Showing posts with label Spiritual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spiritual. Show all posts

“Pricilla, Aquilla and Paul” Paper presented and published at Asian Conference held in Manila, Philippines from 7th to the 12th November 2005

WWME 30th ASIAN CONFERENENCE
7th to 12th November, 2005, Manila, Philippines.
FORMATION 1
PRISCILLA, AQUILA & PAUL

  1. Introduction

Davis-

When we look at the early Church in the New Testament we find a variety of different communities, which are often centred in people’s homes. And perhaps what is most surprising there is no distinct clergy as such, certainly not a celibate clergy. In fact, as we comb the pages of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St Paul we come across two married couples who have a pivotal role to play in the evolution of the early church. Both couples are friends of Paul. In fact the first couple, ANDRONICUS & JUNIA, are described in Romans 16/7 as “my relatives, and quite prominent among the apostles”. We should understand the word ‘apostle’ here not as one of the twelve, but rather as one of those who had seen the Lord and had been commissioned by him to preach the Gospel and found new churches. Isn’t it quite extraordinary that we have an apostolic couple, a couple who were known and respected as excellent apostles.

The second couple is PRISCILLA (or PRISCA) & AQUILA, described by St Paul in Romans 16/3 as “my co-workers”. We know that Priscilla & Aquila had an extraordinary friendship with Paul, which lasted over 25 years. We also know that Paul was instrumental in their conversion and in their extraordinary generous commitment to the mission of the early church. I really ask myself if this threesome, these lifelong friends in the Lord’s vineyard, were not in fact the very first ecclesial team!

  1. Priscilla & Aquila’s  Conversion   

2.1 Agnes - Read Acts 18/1-3 
           
“After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth.  There he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife, Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome.  Paul went to see them and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them, and they worked together – by trade they were tentmakers” This happened in 49AD

2.1   Alex. - 

Paul lived and worked from Priscilla and Aquila’s home and he had an incredible influence on them and their religious formation because the three of them set sail for Syria as a team –

Acts 18/18  “After staying there for a considerable time (perhaps 18 months) Paul said farewell to the believers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila” In that 18 months Aquila had become a Christian, and the couple had become so convinced of Christ’s message that they were willing to sell up and go on mission with Paul

2.1   Sharing H/W/P

Alex.-


I was fortunate to have this strong formation in my faith but it was not until our original Marriage Encounter Weekend that I realised just how blessed I was and how the weekend awakened a desire to make a more conscious effort to reach out and share that faith. My weekend turned me from a passive Catholic into a passionate Catholic. Here I was with this wonderful gift of Faith, this wonderful spouse to share my life and this dream of changing the world. I was like a crusader on a mission, I had a message and a gift that the rest of the world deserved to have a share of and the great thing was that I was not alone. I had these wonderfully committed Marriage Encounter people to guide me, to teach me, to dampen my sometimes over enthusiasm but best of all to walk the walk with me. People like Andrea and Anna who workshopped our first block of talks, who gave up their evenings to guide us and keep us on focus, people like Des and Andrea who challenged us into our first leadership role over 20 years ago and who had formed us and supported us in our journey. These were just a few of the people who wanted to journey the same journey we wanted. These are some of the people that taught us that we were indeed a part of this wonderful Body of Christ.

One of the greatest gifts Marriage Encounter has given me is my new understanding of Priesthood and the place that Priests have in my life.
While my childhood experience of Priest had been a positive and enjoyable experience, it was also a time when I put them on pedestal, when I revered them as God’s representative on earth and where I judged they were different to us. Almost unhuman, saintly, set apart, someone to be feared, liked but not loved, respected but not loved. They performed Gods work on earth and were therefore better and holier than us mere mortals, they were nice guys but they were different. Thank God for Marriage Encounter, because it was there that I learned to love and share my life with some wonderful guys that also had chosen to be Priests. My love for these guys has changed my life, I have been blessed with the presence of Paul in my life, of Carl in my life of Ron and Matthew in my life and now with John in my life. 

Agnes –

Our Marriage Encounter weekend awakened so many dreams in me.  It gave me the tools and inspiration to dream great dreams for our marriage; the weekend also gave me a wonderful opportunity to live out those dreams.  I was able to learn new things about myself and grow in our love relationship.   We discovered such energy and passion in our marriage; we were on fire with love for each other.

But that’s not the only gift that we received on that wonderful weekend.  We also received the gift of mission; we were reborn in our commitment and love for our faith and our church.  And we discovered that Priests were people too!  We had the rare opportunity to discover and fall in love with our Priests. 

We discovered a different church than what we had experienced before and we so wanted to be a part of this great church.  The people that we met in this church had such a fire in their bellies for their church.  Their faith and commitment to their little church inspired us, we felt so enthused by these people. 


Those people we worked with and played with in our early days in Marriage Encounter really guided us; they took us by the hand and led us.  They inspired us to greater things in our own relationship and showed us how we too could be apostolic.

Davis -

The very first time I felt an extraordinary strong call to mission deep in my guts happened on my original Marriage Encounter weekend. I was captivated by the strong sense of mission and love of our church, which the team couples, so obviously had. Their love, vision and enthusiasm were contagious, and I longed to work with them in some way. I came under the influence of extraordinary couples, Emy and Colin, Albert and Cecilia, Gerry and Marie, whose capacity for love, service and sheer hard work gave me a wholly new vision of what being apostolic meant. They had a remarkable gift of relationship and of making the Gospel speak to people of today. I always learnt so much just by being in their presence – little things, such as criticism kills, affirmation builds; and bigger things, such as every worthwhile meeting should contain three elements – formation, affirmation, and information. They were prayerful, reflective and wise when they began to found a new community, when they selected and formed leaders, when they communicated with all the relevant stakeholders, and when they confronted difficult problems within a particular community. They were my heroes, and my mentors, and I was able to share with them my own hopes and dreams, and my challenges and difficulties, in mission. Their commitment to the church and ME made me feel very close to them it was my privilege to have worked and the Unit co-ordinating team priest with Colin and Emy, Gerry and Marie. As NET I worked very closely with Chacko and Valsa for five years. Their sense of commitment to ME and capacity to work and ability to provide good and effective leadership made feel very close to them and we worked together for the growth of ME India. It was indeed a very enriching experience. As an ecclesial team we learned to share our negative and positive feelings; our concerns and constraints.  As we worked together in leadership position I was challenged to reveal more of myself than I ever had before, and to communicate my own feelings, especially the negative ones that were affecting the relationships. And now as ACT, I am delighted to work with Alex and Agnes Cho fro Korea. They are efficient, committed, hardworking and loving. Though we are at different places we communicate through e-mail and phone calls and we have come very close to each other. We share the same dream of working as an  effective ecclesial team for Asia. Now I begin to understand more deeply what an ecclesial team is all really about, and why this more relationship style of leadership is important for our church. I constantly thank all those couples who have shared their faith and love with me. I would like to tell all the NETs present here and in particular to all the couples that we love you and appreciate your partnership with us in the ministry of spreading the good news. Your commitment to ME and catholic church would always remain source of inspiration.
                                                                                                                         
3. Priscilla & Aquila’s  home as church

3.1 Davis

We know that Paul’s first stay in Corinth lasted some 18 months and that we stayed with his newfound friends and fellow-minsters, Priscilla & Aquila, around 50AD. Several years Paul is residing in Ephesus, and in his first letter to the Corinthians which he writes from Ephesus (around 54AD) he sends: “hearty greeting in the Lord from Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house” (1 Cor 16/19). Clearly they have followed Paul, and their house in Ephesus has become the centre for Christian gathering in that city. By the time Paul writes the letter to the Romans several years later still (around 57AD) Aquila & Prisca have returned to Rome, and sure enough they establish “a church in their place”(Rom 16/5). They have become the centre of the local church wherever they are. Christians gather in their house for the weekly Eucharist, listening to God’s word, for baptisms for prayer and fellowship; their home is truly a domestic church, a house-church, a home that is always open to fellow believers, where there would be prayer-meetings, outreach to those in need, and discussions on mission.


3.1   Couple sharing

Alex –

Before our weekend my experience of Church in the Home was those times when we would have a house Mass. It never occurred to me that church existed outside the church building walls or for our family sometimes in our lounge. I really had no concept that church was about loving, about example and about reaching out. Church was an institution that had leaders called Priests that were there to save our souls, protect us from the fires of hell, save us from the loneliness of purgatory and to prepare us for heaven. If anyone had said Agnes’s and my relationship was a little church I would have looked sideways at him or her. My time in Marriage Encounter has shed a new light on Church. I now know that when I love Agnes I am reflecting Christ’s love that is church. I know when I am reaching out to others, that is church. I know when I am supporting and loving our Priests, that is church. I know that when our light is shining like the lighthouse beacon that is church. I know that our love relationship is a refection of Christs love relationship with his spouse, the church. I know that church is people and that my relationship with people is a mirror of church. Before my weekend I had no idea of the power of a relationship with a priest. As I have said, Priests were holy people, set apart, to be revered not loved. How wrong I was. My acceptance of Priests as people, as men needing love and acceptance was a changing point in my relationship with the church. What a powerful sign to the world of Christs love for his people is the ecclesial relationship of a priest and a couple. For me, the relationship of Aquila, Pricilla and Paul is a shining example of this relationship church that we now know is the mirror of Christ. So from being raised in an atmosphere of church as an institution I am now blessed with the knowledge that church in our home has nothing to do with visits from priests, house masses or saying the rosary, but all about being a living shining light of a relationship way of life, it is all about reflecting Christs love to the world through my relationships. And the good part is that there is no sacrifice involved, the more I love, the more I receive, the more I forgive, and the more I am forgiven. Now when I speak of church in my home I no longer mean my house, I mean my heart because it is in my heart that I keep all those that I love.

Agnes - 

On our original weekend the concept of “little church” really captured. My imagination.  The couples on the weekend presented it in such a way that I could relate to.  Here I was being presented with a concept that I could take home and use in my own life, a concept that could only bring life to our relationship.

Over the years since those couples planted that seed in my heart about “little Church” my understanding and growth in this area has been great.  I’ve learnt about my love relationship with Alex mirroring the love relationship we have with God.  What an amazing, freeing, growth-inducing concept this has been in our life. 

Knowing that my holiness is intimately linked with my relationship brings the church into my home.  It makes my home a holy place, a sacred place, a place where God is lifted up and revered on a daily basis. 

Being a part of an ecclesial team has been a wondrous journey for us.  Until this new journey we have always been an ecclesial team with Fr Peter.  We have journeyed with him, laughed with him, trialogued with him, cried with him, argued with him, and loved him.   Over the years he has become a part of our family, he comes to our home not as a guest but as a special family member who is always welcome and who fits in as a close family member does.   We share such wonderful memories with Peter, the travel stories, the playing stories, going to shows together, the list goes on.  When Peter recently moved his parish we were automatically asked to speak at his our situation and take dinner earlier this year.  Peter brings richness to our family church and he truly is an intimate part of the fabric of our lives.

3.1 Davis-

When we come to 2 Timothy, Paul’s last letter, we are in the last year of his life, 64AD. Paul is in prison in Rome and his life’s work is almost over. In 2 Tim 4/1 the couple is mentioned again, and it is quite possible they are back in the East and that their home is once again a house-church. Paul’s friendship with this couple has lasted through 15 years, and has obviously been a source of support and inspiration for him.

Davis-

I can say without the shadow of a doubt that my chief inspiration in my personal life and in my priesthood has been the close friendship I have with several couples. Friendship with five couples in particular began with the leadership position we shared as an ecclesial team and weekend teams. We naturally went through our communication difficulties and struggles with our own superiorities and inferiorities. We learnt more about our personality styles and our behaviour patterns, and began to trust each other on a deeper level, we shared more fully our hopes and dreams, our difficulties and our pain. I was challenged not only to stay in the relationship, but to be committed to being intimate and responsible always. I began to relax more fully, and found myself sharing aspects of my life that I never had before; the more I shared, the more I was drawn into the relationship. I realized that I became more open and trusting with my staff members (all Professors) young University students and parishioners of the Cathedral church where I have been serving for the past23 years, and far more positive and affirming in my general approach to life. On behalf all the priests here I would like to thank all the couple here leaders of  WWME,  for your partnership in the gospel. I appreciate very much your strong sense of commitment to each other and church and ME. I have learned much form you r commitment, “in good times and bad, in sickness and health, in adversity and prosperity I shall honour you and love and remain true to you, till death do us part.” It is so easy for a priest to ask for a transfer when the relationship between the priest and people are not so pleasing. Where as you stick to one model!! In my many retreats I have preached to Religious and Priest, I have told them that I consider my parents as holier than me; so is the case for every priest and Religious!!! Their life of fidelity and love, sacrifice and devotion has always inspired and motivated me.

After leadership our friendship grew. I had gained so much on a personal level. I valued the intimacy we shared immensely. Whenever I was struggling our trialogue would so quickly remind me of the love, which was surrounding me. Whenever I needed advice or counselling their attentive listening and honest challenging would bring wisdom and perspective to the situation. Our relationship has been part and parcel of my personal and spiritual journey. They have helped me move beyond the institutional church with all its shortcomings and failures, and any anger I might have with it, to a more accepting level of life where relationship, community, mystery  of faith and trust in the Lord are the essentials. Their relationship and their wonderful faith remind me of what is essential,

Over the years their home became my home, and I was always welcomed as part of their family, especially at special family celebrations. I felt loved and respected both as a human being and as a priest. I often think that they are my Bethany in my journey through life. You see I’m pretty sure that Jesus’ most intimate friendships were with Martha, Mary and Lazarus, rather than with his disciples, and I know that a lifelong friendship is one of the sweetest joys in life, which I am sure was also prized by Jesus.

 SHARING: WHAT DOES IDEA OF OUR HOME As a LITTLE CHURCH MEAN TO ME TODAY?

                                 How does it make me feel now?

Splendor and Crisis of Creation: The Biblical Vision

1. Environmental Awareness: Respect for Nature

There is a growing awareness that world peace is threatened not only by the arms race, regional conflicts and continued injustices among peoples and nations, but also by a lack of due respect for nature, by the plundering of natural resources and by a progressive decline in the quality of life. The sense of precariousness and insecurity that such a situation engenders is a seedbed for collective selfishness, disregard for others and dishonesty.

Faced with the widespread destruction of the environment, people everywhere are coming to understand that we cannot continue to use the goods of the earth as we have in the past. The public in general, as well as political leaders are concerned about this problem, and experts from a wide range of disciplines are studying its causes. Moreover, a new Environmental awareness is beginning to emerge which, rather than being downplayed, ought to be encouraged to develop into concrete programs and initiatives.

 Many ethical values, fundamental to the development of a peaceful society, are particularly relevant to the ecological question. The fact that many challenges facing the world today are interdependent confirms the need for carefully coordinated solutions based on a morally coherent worldview.

 In the Book of Genesis, where we find God's first self-revelation to humanity (Gen 1-3), there is a recurring refrain: "and God saw it was good". After creating the heavens, the sea, the earth and all it contains, God created man and woman. At this point the refrain changes markedly: "And God saw everything he had made, and behold, it was very good " (Gen 1:31). God entrusted the whole of creation to the man and woman, and only then -- as we read -- could he rest "from all his work" (Gen 2:3).

2. Development and Ecological Balance

Two decades ago it was common to speak of the need for economic "development" among "backward" nations. The assumption behind this language was that Western-style industrialization was the model of progress, and that all nations could be judged by how far they had come along on that road. Poor nations were poor because they were at some retarded stage of this evolutionary road of development. They needed economic assistance from more "developed" nations to help them "take off" faster.

In the mid-’60s there were two major movements of dissent from this model of "developmentalism." One of them occurred primarily among social thinkers in the Third World, especially Latin America, who began to reject the idea of development for that of liberation. They contended that poor countries were poor not because they were "undeveloped," but because they were miss-developed. They were the underside of a process in which, for five centuries, Western colonizing countries had stripped the colonized countries of their wealth, using cheap or slave labor, in order to build up the wealth which now underlies Western capitalism. One could not overcome this pattern of misdevelopment by a method of "assistance" that merely continues and deepens the pattern of pillage and dependency, which created the poverty in the first place.

A few years after this critique of development from a Third World standpoint, a second dissenting movement appeared, primarily among social thinkers in advanced industrial countries. This movement focused on the issue of modern industrialized societies’ ecological disharmony with the carrying capacities of the natural environment. It dealt with such issues as air, water and soil pollution the increasing depletion of finite resources, including minerals and fossil fuels; and the population explosion. This dissent found dramatic expression in the Club of Rome’s report on Limits to Growth, which demonstrated that indefinite expansion of Western-style industrialization was, in fact, impossible. This system, dependent on a small affluent minority using a disproportionate share of the World’s natural resources, was fast depleting the base upon which it rested: nonrenewable resources. To expand this type of industrialization would simply accelerate the impending debacle; instead, we must stop developing and try to stabilize the economic system and population where they are.

These two critiques of development -- the third World liberation perspective and the First World ecological perspective -- soon appeared to be in considerable conflict with each other. The liberation viewpoint stressed pulling control over the natural resources of poor countries out from under Western power so that the developmental process could continue under autonomous, socialist political systems. The First World ecological viewpoint often sounded, whether consciously or not, as though it were delivering bad news to the hopes of poor countries. Stabilizing the world as it is seemed to suggest stabilizing its unjust relationships. The First World, having developed advanced industry at the expense of the labor and resources of the Third World, was now saying: "Sorry, the goodies have just run out. There’s not enough left for you to embark on the same path." Population alarmists sounded as though Third World populations were to be the primary "targets" for reduction. Social justice and the ecological balance of humanity with the environment were in conflict. If one chose ecology, it was necessary to give up the dream of more equal distribution of goods.

2.1. Religious Responses to Environmental Crisis

In the late ‘60s there rose a spate of what might be called theological or religious responses to the ecological crisis, again primarily in advanced industrial countries. Two major tendencies predominated among such writers. One trend, represented by books, such as Theodore Roszak’s Where the Wasteland Ends, saw the ecological crisis in terms of the entire Western Judeo-Christian reality principle. Tracing the roots of this false reality principle to the Hebrew Bible itself, Roszak, among others, considered the heart of the ecological crisis to be the Biblical injunction to conquer and subdue the earth and have dominion over it. The earth and its nonhuman inhabitants are regarded as possessions or property given to "man" for "his" possession. "Man" exempts "himself" (and I use the male generic advisedly) from the community of nature, setting himself above and outside it somewhat as God "himself" is seen as sovereign over it. Humanity is God’s agent in this process of reducing the autonomy of nature and subjugating it to the dominion of God and God’s representative, man.

For Roszak and others, this conquest-and-dominion approach turned nature into a subjugated object and denied divine presence in it. Humanity could no longer stand in rapt contemplation before nature or enter into worshipful relations with it. A sense of ecstatic kinship between humanity and nature was destroyed. The divinities were driven out, and the rape of the earth began. In order to reverse the ecological crisis, therefore, we must go back to the root error of consciousness from which it derives. We must recover the religions of ecstatic kinship in nature that preceded and were destroyed by biblical religion. We must re-immerse God and humanity in nature, so that we can once again interact with nature as our spiritual kin, rather than as an enemy to be conquered or an object to be dominated. Only when we recover ancient animism’s I-Thou relationship with nature, rather than the I-It relation of Western religion, can we recover the root principle of harmony with nature that was destroyed by biblical religion and its secular stepchildren.

This neo-animist approach to the ecological crisis was persuasive, evoking themes of Western reaction to industrialism and technological rationality that began at least as far back as the romanticism of the early 19th century. But many voices quickly spoke up in defence of biblical faith. A variety of writers took exception to romantic neo-animism as the answer, contending that biblical faith in relation to nature had been misunderstood. Most of the writers in this camp tended to come up with the "stewardship" model. Biblical faith does not mandate the exploitation of the earth, but rather commands us to be good stewards, conserving earth’s goods for generations yet to come. In general, these writers did implicitly concede Roszak’s point that biblical faith rejects any mystical or animist interaction with nature. Nature must be regarded as an object, not as a subject. It is our possession, but we must possess it in a thrifty rather than a profligate way.

2.2. Economic Considerations and Environmental Crisis

One problem with both of these Western religious responses to the ecological crisis; there was very little recognition that the crisis took place within a particular economic system. The critique of the Third World liberationists was not accorded much attention or built into these responses; the ecological crisis was regarded primarily as a crisis between "man" and "nature," rather than as a crisis resulting from the way in which a particular exploitative relationship between classes, races and nations used natural resources. The "stewardship" approach suggested a conservationist model of ecology. We should conserve resources, but without much acknowledgment that they had been unjustly used within the system that was being conserved. The counter cultural approach, on the other hand, did tend to be critical of Western industrialism, but in a romantic, primitive way. It idealized agricultural and handicraft economies but had little message for the victims of poverty who had already been displaced from that world of the pre-industrial village. Thus, it has little to say to the concerns of Third World economic justice, except to suggest that the inroads of Western industrialism should be resisted by turning back the clock.
Is there a third approach that has been overlooked by both the nature mystics and the puritan conservationists? Both of these views seem to me inadequate to provide a vision of the true character of the crisis and its solution. We cannot return to the Eden of the pre-industrial village. However, many those societies may possess elements of wisdom, these elements must be recovered by building a new society that also incorporates modern technological development. The counter cultural approach never suggests ways of grappling with and changing the existing system. Its message remains at the level of dropping out into the pre-industrial farm -- an option that, ironically, usually depends on having an independent income!

The stewardship approach, with its mandate of thrift within the present system, rather than recognition of that system’s injustice, lacks a vision of a new and different economic order. Both the romantic and the conservationist approaches never deal with the question of eco-justice; namely, the reordering of access to and use of natural resources within a just economy. How can ecological harmony become part of a system of economic justice?

 

3. Protecting the Environment for Future Generations

 

The common good calls us to extend our concern to future generations. Climate change poses the question "What does our generation owe to generations yet unborn?" As Pope John Paul II has written, "there is an order in the universe which must be respected, and . . . the human person, endowed with the capability of choosing freely, has a grave responsibility to preserve this order for the well-being of future generations."1
A more responsible approach to population issues is the promotion of "authentic development," which represents a balanced view of human progress and includes respect for nature and social well-being.2 Development policies that seek to reduce poverty with an emphasis on improved education and social conditions for women are far more effective than usual population reduction programs and far more respectful of women's dignity.3

 

Developing countries have a right to economic development that can help lift people out of dire poverty. Wealthier industrialized nations have the resources, know-how, and entrepreneurship to produce more efficient cars and cleaner industries. These countries need to share these emerging technologies with the less-developed countries and assume more of the financial responsibility that would enable poorer countries to afford them. This would help developing countries adopt energy-efficient technologies more rapidly while still sustaining healthy economic growth and development.4 Industries from the developed countries operating in developing nations should exercise a leadership role in preserving the environment.

 

4. Misinterpretations of Scripture

To find a theology and/or spirituality of eco-justice, I would suggest that, in fact, our best foundation lies precisely in the Hebrew Bible -- that same biblical vision which, anachronistically, the romantics have labeled as the problem and which the conservationists have interpreted too narrowly and un-perceptively. Isaiah 24 offers one of the most eloquent statements of this biblical vision that is found particularly in the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Puritan conservationists have too readily accepted a 19th century theology that sets history against nature -- a theology which is basically western European rather than biblical. The biblical vision is far more "animistic" than they have been willing to concede. In Scripture, nature itself operates as a powerful medium of God’s presence or absence. Hills leap for joy and rivers clap their hands in God’s presence or, conversely, nature grows hostile and barren as a medium of divine wrath.

The romantics, on the other hand, have blamed Scripture for styles of thought about nature that developed in quite different circles. The concept of nature as evil and alien to humanity began basically in late apocalyptic and Gnostic thought in the Christian era. The divine was driven out of nature not to turn nature into a technological instrument, but rather to make it the habitation of the devil; the religious "man" should shun it and flee from it in order to save "his" soul for a higher spiritual realm outside of and against the body and the visible, created world. Christianity and certainly Judaism objected to this concept as a denial of the goodness of God’s creation, though Christianity became highly infected by this negative view of nature throughout its first few centuries, and that influence continued to be felt until well into the 17th century.

The new naturalism and science of the 17th century initially had the effect of restoring the vision of nature as good, orderly and benign -- the arena of the manifestation of God’s divine reason, rather than of the devil’s malice. But this Deist view of nature (as the manifestation of divine reason) was soon replaced by a Cartesian worldview that set human reason outside and above nature. It is this technological approach -- treating nature as an object to be reduced to human control -- that is the heart of modern exploitation, but it does not properly correspond to any of the earlier religious visions of nature. Any recovery of an appropriate religious vision, moreover, must be one that does not merely ignore these subsequent developments, but that allows us to review and critique where we have gone wrong in our relationship to God’s good gift of the earth. In my opinion, it is precisely the vision of the Hebrew prophets that provides at least the germ of that critical and prophetic vision.


4.1. A Covenantal Vision: Eco Justice

The prophetic vision neither treats nature in a romantic way nor reduces it to a mere object of human use. Rather, it recognizes that human interaction which nature has made with nature itself. In relation to humanity, nature no longer exists "naturally," for it has become part of the human social drama, interacting with humankind as a vehicle of historical judgment and a sign of historical hope. Humanity as a part of creation is not outside nature but within it. But this is the case because nature itself is part of the covenant between God and creation. By this covenantal view, nature’s responses to human use or abuse become an ethical sign. The erosion of the soil in areas that have been abused for their mineral wealth, the pollution of the air where poor people live, are not just facts of nature; what we have is an ethical judgment on the exploitation of natural resources by the rich at the expense of the poor. It is no accident that nature is most devastated where poor people live.

When human beings break their covenant with society by exploiting the labor of the worker and refusing to do anything about the social costs of production -- i.e., poisoned air and waters -- the covenant of creation is violated. Poverty, social oppression, war and violence in society, and the polluted, barren, hostile face of nature -- both express this violation of the covenant. The two are profoundly linked together in the biblical vision as parts of one covenant, so that, more and more, the disasters of nature become less a purely natural fact and increasingly become a social fact. The prophetic text of Isaiah 24 vividly portrays this link between social and natural hostility in the broken order of creation: Behold the Lord will lay waste the earth and make it desolate, and he will twist its surface and scatter its inhabitants . . .The earth shall be utterly laid waste and utterly despoiled; . . . The earth mourns and withers, the world languishes and withers; . . .The earth lies polluted under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes. Broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore, a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; the city of chaos is broken down, every house is shut up so that none can enter . . .Desolation is left in the city; the gates are battered into ruins. [Is. 24:1, 3, 4-5, 10, 12]
                                         
But this tale of desolation in society and nature is not the end of the prophetic vision, when humanity mends its relation to God, the result must be expressed not in contemplative flight from earth but rather in the rectifying of the covenant of creation. The restoration of just relations between peoples restores peace to society and, at the same time, heals nature’s enmity. Just, peaceful societies in which people are not exploited also create, peaceful, harmonious and beautiful natural environments. This outcome is the striking dimension of the biblical vision. The Peaceable Kingdom is one where nature experiences the loss of hostility between animal and animal, and between human and animal. The wolf dwells with the lamb, the leopard lies down with the kid, and the little child shall lead them. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord. . . . (Is. 11:9).

The biblical dream grows as lush as a fertility religion in its description of the flowering of nature in the reconciled kingdom of God’s Shalom. The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad, the desert shall rejoice and blossom; like the crocus it shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice with joy and singing. [Is. 35:1-2] "The tree, bears its fruit, the fig trees and vine give their full yield. Rejoice in the Lord, for he has given early rain the threshing floors shall be full of grain, the vats shall overflow with wine and oil." [Joel 2:22-24]  "Behold the days are coming." says the Lord, "when the plowman will overtake the reaper and the trader of grapes him who sows the seed; the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it." [Amos 9:13]

In the biblical view, the raping of nature and the exploitation of people in society are profoundly understood as part of one reality, creating disaster in both. We look not to the past but to a new future, brought about by social repentance and conversion to divine commandments, so that the covenant of creation can be rectified and God’s Shalom brought to nature and society. Just as the fact of nature and society grows hostile through injustice, so it will be restored to harmony through righteousness. The biblical understanding of nature, therefore, inheres in a human ethical vision, a vision of eco-justice, in which the enmity or harmony of nature with humanity is part of the human historical drama of good and evil. This is indeed the sort of ecological theology we need today, not one of either romance or conservationism, but rather an ecological theology of ethical, social seriousness, through which we understand our human responsibility for ecological destruction and its deep links with the struggle to create a just and peaceful social order.

We could make it a national policy to wean agriculture from its dependence on fossil fuels as rapidly as possible. This effort would merge with existing movements for sustainable agriculture and organic farming. We should also encourage the production of food near the places where it is consumed, reducing dependence on packaging and transportation. Systematic national programs of these sorts would lead to a steady and substantial decline in the emission of greenhouse gases and greatly increase our ability to lead the family of nations into international agreements on the environment. We need to reexamine our basic commitment to economic growth. Why are we so convinced that growth is needed? It does not contribute to general economic betterment. Most of the monetary gains go to the wealthiest 1 percent, and it is doubtful that they are any happier as a result. Why not redirect our emphasis from economic growth to economic improvement as one element in a total improvement of the human and ecological situation?

Our God has for so long been in economic growth that such a proposal may seem heretical and unrealistic. We are called to worship God, not wealth. God cares for the earth. Surely we should put the long-term well being of the earth and all its inhabitants above the enrichment of the rich. If we did so the solution to the problem of global warming would be far easier. We could make it a national policy to wean agriculture from its dependence on fossil fuels as rapidly as possible. This effort would merge with existing movements for sustainable agriculture and organic farming. We should also encourage the production of food near the places where it is consumed, reducing dependence on packaging and transportation. Systematic national programs of these sorts would lead to a steady and substantial decline in the emission of greenhouse gases and greatly increase our ability to lead the family of nations into international agreements on the environment.

We need to reexamine our basic commitment to economic growth. Why are we so convinced that growth is needed? It does not contribute to general economic betterment. Most of the monetary gains go to the wealthiest 1 percent, and it is doubtful that they are any happier as a result. Why not redirect our emphasis from economic growth to economic improvement as one element in a total improvement of the human and ecological situation?  Our god has for so long been economic growth that such a proposal may seem heretical and unrealistic. Christians, however, are called to worship God, not wealth. God cares for the earth. Surely we should put the long-term well being of the earth and all its inhabitants above the enrichment of the rich. If we did so the solution to the problem of global warming would be far easier.

5. Splendor of Creation: Biblical Vision

In Genesis, God said, "till it and keep it", (Gen 2:15) this should be understood not as dominion over the whole world, but as the ‘stewardship’ of human beings over the creatures. We must have a relationship of mutuality with other creatures and we must empathies and participate with, delight in, and accompany the creatures to bring about a communion of all sections of creation whose head is God himself.13 Genesis teaches us that the Lord God formed us "out of the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7; 3:19). Psalm 139 thanks God for fashioning us fearfully and wonderfully "in secret", "in the depths of the earth". The Psalms delight at and are full of awe over the mystery of our intimacy with the earth, our intimacy with "fire and hail, snow and mist", "mountains and all hills", "sea monsters and all depths" (Ps 148). Psalm 104, one of the most lyrical praises, sings the glory of God "robed in light as with a cloak", who "spread out the heavens like a tent cloth" and "made the moon to mark the seasons".

5.1 Creation: Story of Ecological Balance

When we read the Bible we understand that the entire story of creation of the world is so intrinsically connected with the story of ecological balance from within. At His command the earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it and the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and birds fly above the earth and the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. …Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping things that creeps upon the earth.” So God created humankind in his image in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.  God blessed them, and God said to them, “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 1:1- 1:28) The covenant with Noah is indicative of God’s concern for all living creatures along with human beings. Strange but true! (Gen 8:18–9:17)



Seasons of the year and productivity of the land are intrinsically connected with God. You shall keep my Sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord. If you follow my statutes and keep my commandments and observe them faithfully, I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its produce, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit (Lev 26:2–4). But if you will not obey me, and do not observe all these commandments, if you spurn my statutes, and abhor my ordinances, so that you will not observe all my commandments, and you break my covenant, I in turn will do this to you: I will bring terror on you; consumption and fever that waste the eyes and cause life to pine away. You shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it (Lev 26:14–16). Human beings conduct has direct connection with nature’s blessings. “I will break your proud glory, and I will make your sky like iron and your earth like copper. Your strength shall be spent to no purpose: your land shall not yield its produce, and the trees of the land shall not yield their fruit” (Lev 26:19–20). Sensitivity to animals in trouble is appreciated and acknowledged in the Bible. “You shall not watch your neighbor’s ox or sheep straying away and ignore them; you shall take them back to their owner. If the owner does not reside near you or you do not know who the owner is, you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until the owner claims it; then you shall return it. You shall do the same with a neighbor’s donkey; you shall do the same with a neighbor’s garment; and you shall do the same with anything else that your neighbor loses and you find. You may not withhold your help.” (Deut 22:1–4) Again we read: “If you come on a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs, with the mother sitting on the fledglings or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. Let the mother go, taking only the young for yourself, in order that it may go well with you and you may live long.” (Deut 22:6–7)

The Bible shows nature’s link with God who created it, blessed it, and shows himself through it. He appears in fire, in wind, and in water. God also uses nature to bring humans closer to him and to punish them when they go astray. Everything in the world, therefore, remains sacred since it is linked with God and leads to him. Various texts in the Psalms (Ps 19:1-7; 98:7-9; 104:1-5, 13-25; 148:3-13) show that all things on earth are seen as God’s handiwork, which bring him honor and praise by their very existence. However, there is also the perception that creatures can really praise God only through human beings.

The prophet Daniel in a canticle calls on all the "works of the Lord" to bless him: "Let the earth bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever. Mountains and hills, bless the Lord, everything growing from the earth bless the Lord" (Dan 3:74-76). The last chapters of the Book of Job call upon the animals, nature, birds, etc., and praise God for their presence. Chapter 12 urges humans to learn humbly from the earth:  “But ask the animals, and they will teach you; the birds of the air, and they will tell you; ask the plants of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of sea will declare to you. (Job 12:7–8). The Bible is concerned with salvation or life-giving blessings not only in the afterlife but also within this world and within present history, individual and collective. It envisions a new world and a new history. Its salvific concern embraces nature, that is, the earth, air, trees, seas and birds.

5.2 Jesus, an Ecologist

The cosmos is God’s ‘womb’, as it were. The intimate relationship between God and the cosmos explodes with seminal energy that generates and regenerates life. God, as it were, energizes the cosmos and the cosmos in return dances with the creator. In Jesus’ teaching, one can see his ecological concern in his language. He used ordinary creatures such as birds, lilies, grass, etc., to help to put his message of concern for the world across. He also shared his experience of a loving God dynamically present in the world. He is encouraging his listeners to have eyes that see and ears that hear the movement of God in the world. Jesus was passing on to his listeners what he had discovered about God’s reign in the natural things around him.

The miracles of Jesus (thirty seven of them in the Synoptic Gospels and seven in John) form a major section of the Gospels and reveal Jesus’ concern for the world as such. Through the miracles Jesus destroys the "domination" of Satan over the created realities and establishes the "dominion" of God, which is liberating. In this sense all the miracles have ecological resonance. The nature miracles (Mk 4:35-41; 6:45-62, etc.) invite us to trust in the absolute power of God in the midst of ecological disasters. The feeding miracles (Mk 6:30-44; 8:1-10) tell us about the abundant resources of nature, which provide us with food and drink, and which need to be evenly distributed according to the needs of the people. The miracles of exorcism (Mk 5:2-20; Lk 4:35-41, etc.) reveal that cosmic ecological harmony is on the agenda of God who directs the forces of ecocide. The healing miracles (Mk 5:25-34, etc.) call us to be God’s stewards in the restoration of the disfigured images of God in creation, especially, human beings. The resuscitation miracles (Mk 5:21-21, 35-43, etc.) challenge us not to be silent spectators of the world-wide ecological holocaust that is taking place, but to be active agents in the creation of "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev 21:1-4).  A serious reflection on the life-events of Jesus Christ, his teaching and his miracles from an ecological point of view is very inspiring. Today, if one reads the Gospel from an ecological perspective one can see Jesus of the Gospel as an ‘Ecologist.’

6. Estrangement of Humans from Nature

In the Bible's account of Noah, the world's new beginning was marked by the estrangement of humans from nature. Hosea, for example, cries out: There is no fidelity, no mercy and no knowledge of God in the land. False swearing, lying, murder, stealing and adultery! In their lawlessness, bloodshed follows bloodshed. Therefore, the land mourns, and everything that dwells in it languishes: The beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and even the fish of the sea perish (Hos 4:1b-3).

The idea of social justice is inextricably linked in the Scriptures with ecology. In passage after passage, environmental degradation and social injustice go hand in hand. Indeed, the first instance of "pollution" in the Bible occurs when Cain slays Abel and his blood falls on the ground, rendering it fallow. According to Genesis, after the murder, when Cain asks, "Am I my brother's keeper?" the Lord replies, "Your brother's blood calls out to me from the ground. What have you done?" God then tells Cain that his brother's blood has defiled the ground and that as a result, "no longer will it yield crops for you, even if you toil on it forever!"

In today's world, the links between social injustice and environmental degradation can be seen everywhere: the placement of toxic waste dumps in poor neighborhoods, the devastation of indigenous peoples and the extinction of their cultures when the rain forests are destroyed, disproportionate levels of lead and toxic air pollution in inner-city ghettos, the corruption of many government officials by people who seek to profit from the unsustainable exploitation of resources.

In the biblical vision, therefore, injustice results in suffering for all creation.
To curb the abuse of the land and of fellow humans, ancient Israel set out legal protections aimed at restoring the original balance between land and people (see Lev 25). Every seventh year, the land and people were to rest; nature would be restored by human restraint. And every seventh day, the Sabbath rest gave relief from unremitting toil to workers and beasts alike. It invited the whole community to taste the goodness of God in creation. In worship, moreover, the Sabbath continues to remind us of our dependence on God as his creatures, and so of our kinship with all that God has made. But people did not honor the law. A few went on accumulating land, many were dispossessed, and the land itself became exhausted. God then sent his prophets to call the people back to their responsibility. Again the people hardened their hearts; they had compassion for neither the land nor its people. The prophets promised judgment for the evil done the people of the land, but they also foresaw a day of restoration, when the harmony between humanity and the natural world would be renewed (see Is 32:15b-20). Saints like Benedict, Hildegard, and Francis showed us, that we form a community with all creation.

7. Conclusion: Respect the Dynamic Balance in Nature

Theology, philosophy and science all speak of a harmonious universe, of a "cosmos" endowed with its own integrity, its own internal, dynamic balance. This order must be respected. The human race is called to explore this order, to examine it with due care and to make use of it while safeguarding its integrity. On the other hand, the earth is ultimately a common heritage, the fruits of which are for the benefit of. In the words of the Second Vatican Council, "God destined the earth and all it contains for the use of every individual and all peoples" (Gaudium et Spes, 69). This has direct consequences for the problem at hand. It is manifestly unjust that a privileged few should continue to accumulate excess goods, squandering available resources, while masses of people are living in conditions of misery at the very lowest level of subsistence. Today, the dramatic threat of ecological breakdown is teaching us the extent to which greed and selfishness -- both individual and collective -- are contrary to the order of creation, an order that is characterized by mutual interdependence. Our ancestors viewed the earth as rich and bountiful, which it is.  Many people in the past also saw nature as inexhaustibly sustainable, which we now know is the case only if we care for it.  It is not difficult to forgive destruction in the past that resulted from ignorance.  Today, however, we have access to more information.  It is essential that we reexamine ethically what we have inherited, what we are responsible for, and what we will pass on to coming generations.

Clearly this is a pivotal generation.  Global communication is possible, yet confrontations take place more often than meaningful dialogues for peace.  Our marvels of science and technology are matched, if not outweighed, by many current tragedies, including human starvation in some parts of the world and extinction of other life forms.  Exploration of outer space takes place at the same time the earth’s own ocean, seas and freshwater areas grow increasingly polluted, and their life forms are still largely unknown or misunderstood.

Many of the earth's habitats, animals, plants, insects, and even microorganisms that we know as rare may not be known at all by future generations.  We have the capability and the responsibility.  We must act before it is too late. The concepts of an ordered universe and a common heritage both point to the necessity of a more internationally coordinated approach to the management of the earth. In many cases the effects of ecological problems transcend the borders of individual States; hence their solution cannot be found solely on the national level. Recently there have been some promising steps towards such international action, yet the existing mechanisms and bodies are clearly not adequate for the development of a comprehensive plan of action. Political obstacles, forms of exaggerated nationalism and economic interests -- to mention only a few factors – impede international cooperation and long-term effective action. Hence we need to take pro-active steps at the personal, national and international level to keep up the dynamic balance in nature

Bibliography

1)         Bailey, Liberty Hyde. The Holy Earth. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1915.
2)         Bergant, Dianne. The Earth Is the Lord’s: The Bible, Ecology, and Worship. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1998.
3)         Berry, Thomas, and Thomas Clarke. Befriending the Earth: A Theology of Reconciliation between Humans and the Earth. eds. Stephen Dunn and Anne Lonergan. Mystic, Conn.: Twenty-Third Publications, 1991.
4)         Berry, Thomas. The Dream of the Earth. San Francisco, Calif.: Sierra Club Books, 1988.
5)         Bhagat, Shantilal P. Creation in Crisis: Responding to God’s Covenant. Elgin, Ill.: Brethren Press, 1990.
6)         Black, John. The Dominion of Man: The Search for Ecological Responsibility. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1970.
7)         Boff, Leonardo. Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. Translated by Philip Berryman. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997.
8)         Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1–3. ed. John W. de Gruchy. Translated by Douglas Stephen Bax. vol. 3 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1997.
9)         Burrell, David B., and Elena Malits. Original Peace: Restoring God’s Creation. New York: Paulist Press, 1997.
10)       Carmody, John. Ecology and Religion: Toward a New Christian Theology of Nature. New York: Paulist Press, 1983.
11)       Christiansen, Drew, and Walter Grazer, eds. “And God Saw That It Was Good”: Catholic Theology and the Environment. Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1996.
12)       Clinebell, Howard J. Ecotherapy: Healing Ourselves, Healing the Earth. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1996.
13)       Clines, David J. A., ed. The Bible and the Future of the Planet: An Ecology Reader. The Biblical Seminar, no. 56. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
14)       Cohen, Jeremy. “Be Fertile, Fill the Earth and Master It”: The Ancient and Medieval Career of a Biblical Text. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989. Reprint, Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1991.
15)       DeWitt, Calvin B. Caring for Creation: Responsible Stewardship of God’s Handiwork. eds. James W. Skillen and Luis E. Lugo. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998.
16)       Edwards, Denis. Jesus the Wisdom of God: An Ecological Theology. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1995.
17)       Elsdon, Ron. Greenhouse Theology: Biblical Perspectives on Caring for Creation. Tunbridge Wells, England: Monarch, 1992.
18)       Faricy, Robert. Wind and Sea Obey Him: New Approaches to a Theology of Nature. London: SCM Press, 1982. Reprint. Westminster, Md.: Christian Classics, 1988.
19)       Gottlieb, Roger S., ed. This Sacred Earth: Religion, Nature, Environment. New York: Routledge, 1996.
20)       Granberg-Michaelson, Wesley. Redeeming the Creation: The Rio Earth Summit: Challenges for the Churches. Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1992.
21)       Gray, Elizabeth Dodson. Green Paradise Lost. Reprint. Wellesley, Mass.: Roundtable Press, 1981, c1979.
22)       Gregorios, Paulos Mar. The Human Presence: Ecological Spirituality and the Age of the Spirit. New York: Amity, 1987. Originally published as The Human Presence: An Orthodox View of Nature (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978).
23)       Hiebert, Theodore. “Re-imaging Nature: Shifts in Biblical Interpretation.” Interpretation (January 1996): 36–46.
24)       Jegen, Mary Evelyn, and Bruno V. Manno, eds. The Earth Is the Lord’s: Essays on Stewardship. New York: Paulist Press, 1978.
25)       John Paul II, Pope. “Peace with God the Creator-Peace with All of Creation.” World Day of Peace Message, 1 January 1990. Origins, CNS Documentary
26)       Jung, L. Shannon. We Are Home: A Spirituality of the Environment. New York: Paulist Press, 1993.
27)       Vorster, W. S., ed. Are We Killing God’s Earth? Pretoria, South Africa: University of South Africa, 1987.


Ecological Stewardship: The Biblical Perspective
Rev. Dr. Davis George
Abstract
The effects of ecological degradation surround us: the smog in our cities; chemicals in our water and on our food; eroded topsoil blowing in the wind; the loss of valuable wetlands; radioactive and toxic waste lacking adequate disposal sites; threats to the health of industrial and farm workers. The problems, however, reach far beyond our own neighborhoods and work places. Our problems are the world's problems and burdens for generations to come. Poisoned water crosses borders freely. Acid rain pours on countries that do not create it. Greenhouse gases and chlorofluorocarbons have affected the earth's atmosphere for many decades, regardless of where they are produced or used.

The ecological crisis, at its core, is a moral challenge. It calls us to examine how we use and share the goods of the earth, what we pass on to future generations, and how we live in harmony with God's creation. Caught in a spiral of poverty and environmental degradation, poor people suffer acutely from the loss of soil fertility, pollution of rivers and urban streets, and the destruction of forest resources. Overcrowding and unequal land distribution often force them to overwork the soil, clear the forests, or migrate to marginal land. Their efforts to eke out a bare existence adds in its own way to environmental degradation and not infrequently to disaster for themselves and others who are equally poor. Sustainable economic policies that reduce current stresses on natural systems and are consistent with sound environmental policy in the long term, must be put into effect. At the same time, the world economy must come to include hundreds of millions of poor families who live at the edge of survival. In the face of these challenges, a new spirit of responsibility for the earth has begun to grow.

 

We have become more aware that we share the earth with other creatures. But humans, made in the image and likeness of God, are called in a special way to "cultivate and care for it" (Gen 2:15). Thus the Creator of this Universe made human beings stewards of his creation. Men and women, therefore, bear a unique responsibility under God: to safeguard the created world and by their creative labor even to enhance it. Safeguarding creation requires us to live responsibly within it, rather than manage creation as though we are outside it. The human family is charged with preserving the beauty, diversity, and integrity of nature, as well as with fostering its productivity. Yet, God alone is sovereign over the whole earth. "The LORD'S are the earth and its fullness; the world and those who dwell in it" (Ps 24:1).

 

We are not free, therefore, to use created things capriciously. Gandhi once remarked, “in the world, there is enough for man’s need, but not enough for man’s greed.” Humanity's arrogance and acquisitiveness, however, led time and again to our growing alienation from nature (see Gen 3–4, 6–9, 11ff) The whole human race suffers as a result of environmental blight, and generations yet unborn will bear the cost for our failure to act today. In the proposed paper, we shall explore the ecological stewardship from the Biblical perspective and encourage the present and future generations to take concrete steps to prevent environmental crisis and replenish this world so that the heavens may continue to proclaim the glory of God and the earth may continue to sustain life.

_______________________________________________________________________

Rev. Dr. Davis George, Principal, St. Aloysius’ College, Jabalpur-482 001. E-mail: davisgeorge@rediffmail.com




1           John Paul II, "The Exploitation of the Environment Threatens the Entire Human Race," address to the Vatican symposium on the environment (1990), in Ecology and Faith: The Writings of Pope John Paul II, ed. Sr. Ancilla Dent, OSB (Berkhamsted, England: Arthur James, 1997), 12.
2               John Paul II, On Social Concern, ch. four. This chapter of the encyclical gives a more complete definition of the concept of authentic development.
3               Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), nos. 50-51, in Austin Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, new rev. ed., 1st vol. (Northport, N.Y.: Costello Publishing, 1996).
4               See also treatment of this topic in Stewardship: A Disciple's Response (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1993), 27.

The concept of the “other” in Christianity

1.      Introduction: self-centered to other centered

Aristotle noted long ago that the ability to spot the similar in the dissimilar, the familiar in the strange, is the hallmark of poetic genius. In an increasingly global and cross-cultural human mosaic, this kind of genius can be an indispensable component in the process of building community among religiously diverse traditions. For, what is strange or “other” stands as an implicit challenge to the familiar, placing it in question. Yet, the unfamiliarity of the other can only be recognized and encountered as such on the basis of what is already experienced and known, interpreted through the lens of established or taken-for-granted networks of meanings. There is a tension here: neither reducing what is different to the similar and already known (in a kind of cognitive imperialism), nor simply allowing the different to slip into an obscure and impenetrable alterity (in a relativistic skepticism or agnosticism). The kind of poetic genius Aristotle talked about embodies an imaginative and constructive capacity that stretches out to stand in-between the familiar and the foreign, recognizing otherness in the form of a similarity-in-difference.

The world has grown to be a global village. And yet ethnic conflicts, religious fundamentalism, religious pluralism, violence and terrorism continue to loom large in the horizon resulting in feelings of insecurity and fragmentation. One begins to wonder as to whether religion is really helping us to be other centered or self centered. Enlightened human beings have succeeded to go beyond their own religions, to find spirituality to nourish their mind, body and soul. Some say that religion divide people and spirituality unites. Every religion aims at giving meaning and purpose to life. Samvad, will certainly continue the journey of exploring the focus of every religion, the “other” and helping us to re-discover otherness in the form of similarity in difference.  In this paper I would focus on the concept of the “other” in Christianity.

2.      The Creation story: God and others.

God created man in his own image and likeness. “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air, and the over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” And so God created man in his own image, in the image of God he crated him; male and female he created them.” (Gen 1:26-27) This is indicative of the divinity in man, the crown of creation. We (the “other”) are called   to reflect the image and likeness of God. The other has been made steward of the whole creation, there by placing him above the rest of creation. He is called to share in the creative powers of the creator. At another place in the Bible it is also written that, “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (Gen 2:7) This shows his finite nature that he has been made of the dust from the ground and unto dust he shall return. The concept of the other at the time of creation is a synthesis of his divinity and humanity; his call to be mortal and divine; finite and infinite; eternal and transient. This description of human nature is the result of the theological and philosophical reflection on life as experienced in history and time.  

3.      God’s concern for the other: Prophecy and its fulfillment.

Centuries before the birth of the Messiah Isaiah prophesied, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin is with child and bears a son and calls his mane Immanuel (God with us).” (Is.7:14) God’s concern for the other is seen in the birth of Jesus. ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that those who believe in him shall be saved. He came not to condemn the world but to save the world.” (Jn 3:16) God so loved the world that consists of all people belonging to all religions. His love was not restricted to a particular group or people, but to ‘others” belonging to different regions, nations and religions. God can never be limited by narrow thinking or feeling as we humans often do.  There is a story of a very old man knocking at the door of the legendary Biblical figure, Abraham at the middle of the night. Abraham got up and welcomed him and prepared food for him as he was hungry. As he was about to eat Abraham told him to pray to Yahweh (God) which the old man did not know. As he confessed his ignorance of God and prayer, Abraham chased him out of the house in the middle of the night. After a short while Abraham heard a knock at his door again and as he got up to open the door, he heard Yahweh asking for the stranger who came there to take shelter. Abraham with great pride said that he pushed him out of the house as he did not know who his God was and how to pray. Hearing this God of Abraham was very sad and asked him, “I have tolerated him for 75 years, could you not tolerate him just for one night?”  Sensitivity to differences and still showing love and concern is the core of any spirituality. God became a human being that we can become like him. We become like him when we see God in others and love and serve him. God is in others.

4.      Jesus: a man for others

When we study the Bible we find that Jesus is a man for others irrespective of cast, creed and nationality. During his life time, he having being brought up as a Jew broke down the narrow walls of meaningless rituals and redundant regulations. He made the lame walk, lepers clean, deaf hear, the dumb speak and even dead people were brought back to life. He preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the fatherhood of God and brotherhood/sisterhood of human kind, a revolutionary concept at that time. Even on forbidden days like Sabbath, he healed the sick for which he was condemned.  He went always and everywhere beyond human considerations and worked to alleviate human suffering. He reached out, touched and healed the suffering humanity. He taught and preached so that others may have life in abundance.  He restored dignity to the woman caught in adultery and transformed her life. He transformed the lives of many who were otherwise condemned by the society.  He said very emphatically, “you ignore the weightier matters of the law to cling on the human traditions.”

4.1  Jesus views on who is your neighbour: Good Samaritan Lk 10:36-37

When Jesus was asked what the greatest moral commandment was, he replied by quoting two commands from the Old Testament. "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself'" (Matthew 22:37-39). Many have understood this second commandment as including a command to love ourselves. However, this is a misreading of what it actually says. We are not commanded to love our neighbour and ourselves, but as ourselves. In other words, the statement naturally assumes that we have a certain desire for our own wellbeing, and the command is to have an equal concern for the wellbeing of others. Self-love is not a virtue that Scripture commends, but one of the facts of our humanity that it recognises and tells us to use as a standard. So what should this concern for our own wellbeing entail? And, as Samuel Johnson once said, "He who overvalues himself will undervalue others, and he who undervalues others will suppress them."

The parable of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk 10:25-37) offers two particularly important clarifications. Until that time, the concept of “neighbour” was understood as referring essentially to one's countrymen and to foreigners who had settled in the land of Israel; in other words, to the closely-knit community of a single country or people. This limit is now abolished. Anyone who needs me, and whom I can help, is my neighbour. The concept of “neighbour” is now universalized, yet it remains concrete. Despite being extended to all mankind, it is not reduced to a generic, abstract and undemanding expression of love, but calls for my own practical commitment here and now. In the great parable of the Last Judgment (cf. Mt 25:31-46), love becomes the criterion for the definitive decision about a human life's worth or lack thereof. Jesus identifies himself with the poor and needy. Lastly, we should especially associate with those in need, with the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). Love of God and love of neighbour have become one: in the least of the brethren we find Jesus himself, and in Jesus we find God.

Love of neighbour is thus shown to be possible in the way proclaimed by the Bible, by Jesus. It consists in the very fact that, in God and with God, I love even the person whom I do not like or even know. This can only take place on the basis of an intimate encounter with God, an encounter which has become a communion of will, even affecting my feelings. Then I learn to look on this other person not simply with my eyes and my feelings, but from the perspective of Jesus Christ. His friend is my friend. Going beyond exterior appearances, I perceive in others an interior desire for a sign of love, of concern. This I can offer them not only through the organizations intended for such purposes, accepting it perhaps as a political necessity. Seeing with the eyes of Christ, I can give to others much more than their outward necessities; I can give them the look of love which they crave. Here we see the necessary interplay between love of God and love of neighbour which the First Letter of John speaks of with such insistence. If I have no contact whatsoever with God in my life, then I cannot see in the other anything more than the other, and I am incapable of seeing in him the image of God. But if in my life I fail completely to heed others, solely out of a desire to be “devout” and to perform my “religious duties”, and then my relationship with God will also grow arid. It becomes merely “proper”, but loveless. Only my readiness to encounter my neighbour and to show him love makes me sensitive to God as well. Only if I serve my neighbour can my eyes be opened to what God does for me and how much he loves me. The saints—consider the example of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta—constantly renewed their capacity for love of neighbour from their encounter with the Eucharistic Lord, and conversely this encounter acquired its real- ism and depth in their service to others. Love of God and love of neighbour are thus inseparable, they form a single commandment. But both live from the love of God who has loved us first. No longer is it a question, then, of a “commandment” imposed from without and calling for the impossible, but rather of a freely-bestowed experience of love from within, a love which by its very nature must then be shared with others. Love grows through love. Love is “divine” because it comes from God and unites us to God; through this unifying process it makes us a “we” which transcends our divisions and makes us one, until in the end God is “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28)

4.2  Hostility-Breaking Mission: Jesus compassion for the then outcasts.

Jewish world of that time strictly followed “cast” system. People of the lower cast, were ignored and were marginalized. Nothing good can be seen in such people except impurity and sinfulness. In today’s world which is divided in terms of cast, creed and nationality, Jesus focus on the human person, irrespective of caste, creed and nationality is particularly pertinent for allows reviewing our attitude and dealings with diverse culture, religion, social and economic status.

Jesus was quite aware of the age-old hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans. Even in his own time the hostility continued (4:9b). The ongoing animosity between the Jews and Samaritans was evident in the encounter of the disciples of Jesus and the Samaritans of a certain village on his way to Jerusalem (Lk 9:51-56). In the midst of such a hostile atmosphere of enmity, bigotry and antagonism, Jesus decides to go through the land of Samaria. His passing through Samaria signifies his initiative of reaching out to the estranged and excluded, as he does, in John, to the sick (5:1- 14:9:1-12), to the hungry (6:1-15), to the struggling (6:16-21), to the sinful (8:1-11), to the meek and defenseless sheep (10:1-18), to the bereaved (11:1-44), to the service of his disciples (13:1-11)1 His effort to reach out is designed also to demolish the wall of hostility between the Jews and Samaritans. Jesus does not encourage enmity and this comes out well in his rebuke of John and James who wanted fire to come down and consume the inhospitable Samaritans (Lk9: 55).2 Breaking down the wall of hostility and building the bridge of relationship was part of the Samaritan mission of Jesus.

4.3  Anti-Untouchability Mission

Untouchability was imposed on the Samaritans as a socio-cultural stigma, which isolated them as impure and unclean people. In this context of discrimination and inequality, the words and actions of Jesus found in the narrative of Samaritan mission are path breaking.
               
Since Samaria was considered a profane territory, orthodox Jews who wished to go to Galilee used the route by the side of the Jordan valley in order to avoid passing through Samaria.3 That Jesus not merely passed through Samaria, but stayed in a Samaritan village for two days (4:40) who was that Jesus crosses the barrier of untouchability and treats the land of Samaria as a land of people and of God.4 Leaving the area of supreme holiness, the temple, Jerusalem and the land of the Jews (from the Jewish perspective with which he is identified in vv.9.22) and entering an alien, profane territory, Jesus crosses a social barrier of uncleanness or untouchability.5 Moreover, the placement of this scene soon after the encounter of Jesus with Nicodemus is meaningful. Jesus who met with the Pharisee Nicodemus, a teacher of high rank and ruling elite and ceremoniously considered clean and pure, is ready to dialogue with a Samaritan woman, considered ceremoniously unclean, and is willing to stay for two days in her village, regarded ritually impure.     

In a discriminatory context where the place and the things used by the Samaritans were considered ceremoniously unclean, Jesus was ready to use them because he treated Samaritans not as untouchables but basically as human persons and even as children of God. By his action Jesus openly challenged and crossed the boundary between “chosen people” and “rejected people.6 Jesus, as his manner of acting indicates, is not concerned about the rules of uncleanness. But as Savior of the world, he is concerned with all men and women, regardless of social distinctions.7 Jesus is presented as “rabbi come from God” (3:2), who, unlike the conventional Jewish teachers, relates to people beyond the barrier of ritual impurity and thus declares the abrogation of such unjust practices.8 Commenting on the anti-untouchability mission of Jesus, Withering Ben III says that Jesus has totally disapproved and rejected what his traditional Jewish society considered unclean and impure.

Jesus in this story not only rejects the notion that he shouldn’t associate with the Samaritans, he also rejects the notion that he shouldn’t talk with a strange woman in public, and further more rejects the idea that one shouldn’t associate with notoriously immoral people. Besides that, Jesus’ act involves witnessing to a person that many of his fellow Jews would have written off as both unclean and theologically out of bounds, a hopeless case. Towards the Samaritans (9:51-55). In his Jewish society where even the name of the Samaritans was derisive, where they were treated as impure, Jesus has the courage and graciousness to set a Samaritan as an exemplary model to respond to the needs of neighbors Lk 10:29-37) and to praise openly a Samaritan leper for his sense of gratefulness to God (Lk 17:11-19).

It is still more significant to see that Jesus decided to stop over at Synched, which had been given an opprobrious meaning as a ‘city of Drunkards’ or ‘drunkenness’ in the already profane land of Samaria. For Jesus, this place was not one of untouchability and opprobrium but a sacred ground as the well and the field were connected to the revered Jacob tradition (4:5). He even dared to ask for a drink of water from the Samaritan woman. Drinking from the vessel used by the unclean Samaritan woman would render Jesus, the Jew, ceremonially impure. But he was ready to do that and thus defied the unjust tradition of uncleanness.

Jesus bridged the social distance between the Jews and Samaritans by knocking down the social barriers. Jesus’ action is nothing superficial: it is radical. “In v. 9 John is concerned with showing not so much that Jesus was willing to break a ritual prohibition imposed by the Pharisees, but that he destroyed the basis for any hatred between Jew and Samaritan.9 Jesus strikes at the root of the problem. His action is not to be interpreted as just crossing a socio-cultural barrier of ritual prohibition. It is directed to the very treatment of marginalized.

Only in the Fourth Gospel is Jesus called a Jew (4:9a). The Evangelist seems to have purposely recorded this ethnic identity of Jesus here to emphasize the point that Jesus as a Jew has crossed the discriminatory social barriers and is showing the way to treat all as children of God by wiping out all unjust and inhuman practices which treat others as untouchable.

4.4  Jesus attitude towards  sinners Lk 15: Parable of the lost sheep, lost coin and the prodigal son

Any one who is holy will try to avoid the company of sinners. But Jesus openly declared that he has come in search sinners and he has come to save them. Many tax collectors and sinners were seeking the company of Jesus as he preached to them the message of salvation and forgiveness of sins which was criticized and objected by the religious teachers of his time, the scribes and the Pharisees. To make them understand the compassion and unconditional love of God, he narrated three parables at a stretch. In the parable of the lost sheep, the sheep was lost because the sheep strayed away from the group by its own foolishness. In the parable of the lost coin, the coin was lost because of the carelessness of the person who possessed it. In the case of the prodigal son, he deliberately went away from his father. In all the three cases, when it was found there was great joy and celebration. The lost sheep, the lost coin and the prodigal son was never condemned. Jesus said, “I have not condemned the world but to redeem the world.”  Time and again Jesus attitude towards sinners was of compassion and forgiveness. He condemned the sin but not the sinner. The world could become a better place if we could be more compassionate and less judgmental. Again he said, “I have not come in search of the virtuous but sinners. It is the sick that needs a physician and not the healthy.” He saw possibilities of greatness in every person. He transformed Mathew the tax collector; Simon the fisherman; Saul the persecutor of the church, the Samaritan woman; the woman caught in adultery. He gave them a future. He condemned sin but loved sinners and showed them the possibility of becoming a better person. Every sinner has a future and every saint has a past.   

5.   Jesus’ Mission to Make All Children of God

By sharing this life with believers, the mission of Jesus is to make them all children of God: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God (1:12). The word used for children in John is tekna. John use huios, ‘son’, only for Jesus. The theological notion of filiations is rendered by the expression tekna thou “children of God.”10 John preserves a terminological difference between Jesus as God’s Son and believers as God’s children. It is also in John that our present state as God’s children on this earth comes out most clearly.11 “See what love the Father has given us that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are…Beloved, we are God’s children now” (1 Jn 3:1-2). It is significant to note that the Prologue, which is called the epitome of the life and mission of Jesus in John, points out to the central mission of Jesus, making people become children of God.12 When he taught people to pray, he told that God is their heavenly father, a revolutionary concept at that time. He always proclaimed the greatness of his father who makes the sun rise over the sinners and saints. He constantly reminded others that they have a father in heaven and so not to worry or be anxious. He told them to look at the birds of the air and lilies of the field and how well they are looked after and clothed. And so why to be anxious about tomorrow? All “others” are children of God and God loves each one of them unconditionally

5.1 Jesus on kingdom of God  Mt25:35-40

On the last day we would be judged on how sensitive we have been to those in need. Our reward, salvation, nirvana, in the final analysis would be not based on doctrines and dogmas, but the practice of our faith. God is in the other. We need to see him in the other especially in those in need. Jesus propounded very radical theory on the practice of religion. Practice of religion has to result in responding to human need. Together we need to reach out, touch and heal the broken world. External rituals and practices will not qualify a person to inter the kingdom of God. He reminded his disciples that the first would be last and last, first. Many would come the east and west, north and south who had not been part of his followers and enter the kingdom of God. In his sermon on the mount he said, “Happy are the poor in spirit, the kingdom of God belongs to them.” (Mt 5:3) For Jesus kingdom of God did not consist in some geographical area but in God’s reign in human hearts. His kingdom is a kingdom of love, justice, truth and holiness, open to all those who are humble and dependent on God.

5.2 Jesus teaching on forgiveness

Jesus made forgiveness sine qua non for effectiveness in prayer. The other, whether right or wrong, we need to forgive the other however difficult it may be. Jesus was asked as to how many times one should forgive the other who wrongs me. Seven times? Jesus said, “seventy times seven.” All the time and then only one can become the children of the heavenly father. Before offering anything to God, we must get reconciled first. Jesus who preached on forgiveness while dying on the cross prayed, “Father forgive them, they do not know what they are doing.” (Lk  23:34)

6.   Jesus evolved a new spirituality: challenge and response

Not the out side but the inside disposition will be accepted by God. When we pray we should not do it for the notice of others; instead we must shut the door and pray and the father who sees what you do in secret will reward you. When you give alms and when you fast do not do it for publicity. His emphasis is on the interior person. The outward observance is not important. Looking at a poor widow putting her offering in the church, he appreciated her generosity though the amount was insignificant. Because she contributed the mite of the widow; not the amount but the disposition counted for him. Not the rituals; but worship in sprit and truth; Love not in word and speech but in deed and truth.  He believed in an all inclusive approach and not exclusive approach. It is our attitude and inner disposition that will count in the ultimate analysis. God cannot be bought by candles, flowers, money or by external rituals and traditions. While observing different people offering money, he pointed out the meager amount put by a widow and said she has contributed the most as she did that from her necessity while other from their surplus.

7.      Conclusion: Bridging and bonding as we see God in the “other”.

Much of the world problems could be overcome if we begin to see God in others and serve him. Temples, Churches, Gurudwaras and Mosques are only means to reach God. Then, a new awareness of the divine and human would emerge. The holier a person, the more sensitive he/she would be to human needs. God does not need our worship in holy places as much as he needs our service of him in others. Worship is service of others. Because God is in the other. We would make this a better place if we treat the other with love and respect as God does with each one of us irrespective of religion, cast, creed and nationality. There is a story of a man who looked for God on the mountain top and in the depth of the sea and failed to find him. At last God appeared to him and said that he hid himself in human hearts, because that is the last place man will search for him. If we can find God in the other, we would deal with differently. And, as Samuel Johnson once said, "He who overvalues himself will undervalue others, and he who undervalues others will suppress them." The need of the hour is twofold: love and respect. If we could learn to love and respect others in the midst of differences, we would create synergy that can transform relationships and the world at large. New horizons of understanding, peace and   prosperity will emerge.

Notes and References:

1. The Synoptic have recorded many instances of this initiative of Jesus. For example, Mt 8:14-17+Mk 1:29-34+Ll 4:38-41: Mt 8:28-34=Mk 5:1-20=Lk 8:26-39; Mt 12:9-14=Mk 3:16=Lk 6:6-11; Mt 14:13-21=Mk 6:30-44=Lk 9:10-17; Mt 14:22-33=Mk 6:45-52; Lk 7:11-17; 13:10-17; 19:1-10.
2. The respect and solidarity of Jesus with the Samaritans is quite evident in John.
3. L. Morris, The Gopel according to John. NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971, p. 226.
4. Samaria and Samaritans have been favorably presented in John. Though the direct involvement and connection of Jesus with the Samaritans has been just one event in John, it is relatively a long narrative and a very significant one as a model to the future mission of his disciples to the marginalized and to people other than Jews. In addition to his Samaritan mission is John 4, Jesus is also said to have retreated at a later time to a locale identified as Ephraim in Jn 9:54.
5. W. Munro, “The Pharisee and the Samaritan in John: Polar or Parallel?” CBQ 57 (1995) P. 714.
6. G. R. O’day, The Gospel of John. The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. IX. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995, p.571. O’day suggests that Jn 4:4-42 can be helpfully read alongside the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:29-37). Luke presents the despised Samaritan as the neighbour, the agent of mercy in the parable (Lk 10:37a). It is the Samaritan who touches the injured man’s wounds and nurses him (Lk 10:34), an open violation of the restriction against contact between Jews and Samaritans (Jn4: 9c). Jan 4:4-42 also poses a similar challenge but in a more radical form, because it is not a character in a parable who upsets social conventions but Jesus himself. He treats the Samaritan woman –and later the Samaritan villagers-as a full human being, worthy recipient of the grace of God, not as the despised enemy to fear contamination from.
7. P. F. Ellis, The Genius of John: A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1985, pp.69-70.
8. Munro, op.cit., p. 714.
9. R. F. Collins, “The Representative Figures of the Fourth Gospel – I,” The Downside Review, 94 (1976) p. 38.
10. F. J. Moloney, The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina 4, Collegeville: The Liturgical Press 1988, p. 44.
11. “R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, I-XII. New York: Doubleday, 1966, p. 11.
12. Culpepper through the chiastic structure found in the Prologue (1:1-18) insists that  the pivot of the Prologue is the conferring of the status “children of God”, which explains the mission of Jesus. See R.A. CULPEPPER, The Gospel and Letters of John. Nashville: Abington Press, 1998, p. 116.