic worth asserts that there is an inherent value in the universe and the earth and in all they comprise.43 The Book of Timothy expresses well the intrinsic value in the universe when it affirms the goodness of creation that “everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving” (1 Tim 1:4). As the Book of Genesis asserts, “God looked at everything he had made, and found it very good” (Gen 1:31). The intrinsic value of the universe is also acknowledged by African traditional religion in a very special way. Magesa argues that “in African traditional religious consciousness the environment is not mere matter; it is suffused with energy of power.”44 For African consciousness, the natural world reveals God’s creation, and it is God’s gift. As Mercy Amba Oduyoye puts it, “African Traditional Religion, Christianity, and Islam in Africa all acknowledge the Good of creation who has put humans on earth to tend the rest of creation and to represent the presence of God . . . a human being is one who abuses neither the Creator nor the creatures.”45 Forests are among the principal sources of food supplies and energy for Congolese people in rural and urban areas. Since God wants what He created to exist, then the created has an intrinsic value and therefore destroying the created is contrary to God’s will. Thus, deforestation in the Congo Basin harms God’s creation and abuses God’s gift. The principle of interconnectedness affirms that all living beings and things on earth are interrelated and interdependent. 46 David G. Horrell explains that the covenant between God and Noah and his sons, as

 42

David G. Horrell, The Bible and the Environment: Towards a Critical Ecological Biblical Theology, Biblical Challenges in the Contemporary World (Londonௗ; Oakville, CT: Equinox, 2010), 11. 43 Ibid., 13–14. 44 Magesa, “Locating the Church among the Wretched of the Earth,” 52. 45 Mercy Amba Udoyoye, “Catholic, Protestant, and Muslim Perspectives: A Protestant Perspective,” in Catholic Theological Ethics, Past, Present, and Future: The Trento Conference, ed. James F. Keenan (Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books, 2012), 26. 46 Horrell, The Bible and the Environment, 13-14.



284

Chapter Sixteen

depicted in Gen. 9:8-17, reflects the depth of the interconnection of all living creatures—humanity, animals, and the earth.47 Each component of the living creatures matters for the survival of the whole. Also, the interconnectedness between all the species is beautifully pointed out by Pope Francis when he refers to the importance of the Congo Basin and Amazon forests for the future of humanity. As he states, “the ecosystems of tropical forests possess an enormously complex biodiversity which is almost impossible to appreciate fully.”48 Likewise, the vital flow between human beings and cosmos is deeply celebrated in African traditions, which often affirm that a genuine harmony in creation ultimately binds everything to God who is the Supreme Being. For Bénézet Bujo, harmony between God and creation is reflected in many African traditional practices, for example when “the medical practitioner administers medicine together with minerals, pieces of dry woods, animal bones, and so on. . . .” Bujo explains that the latter practice may seem irrational in the eyes of an outsider, but in African traditions “the fact of touching a natural element or of smelling the scent of a plant creates harmony with the entire cosmos and reestablishes health in the holistic sense.” 49 When such harmony is not respected, the whole environment cries for respect, and we better listen to the ways nature speaks to us and take into account what Horrell classifies as the principle of voice. The principle of voice stresses that earth can raise its voice in rejoicing for its respect and in contradiction of its abuse.50 It is important to respect its ecosystem to avoid consequences to human beings. As, scientists are teaching us, “Nature has a mysterious and delicate balance for it to renew itself. If we intrude into the workings of nature without replacing what we have taken or leave behind only debris of our manipulation, we throw into jeopardy the balance of the environment that is essential for our survival.”51 Examples of the voices of nature claiming justice and respect when its laws are not respected speak volumes. Respecting the purpose of every component of the universe is imperative. The principle of voice aligns with

 47

Ibid., 47. Pope Francis, Laudato Si’, 38. 49 Bénézet Bujo, “Reasoning and Methodology in African Ethics,” in Catholic Theological Ethics, Past, Present, and Future: The Trento Conference, James F. Keenan, ed., (Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books, 2012), 150. 50 Horrell, The Bible and the Environment, 13-14. 51 Ibid, 47 48

Deforestation in the Congo Basin and Global Climate Change

285

the principle of resistance, which highlights that earth and its components, in addition to suffering from human actions of injustice, resist them and cry for justice.52 I will illustrate the ways I experienced such a cry of nature for resistance and justice through the damages caused by deforestation and forest degradation to my beloved primary and secondary school, Lycée Wima in the Eastern DRC. Lycée Wima is a school renowned for the quality of its teaching and for providing education to nearly 3,000 young female students since 1932. Lycée Wima was surrounded by enormous, beautiful trees in the great mountains of the city of Bukavu, but it was at risk of collapsing because its trees were cut down and its biodiversity devastated, especially after the influx of Rwandan refugees during the 1994 genocide. Such devastation had several effects, such as flooding and erosion, and many families lost members, homes, and goods. When I saw such an immense and beautiful school collapsing, it made me more aware of the extent to which nature depends on us as we depend on it, the extent to which it cries to us to respect its mysterious ecosystem, and how the lack of respect for nature can be devastating. Going back to African spirituality, as Engelberg Mveng explains, a human being “is a microcosm within the macrocosm.” 53 In being so, human beings are called to sustainable and responsible ecology for their own well-being. The principle of purpose states that earth, the universe, and its components are parts of the cosmos in which each piece has its own value and role for the harmony of the whole. 54 This principle can be well understood when one considers the purpose of nature and forests in some African cultures where there are sacred forests, trees, and rivers that are to be venerated and be used only for medicinal/curative purposes. To illustrate this, for the Bahema people, in the northeast of the DRC, the ficus—a tree that demands respect because it embodies a spiritual meaning—is primarily reserved to be planted on tombs. The latter act expresses the belief in the continuing life of the dead. It is therefore prohibited to damage or vandalize the ficus. For Bujo, the purpose of a ficus planted on a tomb is to incorporate the person who is at rest in this place into the community.55 The idea that a particular tree has its own goal also applies for the Gikuyu and Maasai people in Kenya for whom certain

 52

Ibid., 13-14. Bujo, “Reasoning and Methodology in African Ethics,” 155. 54 Horrell, The Bible and the Environment, 13-14. 55 Bujo, “Reasoning and Methodology in African Ethics,” 150. 53



286

Chapter Sixteen

trees are sacred and venerated because they symbolize the presence of God. 56 The multitude of properties of nature have to be protected, and human beings as stewards of God’s creation are accountable for the preservation of nature. The principle of mutual custodianship stresses that in order to sustain the balanced and varied character of the earth, people must function as stewards rather than rulers. 57 For Bujo, for example, “based on [the] awareness of their affinity with the rest of creation or nature, one of the primary concerns of Africans is the harmony with nature, a balanced relationship with the entire universe. A breath of this harmony can result in nefarious consequences. . . .” 58 In order to maintain harmony with nature, it is a moral obligation to function as God’s stewards in the management of creation and not as rulers. Forestry community is one of the relevant ways for people to live their vocation of stewardship.

4. What Forestry Community Reveals About an Ethic of Environmental Responsibility Practices of “community-based forest management” imply that a given government grants the rights to forests’ resources and their financial benefits to the local community.59 The shift is made from individual rights to forests to more collective rights, while leading the communities to manage and use timber resources in line with the principles of viable forest management. 60 As Ganga Ram Dahal et al. explain, communities are granted the right to protect the forest’s condition, and they can expect the “ability to exclude outsiders, especially logging companies and those who

 56

Ibid., 151. Horrell, The Bible and the Environment, 13-14. 58 A. E. Orobator, Theology Brewed in an African Pot (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008), 48. 59 Peter Cronkleton et al., “The Devolution of Management Rights and the CoManagement of Community Forests,” in Forests for People: Community Rights and Forest Tenure Reform, ed. Anne M. Larson (Londonௗ; Washington: Earthscan, 2010), 58–59. 60 Anne M. Larson, Pablo Pacheco, and Juan Pulhin M., “Regulations as Barriers to Community Benefits in Tenure Reform,” in Forests for People: Community Rights and Forest Tenure Reform, Anne M. Larson, ed. (Londonௗ; Washington: Earthscan, 2010), 149. 57

Deforestation in the Congo Basin and Global Climate Change

287

would convert the forest to other uses” 61 when given reforms allow it. Forestry community promotes an ethic of environmental responsibility that can help address the degradation of biodiversity in the Congo Basin in several ways. The first way is that through forestry community, there is a way to do advocacy in order to make the forestry law binding and respected by all the stakeholders, and to lead people to renew with the deep spiritual meaning of forests. The DRC’s government, for example, possesses a legal framework attributing the management of local forests to local communities who live close to such forests; these are forests that local communities possessed already through their customs and relationships. The right to use the forests granted to communities makes them accountable for the forests; it is a relevant way of raising awareness of the need for taking care of our common home in the local communities, as Pope Francis discusses. Organizing people who live in rural areas and who are involved in the use of the forests into “community forests” may help to encourage initiatives of local groups and to promote the best practices. A second way in which forestry community fosters an ethic of environmental responsibility is that it allows excluded and marginalized groups such as women have a say in the management of the forests and protection of the environment. Research in the DRC, RCA, and Cameroon indicates that the weak involvement of local communities and especially of women endangers any effort to mitigate climate change,62 and several studies have demonstrated that women’s voices are lacking in the management of the forests.63 Even though forestry community approaches may only partially grant to local communities the rights to the management of the forests, researchers acknowledge that they permit co-management and balance of power between stakeholders and “ensure that both conservation and development agendas [be] addressed.”64 They do provide women with the opportunity to participate in the management of forests. As Regine Mboyo explains, “before we could not speak out. Even though men tend to

 61

Anne M. Larson, Pablo Pacheco, and Ganga Ram Dahal, “Outcomes of Reform for Livelihoods, Forest Condition and Equity,” in Forests for People: Community Rights and Forest Tenure Reform, Anne M. Larson, ed. (Londonௗ; Washington: Earthscan, 2010), 208. 62 Brown et al., “Climate Change and Forest Communities,” 763. 63 Y. Mai, E. Mwangi, and M. Wan, “Gender Analysis in Forestry Research: Looking Back and Thinking Ahead,” The International Forestry Review 13, 2 (2011) 249. 64 Cronkleton et al., “The Devolution of Management Rights,” 44, 62.



288

Chapter Sixteen

keep us from speaking out, now we can speak out through our forestry communities and denounce the fact that scale operators or artisanal loggers cut down trees which are our main livelihood.” 65 Hence, forestry community, by allowing the participation of excluded groups, is a valuable means for promoting access to forests and recognizing the rights of women and indigenous people to the management of the lands. A third way through which forestry community promotes an ethic of environmental responsibility is that it significantly contributes to reducing poverty, particularly in rural areas. As Régine Mboyo, representative of the NGO Solidarité pour la promotion des femmes authochtones explains, We extensively use forest resources for food. Trees play an important role for our family daily diet. We take care of the forest edible tree foods, including fruit trees and palm nuts trees from which we collect the caterpillars to nurture our families and that we later sell to ensure the education of our children. From the forests we also collect leaves, bark, and flowers for the health care of our families whenever we cannot afford medical costs.66

Hence, women use forest resources for their own and household consumption and for income-generation. In this sense, Forestry Community is one of the key responses to Pope Francis’ call on local, national, and international authorities to eliminate poverty.67 To summarize, I have shown that deforestation in the Congo Basin directly affects climate change in the world and that mining in warzones and refugee movements should not be overlooked in discourse on global climate security, especially concerning the Congo Basin. I have also shown that the spiritual meaning of forests and trees in African spirituality can help protect the biodiversity of the Congo Basin. It is a valuable means for building an ethic of environmental responsibility as described in Horrell’s eco-justice principles. I have concluded that forestry community promotes an active participation of all members of the community, including women. It permits consideration of the local cultures and sociohistorical development of the local communities as suggested by Pope Francis68 and allows the taking into account of the spiritual meaning of nature. The latter is a powerful means of keeping the interconnectedness

 65

Interview by Theophile Gata, Mbandaka/Equateur, March 2016 Solidarity for the Promotion of Indigenous Women. Interview by Theophile Gata, Mbandaka /Equateur, March 2016. 67 Pope Francis, Laudato Si’, 175. 68 Pope Francis, Laudato Si’, 144. 66

Deforestation in the Congo Basin and Global Climate Change

289

between forest communities in Africa and nature and consequently addressing the challenges of degradation of the Congo Basin. The participation of local communities through community forests can considerably help mitigate the impact of global warming on the poor.

Bibliography Avissar, Roni, and David Werth. “Global Hydroclimatological Teleconnections Resulting from Tropical Deforestation.” Journal of Hydrometeorology 6 (April 2005): 134–45. Horrell, David G. The Bible and the Environment: Towards a Critical Ecological Biblical Theology. Biblical Challenges in the Contemporary World. Londonௗ; Oakville, CT: Equinox, 2010. Magesa, Laurenti. African Religion: The Moral Traditions of Abundant Life. Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books, 1997. —. “Locating the Church among the Wretched of the Earth.” In Catholic Theological Ethics in the World Church: The Plenary Papers from the First Cross-Cultural Conference on Catholic Theological Ethics, edited by James F. Keenan. New York: Continuum, 2007. Nackoney, Janet, Giuseppe Molinario, Peter Potapov, Svetlana Turubanova, Matthew Hansen C., and Takeshi Furuichi. “Impacts of Civil Conflict on Primary Forest Habitat in Northern Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1990-2010.” Biological Conservation 170 (2014): 321–28. Sakupapa, Teddy Chalwe. “Spirit and Ecology in the Context of African Theology.” Scriptura 111, no. 0 (June 12, 2013): 422. doi:10.7833/111-0-12.



CHAPTER SEVENTEEN ‘THAT WE MAY SOW BEAUTY’: READING JEWISH, CHRISTIAN, AND MUSLIM CLASSICS FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS ELIZABETH ADAMS-EILERS, PH.D.1

Abstract: Three classic texts from the Abrahamic traditions may encourage ecological conversion, or a radical turn from human selfcenteredness toward an active concern for other creatures and for their environments. This change of heart fosters a belief in the interconnectedness of all living things and in their intrinsic value. These texts are Pope Francis I’s encyclical, On Care for Our Common Home: Laudato Si’ (2015), Martin Buber’s I and Thou (20th Century), and the IkhwƗn al-SƗfa’s The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of the Jinn (10th Century CE/4th Century AH). This paper envisions an interreligious dialogue, in which scholars and others gather to study these texts, to consider issues they raise, to contemplate how they draw us toward conversion, and to stimulate conversations about environmental justice in face of biodiversity depletion and habitat loss.



1 Elizabeth Adams-Eilers is an adjunct assistant professor at Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pa. A chapter from her dissertation was published as the first chapter in Things of the Spirit: Women Writers Constructing Spirituality, Kristina Groover, Ed. (University of Notre Dame Press, 2004). Her academic interests include the study of rhetorical narratology, theological method, and mysticism. She is a member of the Catholic Theological Society of America.

292

Chapter Seventeen

Near the conclusion of his timely encyclical, On Care for Our Common Home: Laudato Si’, Pope Francis I petitions his Creator to “bring healing to our lives, that we may protect the world and not prey on it, that we may sow beauty, not pollution and destruction” (118). 2 The Pope addresses “those who believe in a God who is an all-powerful Creator” (118), Jews, Christians, and Muslims of the Abrahamic traditions are targeted readers, not only Catholic believers, which is traditionally the case. Indeed, this encyclical is revolutionary because it embraces all those who would read it. “Now, faced as we are with global environmental deterioration, I wish to address every person on this planet” (1). Would that we all were listening! Reading this text in assembly may usher in a change of heart, an ecological conversion, which prompts participants to fall in love with the world in order to save it. This article envisions an interfaith dialogue for Jewish, Muslim, and Christian participants, planned for 2018 or 2019, during which we read the Laudato Si’ from the Catholic Christian tradition and other classical sources from Jewish and Muslim traditions. These sources call readers to examine their consciences in preparation for taking appropriate action. Reading these texts together in community will invite us to fervently commit to the cause of saving the environment as we discover where we stand regarding the issues of global warming, environmental degradation, and the losses of biodiversity. Drawn from Jewish traditions of Hasidic and Kabbalah mysticism, Martin Buber’s I and Thou (1952) inspires us to examine the quality of our relationships with other creatures, with each other, and with God. 3 We may thus expand our definitions of friendship and reciprocity to become more aware of our capacity to communicate with other creatures. From a Muslim tradition of Sufi mysticism, the second text we consider gives animals voices to complain about their plight in relationships with humans. In the IkhwƗn al-SƗfa’s The Case of the Animals versus Man before the King of the Jinn, animal characters often disclose surprising, poignant, reasonable, and responsible points of view.4 Not only do these



2 Pope Francis I. 2015. On Care for Our Common Home: Laudato Si’. (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2015), 118. Throughout this essay, I refer to this text as Laudato Si’. 3 Buber, Martin. I and Thou. With a New Postscript by the Author. Ronald Gregor Smith, trans. (New York: Scribners. Reprint. 1958). 4 IkhwƗ al-SƗfa’, The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of the Jinn, trans., Lenn E. Goodman & Richard McGregor (Oxford & London: The Oxford University Press, 2009). I refer to the text in this work as The Case of the Animals.

‘That We May Sow Beauty’

293

animals grumble about the ways we treat them, but also they poke fun at us, praise us, and plead for better treatment. The Case of the Animals invites us to listen to animals’ stories as a first act of establishing compassion and a sense of kinship with other creatures. Finally, from the Roman Catholic Christian traditions of papal encyclicals, we study Pope Francis I’s Laudato Si’, not only to analyze the concept of ecological conversion that the Pope introduces to encourage change, but also to see why our spiritual leaders may rightfully call us to it. To show readers something of the richness of these classics, their rhetorical strength, and their depth of wisdom, I quote selected passages directly from each classic rather than simply summarizing it. My purpose for writing this work is clear: to introduce three classic texts that could serve as catalysts for change of heart as three world religions dialogue about the dangers confronting nature and the environment, our common home. To focus on this purpose when space is limited, this essay refrains from scholarly critical analysis of each text, of what other scholars say about them. Instead, it offers close readings and lists each text’s merits as a resource for our envisioned interreligious dialogue conference. At this conference, no doubt, spirited academic repartee stemming from our scholarly desire to know will result in pithy discussion that includes critical analysis of these classics as well. These discussions are needed for understanding, but they should not be limited to scholarly pursuits without a plan for action. Because of our profound interconnectedness with all living things, our present situation reflects a dangerous spiritual malaise and alarming state of affairs as we continue to experience one loss after another of species in the animal kingdom . . . with the rest of the family, the human species, not far behind. It is important to come together now, face-to-face, to find solutions, make decisions about these solutions, and act on them.

Martin Buber’s I and Thou Martin Buber’s I and Thou (1952) interprets “meetings” between human beings and between human beings and other creatures at, as he claims, their most basic level; every meeting is two-fold because it is either an “I and Thou” or an “I and it” encounter. An “I and Thou” meeting between human beings empowers us to experience the other person in his or her singular wholeness and holiness. True meeting often results in the initial experience of wonder, but often the initial contact degenerates into thinking about utility: “How is this person or creature useful to my agenda?” The “I and Thou” moment is thus fleeting, and its



294

Chapter Seventeen

immediacy and richness dissolves. While the “I and Thou” meeting is most beneficial as far as personal fulfillment is concerned, the “I and It” encounter is necessary for practical matters.5 Both contribute toward what constitutes human activity in the world, but something important is lost with the disappearance of the “I and Thou” mode. Perhaps the quality of wonder is lost, for in this mode one stands before another being to encounter its elan vital, or life force, to gaze upon its original purity without preconception, bias, or thoughts of usefulness interfering.6 This deeply-enriching life experience is not earned through hard work, or through discipline, or through desire; it “meets [us] through grace. It is not found by seeking” (11). It just “so happens that it is the case” (11). Yet, it can never occur without us becoming fully present to the other. When it does happen that two human beings are fully present to each other, we are each fully alive. “All real living is meeting” (18), Buber boldly proclaims. We can never anticipate such a meeting, that it will happen at this time or that, with this person or that or with another creature; however, we can prepare for it by remaining open, attentive, and responsible to the possibility that such a relationship may occur. Meetings between a human being and a nonhuman creature are even more subtle than those between two human beings because the former are only latently two-fold “I and Thou” or “I and it” (126). They are only latently possible because in some ways they are not reciprocal. Buber believes that creatures who cannot speak to us can nevertheless “call” us



5 See Kenneth Paul Kramer, Martin Buber’s I and Thou: Practicing Living Dialogue (New York: Paulist Press, 2003). “While our lives in the world benefit in practical ways because of I-It relationships, developing wholeness requires I-Thou relationships” (16). Kramer, a renowned Buber scholar, says that Buber recommends I-Thou relationships with texts: “adopting a saying of ‘Thou’ attitude toward the text; and receiving the indivisible wholeness of something spoken, Buber would thus invite readers of I and Thou to read it dialogically and imaginatively” (9). 6 Buber may have read Henri Bergson’s Introduction to Metaphysics, for they were contemporaries. For Bergson, in relationship with another animated being one may develop an “intellectual sympathy” by which one places oneself within an object in order to coincide “With what is unique with it” (5). The elan vital is perceived by a human intuition that apprehends an infinite moment in time as he or she perceives the unity of a being as the “absolute.” (13). This “grasping of unity” may be similar in some way to what Keats calls the “negative capability” of the poet/visionary who is able at once to perceive the essence of a thing in all clarity, without needing to categorize it and thus interfering with the experience. This is a capacity given to all human beings according to Buber.

‘That We May Sow Beauty’

295

into an “I and Thou” or “I and it” relationship through their very presence before us. Again, how can we experience an “I and Thou” relationship with creatures who may not overtly reciprocate? Buber offers a more nuanced version of the question: “More precisely still, if we are to assume that we are granted a kind of mutuality by beings and things in nature as well, which we meet as our Thou, what is, then, the character of this reciprocity, and what justification have we for using the fundamental concept [of the I and Thou] in order to describe it?” (125). The “I and Thou” meeting between animals and human beings is possible because of certain spontaneous and expressive characteristics that these beings share as gifts from their creaturely status. This event, one might say, may be called a moment of grace, an “I and Thou” encounter with another creature, which is initiated by the human being saying “Thou.” Buber imagines what one such encounter would be like: He draws animals into his atmosphere and moves them to accept him, the stranger, in an elemental way, and to respond to him. He wins from them an often astonishing active response to his approach, to his addressing them, and moreover a response which in general is a genuine saying of Thou . . . when men who have in the depths of their being a potential partnership with animals . . . those men whose very nature is spiritual. (125)

In beautifully poetic language Buber further describes how encountering a supposedly inanimate creature—a tree, for example—could reveal a developing relationship that moves from the “I and It” encounter toward the “I and Thou” relationship. One can study the tree’s position as it is framed by a natural setting, viewing it as an experience of aesthetics, its colors, its background, its movement. One could as well classify it “as a species and study it as a type” in scientific observation. However, the encounter may become even more intensely personal: “It can, however, also come about, if I have both will and grace, that in considering the tree, I become bound up in relation to it. The tree is no longer it . . . I encounter no soul or dryad of the tree, but the tree itself” (7-8). In his Postscript commentary on this portion of the text, Buber explains that when we permit it, “something lights up and approaches us from the course of being” (126). Reciprocity with nature, then, is possible because nature knows no hiding. Nature stands openly before us, with no masks and no restraints . . . as a waiting Thou, ready to be addressed by our whole being. Should we happen on the scene, we might, thus, experience and appreciate the tree as it stands by itself, ready to “greet” us in relationship. Before, during, and after the meeting, the creature stands alone, as a being with its own lived experience, its own history, valuable to itself by itself.



296

Chapter Seventeen

Valuing another creature as a kingdom unto itself, and thus honoring it as having its own intrinsic value, may rouse us to consider how we might best preserve environments that support such beauty. As we honor the dignity of other living things who thrive without us, and value themselves for themselves, we “sow beauty, not destruction.” When we “happen” upon such a creature as the solitary tree standing alone, we enjoy the fruits of our own search for beauty and also receive a lesson in humility. When we meet an animal, and reach out to it, we may enjoy a partnership that is spiritual by nature. We search for beauty all of our lives and rejoice upon finding it. One might argue that we need beauty to survive. We need the presence of trees, for shelter, for replenishing oxygen to the environment, for removing carbon dioxide from the environment, but we will only experience a tree in its full beauty when we allow it to present itself to us as a being fully itself, to itself, disclosed. With such experiences in tow, we may begin to imagine seeing God’s pleasure in creatures other than ourselves; seeing these creatures’ intrinsic value may stimulate our capacity for religious and moral conversion as we become human beings fully alive to ourselves, to others, to our environment, and to the Creator. In dialogue with human “others” and in honor their diversity and singularity, we practice being with other creatures in nature, one-on-one, face-to-face. We stop and take a look, marvel, and appreciate the beauty, order, goodness of what stands before us and we pause to wonder at the beauty emanating from the face of the person who stands or sits before us in interreligious dialogue. With his spiritual observations of “meetings” between human beings and between animals and human beings, Buber thus prepares us to consider how the “I and eternal Thou” relationship between human beings and God may develop. Through honoring and valuing the creature for itself, one readies oneself for a right relationship with God. That the Creator God remains clouded in mystery and cannot be said to be fully known, and definitely not manipulated for our own purposes, is affirmed by all three Abrahamic religions. They also affirm as well, however, that while God is infinite and transcendent, God is also immanent in nature as well. Buber establishes this in his text: “Of course, God is the wholly Other, but He is also the wholly Same, the wholly Present. Of course, He is the mysterium tremendum that appears and overthrows; but He is also the mystery of the self-evident, nearer to me than I am to myself” (79). God is in relationship to us and in all other “I and Thou” relationships in Nature as well. How this might be said to be true can be discussed further

‘That We May Sow Beauty’

297

in interreligious dialogue. Study questions could help us address the issues. 1. How does Buber’s description of a relational encounter with a tree prepare us to consider how we might begin the work of healing the planet? 2. Do our anthropocentric viewpoints leave room for other creatures that God intended to thrive in their own right? 3. How do we meet the eternal Thou in everyday life, in nature? 4. Does contemplating beauty bring about conversion? How might that work? 5. Are we guilty of utilitarian uses for prayer in relationship with God?

The IkhwƗn al-SƗfa,’ The Case of the Animals versus Man before the King of the Jinn On Day one of the interreligious dialogue conference, we study how Martin Buber’s work describes how “I and Thou” relationships help human beings honor the intrinsic value of other creatures as “pure being.” In the process of honoring those other creatures who share our planet, we thus begin to shed our human arrogance, experience a proper humility, and move toward kinship with other creatures. For Day two of the dialogue, we look to another resource that continues this work: a treatise from Sufi mystics of Islam, the IkhwƗn al- ৡƗfa’, the Brethren of Purity from Basra, Iraq (4th Century AH/10th Century). In this animal fable, the “other” creatures know our arrogance, resist it, and declare the injustice of our human-centered positions. The yarn is spun so well that we readers are swiftly drawn into the rich conversations held among human and animal characters. It seems that the animals’ reasoning makes more sense than the human counterargument that human beings inherit a birthright to their superiority in relationships with other creatures. Human beings commit heinous crimes against animals. Readers recognize themselves in the descriptions of human error. The particularly human vice of arrogance is the animals’ main complaint because this consistent and obvious defect brings only misery to the animals; they are subjected to master/slave relationships because of such airs of superiority. “Animals must serve humans because humans are superior to animals,” so the argument goes. Each animal, however, wants to be seen as a “Thou,” as valued for its intrinsic worth, and not an “It,” or subject to humanity’s agendas of usefulness criteria. The pathos of



298

Chapter Seventeen

creaturely arguments represented in the narrative are so compelling that we readers may begin to commiserate with the animals’ history of their relationships with humans: “Humans encroached on our ancestral lands. They captured sheep, cows, horses, mules, and asses from among us and enslaved them, subjecting them to the exhausting toil and drudgery of hauling, plowing, drawing water, turning mills, and being ridden. They forced us to these tasks with beatings, bludgeoning, and every kind of duress, torture, and chastisement throughout our lives” (107). We are startled to hear accounts of the animals’ plight written a millennium ago, stories that are so obviously currently relevant. Human beings take land that was traditionally inhabited by other species, perhaps for thousands of years. Having lost their habitat, these dislocated animals pitifully search for homes in backyards and other property owned by human beings. Global warming, undoubtedly caused at least partially by the use of fossil fuels, leads to biodiversity depletion. Upon studying human activity in the 21st Century and earlier, we could say, for example, that our fascination with technology often leads us to totally disregard the effect of its use on our environment and habitat. We obviously treat other creatures as “its” and not as “thous.” We have felt that their lives and habitats are ours to discard. The King of the Jinn, BƯwarƗsp, desires to be absolutely fair in his judgments that settle this case. He wants to hear more of the argument, and so he sends out emissaries to collect more creaturely representatives who will offer their opinions in assembly to make their case. They arrive at court in response to the king’s beckoning. When gazing upon the crowd of representatives from the animal and insect kingdom, the king is allowed a glimpse of the results of evolution, the connectedness of all things in the chain of being. BƯwarƗsp can do nothing but wonder at the diversity of creatures assembled before him: The King gazed left and right. Beholding the immense diversity of shapes and forms, colors, sounds, and songs before him. For some time, he was overcome with wonder. Then, turning to one of the wise Jinni philosophers, he said: ‘Look at these marvelous Creatures, handiwork of the All-Merciful. ‘I see them, your Majesty’, came the reply. ‘I see them with the eyes of my head, but in my heart, I behold their Creator’ (199).

Human beings in the assembly who stand facing the King of the Jinn do not see themselves the way the King sees them from his perspective; sitting or standing before them, the King gazes out at the large gathering seeing, en masse, creatures as part of a wondrous patchwork of living beings in assembly. Instead of seeing themselves as a creature linked

‘That We May Sow Beauty’

299

inseparably to other creatures, human representatives will insist that they stand apart from the rest of Creation as masters over other animals because God is especially partial to the human race. The human representative argues that since God gave human beings special instructions for prayer, ritual, purification, the sharing of wealth, festivals, conferences, and houses of worship, it is obvious that God favors them above all others. All those things show that God especially blesses their human communities with worthwhile activities that in nature the animals lack. The nightingale delegate from the birds, however, responds with the simple reminder that birds are direct recipients of God’s grace, not needing special places to worship or to assemble, for “Wherever we turn, there is God’s face. Every day is a festival and assembly for us. Our every movement is worship and praise. So we need none of the things that you boast of” (258). Furthermore, the bird continues, animals are not sinful, but human beings are; thus, human beings need special instructions to lead a holy life. In fact, prophets were sent for this very reason, the nightingale offers, but creatures in the wild do not need these instructions, for they are already holy and pleasing to God. (256-257). Human representatives produce other examples to support their boast of superiority, and thus continue to defend their claim that they are rightfully masters and all other creatures, slaves. God gives them special gifts: x Human beings enjoy a superior capacity for reason, they have the sciences to guide them, and they participate in the arts, “in dealing with this world and the next” (242). x Human beings enjoy the best foods the planet has to offer (247-48). x Human beings enjoy fine clothing, tapestries, and rugs (259). x Human beings pursue a wide variety of important vocations and roles such as those of scholars and naturalists (269). Representatives of each animal group resolutely defend their reasoning that they are directly given all they need as direct gifts from God, and it is a human failing to want more than is needed. Human beings in their arrogance, however, continue to insist that they need these things, and in fact, since we readers know that we compete, work, and struggle to acquire them in our own lives, we may concur. For creatures in the wild, however, lifestyles and natural environment provide for them. For example, industrious bees receive freely the gift of community from God. Their leaders rise naturally to the top and care for their subjects. Animals and insects are born with, or will shortly acquire, all the clothing they



300

Chapter Seventeen

need; their food is free, and they do not have to work for it for pay; furthermore, they do not overeat (248-261). While resisting human claims of superiority, the animals also manage to persist in their complaints against ill treatment. For example, while human beings overeat such that they make themselves ill, they also mismanage the feeding programs of their domesticated animals and work them without rest so that they “succumb to the diseases that plague” humans (251). Human beings enjoy their best food, the consumption of honey with its medicinal qualities, but it comes from insects who provide it for them (252). The jackal representative of the animals of prey adds that human beings remove animals’ clothing from their bodies, fleece, skin, hair, and feathers, and decorate themselves with the very clothing belonging to others at birth. Yet, human beings arrogantly proclaim that wearing these marks of distinction makes them superior (261). In spite of the weight of these arguments, however, by the end of the story it seems that human beings may win the day and that the King of the Jinn will issue a judgment in their favor. While a close reading of the text does not reveal the king’s proclamation of such a judgment, the king does assent to the truthfulness of the final human counterargument, and so do other members of the assembly. Human representatives point out for their final argument in their favor that from their species saints emerge. This phenomenon does not happen in the animal kingdom. The description of sainthood, however, is sketchy, leaving it to the reader to add flesh to bare bones, to provide a fuller depiction of what constitutes human sainthood, if not a complete one. No one could name all the attributes of a saint, the human representative argues: “These saints of God are the flower of creation, the best, the purest, persons of fair and praiseworthy parts, pious deeds, myriad sciences, godly awareness, regal character, just and holy lives, and awesome ways. Fluent tongues weary to name their qualities, and no one has adequately described their inmost core” (315). Does the fact that human beings may become saints win the argument? Does the fact that we are capable of rising so high let us off the hook? Is it true that we are therefore superior to other creatures? The narrative discourse seems to argue that human responsibility for the well-being of other creatures is a necessary quality of sainthood and an antidote to the sin of arrogance; but the textual description of a saint does overtly include a commitment to love and care for other species. Given the thrust of the narrative discourse, however, we might speculate that such a sense of responsibility for the well-being of other creatures is a mark of sainthood. The case is not really settled at the end of the story.

‘That We May Sow Beauty’

301

Three more study questions for reading The Case of the Animals versus Man before the King of the Jinn could continue to stimulate critical reflection and discussion about nature and the environment in light of this contribution from the IkhwƗn al SƗfa’. 1. In the fable’s introductory depictions of creatures’ evolutionary processes, how does the narrator describe the web of being? Does this description make sense in light of the narrative discourse? 2. Does arrogance completely prevent human beings from seeing the animals’ points of view? 3. Could The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of the Jinn help us to form an environmental ethics? 4. Are human beings superior to animals? In what way? Is dualistic language such as superior/inferior helpful to our task to “save” Mother Earth?

On Care for Our Common Home: Laudato Si’ On Day three of our work together, we study the Laudato Si’. It makes its case for the necessity of creating an agenda for saving the earth and its inhabitants in light of biological degradation. For Pope Francis I, the healing of the environment indicates a healing of souls and “sobriety and care” as people learn to see the connectedness of all things and find themselves in intimate relationship with other creatures: If we approach nature and the environment without this openness to awe and wonder, if we no longer speak the language of fraternity and beauty in our relationship with the world, our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on their immediate needs. By contrast, if we feel intimately united with all that exists, then sobriety and care will well up spontaneously. (11)

In some ways, the pope’s namesake, St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226 C.E.) models the saint who achieves the kind of perfection that only humans are capable of realizing, as do those the Ikhwan al-Safa affirms in their narrative. According to the IkhwƗn al-SƗfa’s classic, The Animals Versus Man Before the King of the Jinn, “These saints of God are the flower of creation, the best, the purest, persons of fair and praiseworthy parts, pious deeds, myriad sciences, godly awareness, regal character, just and holy lives, and awesome ways” (315). St Francis may also attain this high praise, except that for the “myriad sciences” achievement. Pope Francis I highlights the memory of his namesake St. Francis as that of an



302

Chapter Seventeen

individual who demonstrates kinship with all of creation and solidarity with the poor, not intellectual achievement in the sciences, which, for the Brethren of Purity, indicated sagacity, with high praise being the appropriate response when one encounters it. “Mother Earth,” “Brother Fire,” “Sister Moon,” “Brother Wind” are names of creatures St Francis embraces in his poem “The Canticle of the Sun”, otherwise known as the “Canticle of Creatures”; it was written shortly before the saint’s death in 1226 C.E. The first few words of the Canticle are included in the encyclical’s title, Laudato Si (“Laudato sie, mi Signore cum tucte le Tue creature); “Be praised my Lord through all your creatures” (3). 7 The pope claims St. Francis as the encyclical’s patron because: “[I] believe that Saint Francis is the example par excellence of care for the vulnerable and of an integral ecology lived out joyfully and authentically. He is the patron saint of all who study and work in the area of ecology, and he is also much loved by non-Christians. He was particularly concerned for God’s creation and for the poor and outcast” (9). However singular St. Francis is, however much he inspires us, it is our task today to create solidarity in community to address the plight of Mother Earth, the Pope believes. To this end, in Chapter V of the papal encyclical, titled “Line of Approach and Action” (80-98), the Pope champions the work of interreligious dialogue and a dialogue between religion and science to study the ill effects of human interventions in the environment; he urges readers to search for remedies together while building interconnectedness and community (96-98). Pope Francis I also suggests a rereading of religious classics “with their enduring power to open new horizons” (97). The pope honors the religious diversity of these classics and praises their different perspectives; we gain knowledge and inspiration from them so that we can act wisely in the face of the ongoing crisis of environmental degradation. These religious classics offer “ethical principles capable of being apprehended by reason [that] can always reappear in different guise and find expression in a variety of languages, including religious language” (97). By analyzing classics in interreligious dialogue such as the Laudato Si’, Buber’s I and Thou, and the Ikwan alSafa’s Case of the Animals, for example, we may find ourselves envisioning our participation in the healing of the environment as we are

 7

See “Canticle of the Creatures”, in Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 1 (New York-London-Manila, 1999), 113-114. This is the English translation the pope uses.

‘That We May Sow Beauty’

303

drawn into closer relationships with creatures. Instead of despairing about what some say is only a bleak future for the planet, we exercise our capacity for hope as “new horizons” unfold and inspire us to persevere in our labors and search for solutions. Along with the assertion that sainthood is within reach, along with our “saintly” capacity to foster “I and Thou” relationships that Martin Buber describes, still another model emerges in Pope Francis I’s narrative that encourages readers and conference attendees to persevere in the struggle to realize the greater good. In Chapter VI, entitled ‘Ecological Education and Spirituality,” the last chapter of the document, Pope Francis I features the work of a Sufi mystic who demonstrates what it is like to feel intensely alive, listening, aware, and awake to natural settings. In this case, the pontiff highlights an individual’s ability to exercise the capacity of our senses, to hear with the heart, one might say. In an endnote, the Pope cites Ali al-Khawas’ work,8 that shows a Sufi’s wonder in light of the way we perceive creatures communicating through sound, as he expresses his understanding of the interconnectedness of all being: Prejudice should not have us criticize those who seek ecstasy in music or poetry. There is a subtle mystery in each of the movements and sounds of this world. The initiate will capture what is being said when the wind blows, the trees sway, water flows, flies buzz, doors creak, birds sing, or in the sounds of strings and flutes, the sighs of the sick, the groans of the afflicted. (157)

Note that the passage includes mention of the sounds of suffering. Those struggling to survive live alongside the everyday sounds of nature. This poet feels connected to the poor as does St. Francis, famous for his kiss of the leper. For Pope Francis I, our intense identification of and appreciation for the sights and sounds of all creatures that inhabit our world should move us to protect this beautiful earth and its creatures, and that certainly includes the poor. We should protect all the poor of this earth: all suffering creatures and Mother Earth herself. The falling-moredeeply-in-love-with-God of religious conversion must include the fallingdeeply-in-love not only with the outsider and with the poor, but also with creation. He names this enactment of the capacity to fall in love with all aspects of creation, to be attentive even to its suffering, ecological

 8

Ali al-Khawas. Anthologie du soufisme, Eva de Vitray-Meyerovitch, ed. (Paris 1978), 200. Endnote #159 in the Laudato Si’.



304

Chapter Seventeen

conversion, and it is a first step needed to respond to the urgency of the times. For the pontiff, ecological conversion shows itself as “a more passionate concern for the protection of our world.” According to the pope, for Christians, the “effect of their relationship with Jesus Christ becomes evident in their relationship with the world around them,” both with their social-political world and with Mother Earth as “we acknowledge our sin against her” (105-106). While the pope offers a description of a needed change of heart for Christians, how might Jewish and Muslim believers define ecological conversion from their own perspectives and traditions? Participants at the interreligious dialogue conference speak from the vantage point of lived experience and knowledge, and they could round out a definition of ecological conversion needed for the sake of global awareness and invite the public to join us in deliberations. Christian readers at the conference may take the Pope’s advice seriously and consider how a call to conversion reveals itself in light of a specifically Christian vocation; however, by the time all readers at our conference have analyzed the Laudato Si’, they may have realized that the classical texts we have read and discussed in community have already issued this invitation to answer the call. As we have seen, Martin Buber’s I and Thou, and the IkhwƗn al-SƗfa’s The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of the Jinn also transmit eloquent pleas for a change of heart and assure us that our humanity offers us the ability to do it. It is up to readers to decide how they will respond to these pleas. Here are some study questions to stimulate conversations about this text at the interreligious dialogue and in the classroom. 1. How do you define ecological conversion? 2. What saintly qualities would you expect in a person who has undergone such a conversion? 3. Could you offer names of people who deserve to be called “saints” because of their dedication to the cause of saving the environment?

Conclusion: Where Do We Go from Here? While Jews, Christians, and Muslims may practice different codes and creeds, all three religions witness to a merciful, compassionate, and loving Creator. They all affirm the dignity of human beings, and they all attest to the intrinsic value of other creatures. In the past, these communities gathered in one place to share other common interests. In 12th century

‘That We May Sow Beauty’

305

Toledo, Spain, “People of the Book” and others together translated classics of antiquity to save them from extinction;9 now people of the Abrahamic traditions engage in interreligious dialogue to save the planet. In this decade, in November 2011, an interreligious conference video session deliberated on how to save “Mother Earth.” Titled “An Interfaith Dialogue on a Shared Response to the Environmental Crisis Video Conference,” the seminar video was recorded at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs; it was also sponsored by the United States Embassy to the Holy See and the World Faiths Development Dialogue. The moderator was Katherine Marshall at the Berkley Center for Religion. The videoconference included persons exhibiting theological expertise (an imam who is chaplain at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., two “green” rabbis, and three Catholic theologians); diplomatic representatives, including a Vatican correspondent; environmental specialists; and students who led the dialogue portion of the conference. In the follow-up discourse, the conference/dialogue participants suggested these actions as receptacles for the “fruits” of dialogue: an online site available for networking; a Facebook group, and “further meetings and similar interreligious engagements.”10 While this videoconference demonstrates an intense and wellinformed focus on the problems at hand and engages experts of different kinds for analyses, such meetings do not offer the advantages of face-toface, in person, one-on-one “deep dialogue.11 A typical conference rarely

 9

For an interesting and thorough history of this collaboration, see Richard E. Rubenstein, Aristotle’s Children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Dark Ages (Harcourt, Inc., 2003). 10 https://s3.amazonaws.com/berkley-center/FaithandEnvironmentMeetingReport_ Final.pdf. 11 Professor Swidler describes a more nuanced definition of dialogue than he has offered in some earlier publications, and names it “deep dialogue” in a recent work (2014), Dialogue for Understanding: Strategies for the Cultivation of CultureShaping Institutions. “If the way we understand the world determines the way we act in the world, then action completes the circle of perception-thought-decisionaction. We first perceive, then try to understand, in light of which we make a decision, and finally act, putting our perceptions, understanding, decisions into concrete behavioral form. If we have begun to engage the world in a deeply dialogical manner and critically analyzed/synthesized our perceptions and thoughts, we will want to make decisions on their bases, and carry out our actions in the world in an analogously dialogic/critical manner. I am suggesting that the





306

Chapter Seventeen

provides an opportunity for all participants to meet face-to-face and engage in sustained, “deep dialogue,” one with the other. We usually sit with eyes trained on a speaker. Presenters offer their research, a discussion ensues, keynote addresses are given, and all go home. No gritty plan of collective action emerges from the discourse. Reading classic texts together and discussing them face-to-face in large groups, in small groups, and in one-on-one settings12 might not only “broaden our horizons” as we learn from our dialogue partners about their individual perspectives, truths, and interpretations but also might help us develop and sustain lifelong relationships. These ties binding us in common efforts to learn13 could also open us to willing listening, to giving honest feedback. These virtues inspire not only understanding but also, eventually, could contribute toward the formation of friendships. Reading a classic in the presence of those who claim that classic as their own religious heritage has certain advantages. It increases abilities to exercise critical reflection, for one. Those who admire the text as representing their faith in some way and who want this classical work to be known by a larger circle of readers may teach us to interpret the text; furthermore, the sponsors of each classic can offer religious and historical context, and finally, participants and

 most appropriate way to describe such action is Competitive-Cooperation” (Para.22). 12 See Maria Hornung, Encountering Other Faiths (Paulist Press, 2007) for logistics regarding large group formations for interreligious dialogue agendas, small groups, and “buzz” groups of three. Her schema requires facilitators, guest speakers who participate in the groups (or for our purposes, experts presenting the texts we study), sponsors, and general participants. The first few sessions are dedicated to welcoming all participants and to discussing, in general, the concept and practice of interreligious dialogue. For example, an introductory question could be worded so: “What attitudes and behaviors lead to positive outcomes from interreligious encounters? What attitudes and behaviors are detrimental to positive outcomes from interreligious encounters?”(84) She introduces a model for those people interested in exploring interreligious engagement as pursuit of study (78101), but this model could be adapted to explore nature and the environment themes through reading classic texts provocatively treat these themes. 13 See Leonard Swidler, “What is Dialogue?” in Attitudes of Religions and Ideologies Toward the Outsider: The Other. Leonard Swidler and Paul Mojzes, eds., “Religions in Dialogue”, Volume 1. The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990. “What is needed is 1) an openness to learn from the other, 2) knowledge of one’s own tradition, and 3) a similarly disposed and knowledgeable partner from the other tradition. This can happen on almost any level of knowledge and education. The key is the openness to learn from the other” (30-31).

‘That We May Sow Beauty’

307

interpreters at the interreligious dialogue conference can demonstrate to others how the classic itself assists us in our struggles toward attaining earth justice.14 These works suggest ways for us to become dreamers and visionaries —much needed vocations these days—and interreligious dialogue could serve as a school for such creative pursuits. It could be said of these authors (Martin Buber, the Ikhwan al-Safa, and Pope Francis I) that they are dreamers. They dream of human lives enriched by respectful relationships with each other and with other creatures, and they suggest that such a vision is an “already, but not yet” reality of humankind. Such work may be all that is needed to spark the energy, the enthusiasm, the collaboration, the ecological conversion needed for peace-making and earth-defending as we claim kinship and friendship with those we meet and plan in community “What is to be done?” In his latest book, Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life (May, 2016)15 Pulitzer-Prize winner biologist E.O. Wilson ponders the “What is to be done?” question and offers a way to perhaps reverse the tragedy of diminishing biodiversity and wildlife habitat. His anguish about this loss is compelling. He tells us that most life forms living on earth now have not yet been discovered, and we are destroying them even before we know them! Species that we know exist, however, tell us, not in words but with their declining numbers at ever-increasing rates of diminishment, that we must do something now. Wilson’s solution to the problem that he defines in Half-Earth: reserve half of the surface of the planet for other species, and as we do so, increase the likelihood that the human species will thrive as well (185-187)! We might extend our park reserves to do this (186). Eco-tourism improves national economies! (See for example the opportunities for ecotourism that Belize, in Central America, offers— much to the economic advantage of the country.) This solution is certain to prompt a variety of responses from anyone who takes it seriously! We might even consider how we as a group could suggest such a plan or another of our own making, and present it to our communities when we return home. We could plan a video conference/dialogue. We could work toward discovering ways to enlarge



14 There may be exceptions, however, to the general rule that a presenter-advocate for a text should represent the faith from which the text stems. For example, Lenn Goodman is a world-renowned expert on the Ikhwan al-Safa’s The Case of the Animals. We use his translation and introduction here. He is Jewish; the Sincere Brethren are Muslim. 15 London: W.W. Norton & Co. Ltd.



308

Chapter Seventeen

our parks that serve our communities at home and set portions of land aside for wildlife preservation, and then submit our proposal for sustainability to government individuals and agencies. Why not teach wildlife preservation and the defense of biological diversity as subjects of critical reflection in our classes? Why not engage our students, inviting them to research the environmental crisis, deliver papers at conferences, and experience face-to-face dialogue with other students, faculty, and interested parties? Why not feature classical texts from our religious traditions to inspire awe, wonder, and love for other creatures who deserve the right to thrive and develop. How do we cultivate an eco-spirituality that is also politically active? We will end our interreligious dialogue/conference on nature and the environment with follow-up action and perhaps suggestions for policy. The fruits of our labors will surely not disappoint us!

Bibliography Bergson, Henri. Introduction to Metaphysics. Edited by H. Kolkman. UK: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007. Buber, Martin. I and Thou. With a New Postscript by the Author. Translated by Ronald Gregor Smith. New York: Scribners, 1958. Francis I. On Care for Our Common Home: Laudato Si’. Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2015. Hornung, Maria. Encountering Other Faiths. Paulist Press, 2007. IkhwƗn al-SƗfa’. The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of the Jinn. Goodman, Lenn E. & Richard McGregor, Translators. Oxford & London: The Oxford University Press, 2009. Kramer, Paul Kenneth and Mechthild Gawlick. Martin Buber’s I and Thou: Practicing Living Dialogue. New York: Paulist Press, 2003. Lonergan, Bernard. Method in Theology. New York: Seabury Press, 1972. Marshall, Katherine, convener. 2011. https://s3.amazonaws.com/berkleycenter/FaithandEnvironment Meeting Report_Final.pdf. Berkeley, California. Martin-Schramm, James B., Daniel T. Spencer, Laura A. Stivers. Earth Ethics: A Case Method Approach. New York: Orbis Books, 2015. Rolston, Holmes III. The New Environmental Ethics: The Next Millennium for Life on Earth. New York: Routledge, 2012. Rubenstein, Richard E. Aristotle’s Children. How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Dark Ages. New York: Harcourt, 2002.

‘That We May Sow Beauty’

309

Swidler, Len and Paul Mojzes, eds. Attitudes of Religions and Ideologies toward the Outsider: The Other. The Edwin Mellon Press, 1990. Swidler, Len. Dialogue for Interreligious Understanding: Strategies for Understanding for Culture-Shaping Institutions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Tirosh-Samuelson, Hava, ed. Judaism and Ecology: Created World and Revealed Word. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2002. Wilson, Edward O. Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life. New York: W. W. Norton, 2016.



CONTRIBUTORS

Catherine Keller Catherine Keller is Professor of Constructive Theology at the Theological School of Drew University. In her teaching, lecturing and writing, she develops the relational potential of a theology of becoming. Her books reconfigure ancient symbols of divinity for the sake of a planetary conviviality—a life together, across vast webs of difference. Thriving in the interplay of ecological and gender politics, of process cosmology, poststructuralist philosophy and religious pluralism, her work is both deconstructive and constructive in strategy. M. Ashraf Adeel Currently Professor of Philosophy at Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, M. Ashraf Adeel has held a Professorship in Philosophy at University of Peshawar and worked as the founding Vice-Chancellor of Hazara University in Pakistan. He was a senior Visiting Fellow at Linacre College Oxford in 1999 and has also served as President of Pakistan’s Philosophical Congress (the country’s premier association of philosophers). Adeel has published research articles in philosophy of language, science, Islamic Ethics, and epistemology. His book titled How Do We Deal With Different World Views If They Are Based On The Same Evidence: The Philosophical Problem of Underdetermination in Quine and Davidson is a sustained defense of underdetemination and the possibility of alternative conceptual schemes or world views both in science and in general. His most recent articles include “Moderation in Greek and Islamic Traditions and A Virtue Ethics of the Quran”, The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, Vol. 32, No. 3, summer 2015, “The Evolution of Quine's Thinking on the Thesis of Underdetermination and Scott Soames' Accusation of Paradoxicality”, HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science. Vol. 5, spring 2015, and “The Concept of Understanding in Jaspers and Contemporary Epistemology” Existenz, Vol. 10/1, spring 2015. Adeel’s anthology of Urdu poems has also come out in 2015 from Pakistan.

312

Contributors

Hussam S. Timani Hussam S. Timani is associate professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Christopher Newport University. He teaches courses in the fields of Islamic and Interfaith studies. Timani is the co-editor of Strangers in this World: Multireligious Reflections on Immigration (2015). Daniel Maoz Dr. Maoz is Vice President of the Canadian Society for Jewish Studies; Professor of Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish Scholar in Residence at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario; and a Research Scholar, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec. His publications include Aggadic Midrash I: Sample Reader (2012). Tatjana Myoko v. Prittwitz Tatjana Myoko v. Prittwitz, is Buddhist Chaplain and Visiting Assistant Professor of the Humanities at Bard College, NY. Her PhD is in comparative literature. She established an archive on the history of exhibition since 1960 at the Center for Curatorial Studies, Bard College. She conducts research on Joseph Beuys, and the intersection of the arts, spirituality, and ecology. She follows the Zen path of haiku, painting (sumi-e) and tea (chado). Jamison Stallman Jamison Stallman received a Bachelor of Arts from Luther College in Decorah, IA, majoring in both Biology and Religion. He is presently a Master of Arts Candidate for Union Theology Seminary in New York City for 2017. In 2014 he presented “The Buddhist-Christian Conversation about Environmental Ethics” at the National Conference on Undergraduate Research (NCUR) in Lexington, KY. The year prior he presented “Luther Sustainability Grant Fund” at the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education Conference in Nashville, TN. Nancy M. Rourke Nancy M. Rourke, PhD, is a Catholic ethicist at Canisius College in Buffalo, NY. She earned her PhD at St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth, in Ireland and currently teaches and writes in areas of bioethics and environmental ethics. Barbara Pemberton Barbara B. Pemberton, Ph.D., Baylor University, is Professor of Christian Missions and Director of the Carl Goodson Honors Program at Ouachita

Nature and the Environment in Contemporary Religious Contexts

313

Baptist University. She lived in Saudi Arabia for over ten years and is a frequent conference leader and speaker on Islam and Christian-Muslim relations. Her other research and writing interests include comparative sacred texts, sacred space, and religious art and music. Richard C. Salter Richard C. Salter is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY. His areas of expertise include Christian Traditions, Caribbean Religions, and American Civil Religion. Fatih Harpci Fatih Harpci graduated from Marmara University in Turkey. In order to contribute to interfaith dialogue, especially among Christians and Muslims, he earned his MATS from Moravian Theological Seminary in Bethlehem, PA. Harpci received his PhD in Religion from Temple University in Philadelphia, PA. He is currently an Assistant Professor in the Religion Department at Carthage College in Kenosha, WI. Narwaraj Chaulagain Nawaraj Chaulagain is an Assistant Professor in Religious Studies at Illinois Wesleyan University, Bloomington, IL. He is presently working on the Sanskrit coronation manuals of the Maratha King Shivaji (regnal, ca. 1674-1680 CE). His planned research works include a comparative study of the consecration rituals in the Jain, Hindu and Buddhist temples; Interfaith Relations and Dialogues; Comparative Religions; Yoga and Meditations; and Religion and Literature. Marvin L. Mich Marvin Mich is the Director of Advocacy at Catholic Family Center (Catholic Charities) in Rochester, NY. He is a leader in Roc/ACTS, a community organization in Rochester. He is the author of Catholic Social Teachings and Movements (1998); The Challenge and Spirituality of Catholic Social Teaching (2011) and co-author with George Dardess of In the Spirit of St. Francis and the Sultan: Catholics and Muslims Working Together for the Common Good (2011). Monica Weis Monica Weis SSJ, Professor Emerita at Nazareth College, has taught various courses in American Literature and rhetoric. She was a Fullbright Visiting Professor at the University of Pannonia, Vesprem, Hungary (Fall



314

Contributors

2011) and has lectured and published widely on Thomas Merton. Her most recent book is Thomas Merton and the Celts. Andrii Krawchuk Andrii Krawchuk ([email protected]) is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Sudbury, Canada. Author of Christian Social Ethics in Ukraine (Toronto, 1997), co-editor with Thomas Bremer of Eastern Orthodox Encounters of Identity and Otherness: Values, SelfReflection, Dialogue (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), and coeditor with Thomas Bremer of Churches in the Ukrainian Crisis (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), he is currently studying interreligious dialogue and intercultural ethics in the wake of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Michael D. Calabria Michael Calabria, PhD, is the founding director of the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies at St. Bonaventure University where he teaches courses on Islam, Middle Eastern History, Islamic Art and Architecture, and Christian-Muslim relations. He earned his doctorate in Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter (2015). Leocadie Lushombo Leocadie Lushombo is a student from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) who is doing her PhD in Theological Ethics at Boston College. She completed her Masters in Theological Ethics at Catholic Theological Union (Chicago) and in Sustainable Development at the Universidad Pontificio Comillas (Madrid). She has worked as a Consultant-Trainer in Organizational Development regarding issues of degradation of the environment, gender, and political rights in the DRC, Cameroon, and Peru. Her research interests are political participation and African ethics. Elizabeth Adams-Eilers Elizabeth Adams-Eilers is an adjunct assistant professor at Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pa. A chapter from her dissertation was published as the first chapter in Things of the Spirit: Women Writers Constructing Spirituality, Kristina Groover, Ed. (University of Notre Dame Press, 2004). Her academic interests include the study of rhetorical narratology, theological method, and mysticism. She is a member of the Catholic Theological Society of America.

INDEX

African Spirituality, 275, 283 air pollution Delhi, India, 254 Akbar, emperor, 258 akhirah (accountability), 244 Alexy II, Patriarch of Moscow, 239 al-SƗfa, IkhwƗn The Case of the Animals versus Man before the King of the Jinn, 294, 299 Amazonia deforestation in, 277 Anthropocene, 3, 145 anthropocentrism, 220 Aristotle, 87 Babur, emperor, 257 Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch, 237 Benedict XVI, Pope, 104, 108 Bible nature in the, 47, 55 wilderness in the, 47 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 85 Canctorum Cummunio, 86 concept of personhood, 91 concept of will, 89 book of Revelation, 16 Buber, Martin I and Thou, 294, 295 capitalism, 9, 11, 17, 241 Carson, Rachel, 229, 232 Catholicism environmental ethics in, 50, 111, 221 Christianity environmental ethics in, 38, 44, 147, 227

climate change, 9, 10, 17, 77, 86, 92, 109, 218, 275, 281 causes of, 86 Colonialism, 245, 279 Conference of Latin American Bishops, 211 Congo colonization of, 279 Congo Basin deforestation in, 276 logging and mining in, 279 consumerism, 45, 103, 234, 248 creation, 43, 44, 96, 102, 103, 109, 111, 241, 255, 285, 301, 306 Christian doctrine of, 50 in African spirituality, 286, 288 in Catholic writing, 207, 228, 231 in Hindu scripture, 186 in Jewish Scripture, 60 in the Bible, 12, 145, 154, 156, 238 in the Qur'an, 13, 29, 40, 131, 139, 166, 169, 171, 238, 244 curas villeros (slum priests), 211 Darwinism, 48, 96 DDT, 229, 234 deforestation, 277 Descartes, 87 DevƯ MƗhƗtmya, 183 and ecological consciousness, 191 battles in, 189 divine and demonic in, 185 dharma, 183 Documentary Hypothesis, 151 Dome of the Rock, 256 earth, 195

316 collective ownership of, 31 in the DevƯ MƗhƗtmya, 185 in the Qur'an, 139, 169 intrinsic value of, 285 man as steward of, 288, 303 man entrusted with, 41 man's dominion over, 12, 48, 61, 142, 174, 227, 239 man's relationship with, 25, 72, 81, 87, 154 man's responsibility for, 232 ecological humanism, 19, 20 Environmental Protection Agency, 229 environmentalism, 8, 20, 253 Christian theology of, 50 eschatology, 46 exceptionalism, 11 fire, 98, 199 floods, 98 Francis of Assisi, Saint, 234, 303, 305 Canticle of the Sun, 304 Francis, Pope, 109, 207, 216, 278, 286 encyclicals of, 101 Laudato Si’, 109, 219, 228, 233, 294, 303 Heaven, 42, 132, 177 Hebrew Bible, 145, 151, 155 creation stories in, 152 Hickey Center for Interfaith Studies and Dialogue, 1 Hindu environmental ethics in, 183 NavarƗtri festival, 193 religious texts and traditions, 184 holistic biocentrism, 19, 25 India environmental challenges, 184 environmentalism in, 253 individual biocentrism, 23 individualistic biocentrism, 19 interconnectedness, principle of, 286 interdependence, 231

Index intrinsic worth, principle of, 285 Islam, 13 environmental teachings of, 28, 32, 38, 40, 51, 165, 166, 238, 243, 255 the sciences in, 171 Islamic architecture, 256 Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change, 13 Islamophobia, 8 Jahangir, emperor, 259 Jesus, 92, 97, 98, 156, 159 in African spirituality, 284 John Paul II encyclicals of, 103 John Paul II, Pope addresses, 102 Kyivan Rus’, monasteries of, 240 Laudato Si’. See Francis, Pope Lycée Wima, 287 McDonagh, Father Sean, 221 Medellin Conference, 210 Merton, Thomas, 50, 230 modernization of India, 272 Mughal Dynasty, 253 art and architecture, 253 carpets and textiles, 267 clothing, 263 decorative arts, 267 poetry and prose, 268 Mumtaz, empress, 262 mutual custodianship, principle of, 288 Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, 245, 273 nature balance in, 30, 177 exploitation of, 20, 30, 31, 49, 152, 245 human relation to, 154 intrinsic value of, 26, 298 man's dominion over, 45 obedience to God, 43 relation to God, 28 spiritual significance of, 46 Nepal environmental challenges, 184

Nature and the Environment in Contemporary Religious Contexts New Testament, 145, 155 nature in the, 156 storms in the, 159 Niche Theory, 94 Nicholas of Cusa, 14 nihilism, 15 original sin, 88 Orthodox Christianity environmental ethics in, 237 Paradise, 260 in the Qur'an, 176 political theology, 10 pollution India, 254 poverty, 33, 214, 217, 290 Psalm 37, 123 land in, 136 structure of, 126 purpose, principle of, 287 Qur’an nature in the, 28, 30, 32, 40, 165, 166 Sura 21, 129 Ram Bagh, 257 refugees, 10, 281 Roman Catholic environmental ethics in, 101 Russian Holy Synod, 238 Russian Orthodox environmental issues, 239



317

sacred space, 97, 141 saints, 302 Schmitt, Carl, 10 Secularism, 39, 48 Shah Jahan, emperor, 262, 265, 267 Shahjahanabad, 263 Shalimar Garden, 260 Shi’i theology, 43 Social Darwinism, 96 Solidarity, 105, 217 Southeast Asia deforestation in, 277 Stewardship of nature, 50, 239, 241, 243, 248 Sufism, 44, 270 Sura 21, 123 structure of, 130 Systems ecology, 112 Taj Mahal, 262 tawhid, 13, 15, 16, 51, 166, 168, 238, 243 The Emergency of the Socially Excluded (conference), 212 Turkson, Cardinal Peter, 214 Umayyad Mosque, 256 voice, principle of, 286 Wilson, E.O., 309 World Meeting of Popular Movements, 215, 222 Yamuna River, 254