Distrust … or … trust perversion

The Belgian and Flemish societies to which I belong are becoming increasingly controling: administration is created in all kinds of institutions to keep track of decisions, of actions and of activities. Increasingly, every move one makes (from buying a pencil to planning a study trip or taking vacations) has to be justified by paperwork that is added to files that will be used to evaluate one’s work and commitment.

Usually, I attribute this increasing administrative burden (to which I like to give the name “administrative harrassment”) to a growing distrust amongst ourselves, caused by the abuse that some of us have made or continue to make of the loopholes in the systems and institutions to which we belong (e.g. by misusing funds). To counter these abuses of some, we continuously introduce more and more rules and checks for all, to avoid that others would start abusing the system and to introduce procedures that will treat all of us on an equal footing. But, basically, the moving factor here is a spontaneous distrust: we are all considered to be potential abusers. In the end, we get caught up in a system and mechanism that not only sustains itself but tends to grow its tentacles ever more efficiently.

In a discussion with a colleague this morning – as universities are one of the institutions that heavily suffer under the increase of control mechanisms and administration -, another approach to the issue arose. Could it not be that we build these control mechanisms because we want efficiency, and efficiency needs systems of control and feedback loops. But, if we move to organizing our societies on the line of efficiency (and primarily on that line) something happens to our understanding of trust. The fulfilment of the criteria for efficiency becomes the indicator for trust – and that is something else than trust as an attitude that grows in the context of interpersonal relationships. That is the reason why I speak of trust perversion. In a way, the perspective of efficiency is more complex than the perspective of distrust. The latter results from the pain of abuses, the former from a “positive” view on how we should organize our lives together.

Whether we should analyze the situation as distrust or trust perversion because of  efficiency craving, I am not sure of at this moment. What is clear, however, is the central issue of trust: how do we live together trusting one another, while daring to react to abuses of trust in a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation? To debate these issues seems, in the societies in which I live, increasingly urgent, and it requires a faith commitment to do so: a truly social understanding of trust requires faith. I think, therefore, that this is really, in my own context, an issue of public theology. I hope to be able to pursue these lines of thought.

Oxfam and the coming G8 meeting: a petition to sign

On its Make Trade Fair website, Oxfam offers a petition to sign and to send (by e-mail) to Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, who will chair the coming G8 meeting in Heiligendamm (Germany) from June 6th through 8th, 2007.

Carbon Dioxide offset indulgences …

In an article, “Do Trees make it OK to drive an SUV?” on the ENN (Environmental News Network) webpages, Michael Hill quotes a report by the Transnational Institute’s Carbon Trade Watch as saying: “The sale of offset indulgences is a dead-end detour off the path of action required in the face of climate change”. As a theologian, I cannot miss that reference to “indulgences” … and the religious tone of the report subtitle: The Carbon Neutral Myth: Offset Indulgences for your climate Sins.

The report presents us with a set of technical arguments concerning the practice of offsetting one’s carbon dioxide use by planting trees, and it states on its p. 7:

The sale of offset indulgences is a dead-end detour off the path of action required in the face of climate change. There is an urgent need to return to political organising for a wider, societal transition to a low carbon economy, while simultaneously taking direct responsibility for reducing our personal emissions. Offset schemes are shifting the focus of action about climate change onto lifestyles, detracting from the local participation and movement building that is critical to the realization of genuine social change. It is hoped that the rising awareness of the shortcomings of offset credits will contribute to a reformation of the climate change debate.

The 15th century theological discussions on the topic of indulgences already taught us that they lead to an easy mercantilistic attitude: we pay for our sins and, therefore, can forget about the latter. The real answer to sin, however, is a change of life out of the empowering relationship one has with God. This implies, to use the vocabulary of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “costly grace” as opposed to “cheap grace”: sin and its consequences are seriously addressed only through a real effort both of God and of ourselves.

The social injustice that results from a mercantilistic indulgence approach to lifestyles that produce unnecessary and unsustainable CO2 emissions, appears best in the fact that offsetting these by investing in tree-planting requires money. The rich people can pay such money, the poor cannot. This mercantilistic indulgence approach may, in the end, only widen the development gap, as the rich are capable to pay for CO2 driven development and the poor are not. It is wrong – at least it seems morally wrong to me – to avoid reducing CO2 output (which effects on all of us), justifying not making fundamental changes to our lifestyles by hiding our responsibilities behing a mercantilistic ideology. What is at stake is that we all have to agree to make fundamental changes of lifestyle: turning the global warming issue into a mere economic hocus-pocus creates social injustice. I would propose the following idea to reflect on: Unnecessary CO2 use should be punishable by law (and our laws will have to change depending on how we develop substitutive energy policies), and necessary CO2 use should, indeed, be offset, but in a ratio that is proportional to wealth and stage of development (the richer you are – even in poor countries – the more you will pay for offsetting your use of CO2).

International politics and global climate changes … concerns

Two newsitems on the BBC webpages make me very concerned about how international politics evolve with regard to the challenges of global climate changes. Under the title US ‘opposes’ G8 climate proposals, the BBC refers to the coming June 6-8, 2007, G8 meeting in Heiligendamm (Germany), where Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel, who presides the G8 meeting, will make proposals for action on climate change. A draft proposal with criticism added by the US administration has been leaked by Greenpeace (although it does not as yet appear on their WebSite, another newsitem is being given by Reuters, and a very interesting post on the Greenpeace Blog Site): the USA seems to be isolating itself more and more on how to tackle global warming, although opposition within the USA is growing.

The US Government attitude towards human caused global warming and the global action necessary to address it – sometimes even putting into doubt this very human responsibility, thereby continuing the unsustainable neo-liberal capitalist growth utopia’s -, increasingly test the patience of an increasingly growing number of people (also in the USA). Addressing the US governement attitude is a complex issue: on the one side one needs to over and over again painfully refer to the IPCC reports as reliable information, on another side one also needs to analyse the international political, developmental and economic power games that structure and condition global discussions on sustainability, on still another side one has to answer fears of people to change their lifestyles as well as angers from others where they are left contemplating why develomental strategies that have brought wealth to some countries would be barred to them. What are the interests and concerns at stake, developmental, social, life style wise, political, spiritual, … in the various global actors? Some people are increasingly loosing their patience and will consider US Government attitudes to be “criminal” (Greenpeace Director John Sauven), as there is no time to lose anymore.

Visions hampered by stressed no-saying people

In a little book that I discovered today, Dealing with Difficult People (McGraw Hill, 2006), R. Brinkman and R. Kirschner identify, amongst other difficult people, the so-called “No Person”: “This person says, ‘Every silver cloud has a dark lining’ and ‘I’m not being negative, I’m being realistic.’ Doleful and discouraging, the No Person drives others to despair” (p. 7). It is a temptation and even a reality that I recognize in myself and in others around me, particularly when we are stressed under time pressure: the projects we want to realize with others, the visions we have, seem to be rendered difficult and near-impossible by the practical hurdles that confront us, and that stress discourages us, sometimes fatally. On p. 91 of the same book, I find the following: “More deadly to morale than a speeding bullet, more poverful than hope, able to defeat big ideas with a single syllable. Disguised as a mild-mannered normal person, the No Person fights a never-ending battle for futility, hopelessness, and despair”. The stress originating in the practicalities linked to our ideas, particularly when connecting with inner fears and insecurities or with our anguishes and jealousies with regard to our relations with others, build a strong and dangerous recipe for giving up or torpedoeing our joint efforts.

These difficulties in our relations amongst ourselves, when we are at risk of discouraging or disempowering one another concerning projects in which we nevertheless, all of us, believe, represent a form of social acedia, and they are destructive. They endanger our joint projects ánd our mutual trust in one another. How can we best deal with these difficulties and counteract them? I distinguish various levels.

(a) At a personal level each one of us has to explore interior feelings and movements: what may cause, in each one of us, when context and inner weakness reinforce one another in a negative spiral, the tendency to be(come) a “No Person”? There may exit very strong barriers here in our personalities, for which we may be able to compensate as a compassionate group, that also knows how to positively use the fears and anxieties of people, in the awareness that difficult people are also a grace of God for us all. This is a level of personal discernment that also relies on the help of others.

(b) A same effort will have to be deployed at the group or community level: what are the social movements, relationships amongst us, etc. that may promote a No Attitude in the group or of the group as a whole? This is the level of social or common discernment. This requires that the participants in the common project learn to work together, to construct a community of practice along with the work done on the project.

(c) It will be important to identify the real stressors and to find out how to best deal with them, as well as to distribute their weight amongst all. Events may become overpowering or oppress us. This means that it is important to well design strategies that will embody the common vision. It will require the hability to point to real difficulties without affecting or diminishing the vision and the goals.

(d) There is the need to constantly reformulate, readdress and re-embody the vision and the goals set out. Even if we have to deal with a lot of no’s, their remains a profound “yes” that can work in an empowering way and allow us to address difficulties and challenges in a constructive and creative way. At different moments of the history of the project different people may embody the vision, as the movements of strength and weakness are a reality in all of us. It will be necessary, however, to design “social structures or institutions” in which the vision will be enshrined. These may be rituals, or art, or knowledge that is passed on, etc. The re-enactment of the deep “yes” that binds us together is always again necessary.

The challenge to articulate the “yes” and the “no”, without letting any of them become a compulsive drive, is part of the community building linked to the commitment to a shared and common project. In depth, the question is where lies our fundamental attitude: in the “yes” or in the “no”? in sharing or breaking up the community? These are spiritual questions, linked to relational constructionist models.

Forum for Liberation Theologies meeting on “Revisiting Liberation Theology”

At the Forum for Liberation Theologies’ last meeting for this year, we received Dr. Fr. Antony Kalliath CMI, a member of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India’s National Biblical, Catechetical and Liturgical Centre (NBCLC) as well as of the International Association of Catholic Missiologists (IACM) and of the Indian Theological Association (ITA). His talk’s topic was “Revisiting Liberation Theology” in times of global neo-liberalism, as this transforms proundly the theological “locus” for liberation theology as well as the praxis needed to deal with the new challenges. Antony illustrated today’s economic pragmatism by referring to the massacre at Nandigram (India) in March 2007, when people attempted to resist the use of fertile land for the creation of a new Special Economics Zone (SEZ).

Contemporary liberation theology is on the decline – according to Antony – because of the following factors: (a) since the fall of the Berlin wall and the demise of communism, the political map of the world has undergone a profound shift which has also had consequences for liberation theology, which relied on marxist frames of political, social and economic analysis. (b) The question can be raised whether Latin American liberation theology has not remained an academic and clerical endeavour, while only 5% of Christians were involved in the movement of the basic ecclesial communities. (c) The rise of non-sustainable global neo-liberal capitalism has created new forms of injustice and challenges: critical and prophetic liberation theology has not yet found the way for a praxis of society building in these circumstances. There is need for a new vision for which Antony finds inspiration in Dr. P. Parameswaren’s idea of a fourth world (not to be confused with the fourth world or quart monde, as understood in today’s Western Europe). This represents an alternative horizon of understanding praxis, relying on social justice as equity, on longetivity, emancipation and sustainability indices,  as well as on people’s responsible participation in (political) decision processes. In line with this approach, Anthony emphasized the role of the Church in theologies of reconstruction and nation building, pointing to the importance of global and local civil society, allowing new vision to emerge out of the contacts between local utopias and social movements that are critical of neo-liberal capitalism.

Antony’s approach, of course, fits in well with what has already been said about public theologies. Theologies as resistance, denunciation, critique and advocacy, are also today in need of a capacity for reconstruction, as commitment to constructive political initiatives and endeavours. There is a great need for vision, and the idea of sustainability, as I explained in an earlier post, may well be a powerful hermeneutical tool to understand eschatology as a dynamism for the present, allowing us to think not only in terms of the past, but also of the future. This feature is of crucial importance in our global world today, as it is threatened by environmental crises. Antony’s suggestion to build up vision from the bottom up, by relying on local utopias that are interconnected (a task for theologians and for the Church), is also very attractive – ultimately a change out of a vision will only become possible when people acquire ownership of this process (this is a form of distributive leadership, in line with relational constructionism). I am not sure whether Antony has taken full account of the urgency of the environmental challenges today, as profound global environmental changes (such as global warming) are already under way and will have severe social and political consequences in the near future. But to ascertain that remark, it will be necessary to investigate more deeply whether my understanding of today’s environmental crisis is not too Western biased.

Trinity features of reality

Karl Rahner, in his theology of the Trinity, emphasized an axiom that is directly related to his understanding of revelation as the self-revelation of God: the economic Trinity (God in God’s salutogenic work) is the immanent Trinity (God as God is). We do not know God as God is, except in our relationships to God, and God reveals God self in these relationship as Trinity, as the creative community of three in one and one in three. Then the issue is: how is God present as Trinity in our world? Apart from the Trinity as it unfolds itself christologically, as God presenting God self as the challenging and promising Other amongst us, theologians have also always been looking to speak about the Trinity features of reality, often in the form of metaphors connected to human or ecclesial metaphors. One very convincing experiential witness to the immanent working of the Trinity, articulating loving relationships between human beings, is the Flemish 20th century mystic Egied Van Broeckhoven, a Jesuit worker priest, part of whose mystical diary notes were published (in Flemish) under the title “Diary of Friendship” (Dagboek van de vriendschap). In those notes we discover a catholic priest who experiences God the Tri-Une at work in his relationships with others, creating bonds of deep friendship, even when these friendships are not necessarily recognized as such revelation of the Trinity by the friends. Here we see the Trinity at work, concretely, ecclesialy, deepening the Church itself towards a body constituted in friendship.

About this dynamism I would want to reflect a little bit further, in a few steps, suggesting further theological avenues which might also interact fruitfully with insights of eco-feminist theologians as Ivone Gebara, as was suggested by several of my students today. I am not sure whether all my vocabulary is completely right in what follows; it represents a first attempt that I would like to see discussed and of which I am aware that it is still very tentative.

The mystery of three in one and one in three, is about the emergence of a body, constituted out of the relationships between its constitutive parts and amounting to much more than the sum of these parts, on the one side, and on the other side by a unity that cannot be related to as one, but always as a plurality that cannot be split up in its parts. I tend to think of this dynamism with the help of a marriage: something new, exceeding the sum of the partners, but nevertheless reached at only through the individual partners, not taken separately but together. This provides us with some food for ecclesiological thoughts: the ecclesial communities we build, enacting in our limited ways the Trinity in the Christ event, are images of the Trinity, emerging as a body that is more than the sum of the parts and nevertheless only present in these parts taken together, not separately.

The Trinity pattern of these concrete ecclesial relationships (and one could, in fact, consider the whole of creation and creation as a whole, as a “church” with its inner ecclesial relationships) that bind us together as we recognize and acknowledge the loving God at work in our encounters as God is God self in the loving encounter of the Father, Son and Spirit, reveals the deep meaning of creation, and of the promised Reign of God, towards which we are already at work when we build our ecclesial communities and allow the Church to emerge as a body beyond our own capacities.

Our ecclesial efforts – our attempts to build church – are hampered by oour own difficulties, pitfalls and shortcomings in our relationships, that we find so difficult to pattern on the Trinity features. This requires honest and sometimes painful discernment, of which we are only capable together as precisely even in our individual discernments about our motives, fears, interests, jealousies, etc. we are tempted to close down on ourselves and isolate ourselves of our constitutive ecclesial relationships. We may well discover ourselves as obstructing, precisely in our falling short with regard to our ecclesial relationships of love and solidarity, the very work and activity of the Trinity in our world and amongst us. Closing down on ourselves is a pain for us and for others (as pain by its intensity may keep us focused only on ourselves, on our very pain): we are not capable to see that what is ours in fact belongs to all, as a gift to all. It reminds me of one of the reflections of Ignatius Loyola in the Spiritual Exercises: friendship means sharing what we have with our friends … that is, of course, because what we have does not define us, but belongs as a gift of God to all of us. The differences between us are, in a creative way out of which emerges the ecclesial community towards the Kingdom, God’s gift to us and God’s presence as the Tri-Une amongst us.

The importance of doing theology

Over the past days I was reminded several times of the importance of doing theology for Christians if they want to take their faith and their commitment in the world seriously. Fides quaerens intellectum. I would like to translate it as follows: out of itself, faith requires understanding (discernment, intelligent unwrapping). Very committed and saintly people may think it unimportant to reflect about the faith that sustains their commitment … This renders them vulnerable to serious abuse by people whom they trust, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer pointed out in his Nach Zehn Jahren, a reflection on the resistance to Nazi ideology that is usually published at the beginning of his letters from prison. Unreflected faith, that does not question what is the structure of what one believes or why one believes what one believes, can be easily manipulated.

Part of this understanding (discernment, intelligent unwrapping) required by faith concerns its inner logic, part touches on the interaction between faith (as attitude and content) and the reality in which we live and to which we commit. As the frames that originate in our faith structure reality, the latter in turn critically clarifies the former. Sometimes such reality hits us in a hard way and tests our capacity for compassion, in the suffering of people: this suffering questions whatever frame of reference we use.

A reflection on the word “understanding” is also necessary. What are the criteria that we use to qualify our understanding? When do we consider our argumentations to be proof of real understanding? We may very well have a too narrow view on the meaning of “understanding”, demanding that it be “scientific” as sciences are. We may then be looking for an argumentation that would convince us – because it is scientifically acceptable – of what we believe. Although argumentation that withstands the test of convincing communication is a necessity, this does still require a reflection on what a good “argumentation” would be. It seems to me that, in the case of faith, we cannot demand an argumentation of the type of a mathematical proof. This means, therefore, that the argumentation (understanding, discernment) of faith experiences and the commitments in reality that are connected to them, is broader than “proof” and also includes the unwrapping (laying bare) of the structure of experiences, a process that may need narrative approaches.

Ecology and the sexuality of women

A few days ago I received from a former student of the K.U.Leuven faculty of theology, Agnes M. Brazal, a book that she has co-edited together with Andrea Lizares Si on behalf of the group Ecclesia of Women in Asia (EWA): Body and Sexuality: Theological-Pastoral Perspectives of Women in Asia (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2007 – a collection of essays that have been presented at the EWA 2 conference in November 2004). I plan to read the full book, but as I was also looking for the theme of “ecofeminism” to lend some support to my students, I immediately went to a clearly and well documented article by the Latvian theologian Dzintra Ilishko on “Ecological Approach Towards Redefining the Sexuality of Women” (pp. 90-101). The author clearly explains the goals and vision of ecofeminism, linking up patriarchal and dualistic attitudes concerning our understandings of the environment and the sexuality of women. She explains the (Western) context in which the feminist approaches developed, and continues providing some important key challenges for the ecofeminist movement: break down patriarchal structures, challenged dualistic thinking, re-evaluate dominant metaphors, develop a feminist epistemology, expand one’s ecological self, treat the world as the body of God, and develop eco-spirituality.

Her conclusion (p. 99) provides a good summary of her article: “The cultural and ecological crisis in Eastern and Western Europe demands the development of an ecologically sustainable global community, that rejects materialistic philosophy and acknowledges Otherness and Bodyliness. The reality of our multicultural and multireligious world challenges us to think creatively of alternative ways of thinking, living and doing. Ecofeminism, in underlining the connection between the subordination of women, the destruction of nature, and other forms of oppression (class, racial ethnic, etc.) offers a holistic response to the issue“.

The article certainly provides an excellent introduction to ecofeminism, particularly from a Western point of view and I will certainly have it read by my students. I hope, however, that also, in the future, work will be presented from an Asian point of view, taking into account the specific situation and history of Asian women in their societies (I suspect the Western schemes of understanding are only partially applicable here through (post-)colonial thought) as well as the ecofeminist approaches explicitly based on Asian ways of thinking and on indigenous theologies.

Do we like fences and walls?

The May 2007 National Geographic Magazine issue also features an article by Charles Bowden on “Our Wall: A wall along the U.S.-Mexico border prompts divided feelings: it offends people, it comforts people, and it keeps expanding”. Although understandably in this complex matter, the article itself only indicates issues without probing their depth, the photographs by Diane Cook and Len Jenshel are very helpful to provide oneself an idea of what such a dividing wall means and one can only hope that a similar illustrated article will be offered on the wall that is on construction in Israël.

This article suggests to me two reflections.

(1) I think of the work done by Daniel G. Groody, CSC, at the Center for Latino Spirituality and Culture at Notre Dame University, where he closely collaborates with Virgilio Elizondo. In a wonderful theological book, with a very original methodology in which reference is made to the concrete faith experiences of those who cross the border from Mexico to the USA and in which theology is elaborated using precisely these spiritual experiences, Dan elaborates a theology of hope in the midst of despair. Border of Death, Valley of Life: An Immigrant Journey of Heart and Spirit (New York: Rowman and Littlefield Press, 2002) has been translated into Spanish and Portugese, and represents a key resource for those who want to reflect on narrative theologies, on the link between spirituality and theology, and on the preferential option for the poor. In the coming academic year (2007-2008) Dan will be a research fellow at the Oxford Refugee Centre, Oxford University, UK. He has been a guest at the Leuven Centre for Liberation Theologies.

(2) In line with ideas from restorative justice practices and with Virgilio Elizondo’s and Jacques Audinet’s mestizo theology, together with Elias Lopez, a fellow Jesuit, I developed some ideas with regard to the expressions “frontierspace” and “borderline”, particularly in the context of conflict transformation and sustainable peace building. Conflicts are constituted by borderlines that separate the antagonists and create separate and exclusive communities that oppose each other. Conflict transformation towards sustainable peace relies on transforming the borderlines into frontierspaces (frontier comes from the Latin word frons and, therefore, means the space were people meet face to face) by creating a new sense of community out of the antagonistic communities, using common experiences. The most common experience within the frontier spaces, is constituted by the suffering, shared by all parties and that can be communicated between the antagonists. Theologically speaking, we deal here with an interpretation of the preferential option for the poor at the service of the constitution of the body of Christ.

Of course, a frontierspace still continues some of the characteristics of  a borderline. There is, indeed, a complex interaction between the community and the individual subjects that constitute it, but it is vital that one cannot unlink them from one another. Individual subjects are “defined” by the communities out of which they originate and by the communities which they build up in a common effort. At the same time, the communities are built up as something new – they “emerge” – out of the interactions between the individual subjects, whose interactions rely on the intergame between their separateness (defined by their borders). In Leuven, in the MaCSP programme (Advanced Master Programme in Conflict and Sustainable Peace, that has now been cancelled by the university authorities) we deepened these insights using relational constructionism and multiparty collaboration, as developed by Prof. René Bouwen in the Centre for Organisational and Personnel Psychology (COPP).

Ecosystem changes in Jamestown

In the May 2007 issue of National Geographic Magazine, one finds an interesting article by Charles C. Mann, “America Found & Lost”, a study of the ecosystem changes triggered around Jamestown (Chesapeake Bay) by the arrival of the English colonists in the beginning of the seventeenth century. On the magazine’s website, there is an interesting interactive presentation in which the (dramatic) changes triggered by the new settlers in the ecosystem inhabited and settled originally by the Powhatan, are presented. Not only did the colonists introduce large domestic animals (horses, pigs, honeybees, …) and bring with them other animals such as worms and rats, they also introduced new ways of cultivating the land while at the same time focussing on new crops, such as lucrative tobacco. Moreover, with the European settlers came also the illnesses they were suffering, amongst which malaria.

On p. 44 of the article, we find a nice summary of what happened: “In Virginia, despite previous contacts with Europeans, the Powhatan had somehow avoided any epidemics and were going strong when the Jamestown colonists arrived. Yet by the late 17th century, the Powhatan has lost control of their land. What happened? — One answer emerging points to what historian Alfred Crosby calls ‘ecological imperialism.’ The tassasntassas [refers to the colonists] replaced or degrade so much of the native ecosystem that they made it harder and harder for the Indians to survive in the native lands. As the colonists bitterly came to realize that Virginia had no gold and that the Indians weren’t going to selflessly provide them with all the food they needed, they began to mold the land to their needs. Unable to adapt to this forreign landscape, they transformed it into a place they could understand. In doing so, they unleashed what would become a multilevel ecological assault on North America. Their unlikely weapons in this initial phase of the campaign: tobacco, honeybees, and domestic animals.“

It is interesting to see an historical account of profound ecosystem changes – with all their social consequences – brought about by colonisation: human beings have the power to change (part consciously, part unconsciously) their natural environment, and in doing so they also trigger societal changes. So, human conditioned ecosystem changes are also connected to power play. This is an important lesson for us today, as we attempt to imagine and trigger a sustainable world for all. In the case of the Jamestown area, the ecosystem changes were dramatic but not fatal, in the sense that the region remained habitable, be it for a different and a new kind of people. Today, we are confronted with ecosystem changes, triggered by human actiivities, that may wel result in even far more dramatic consequences for human life. The question is asked how (and even whether) human beings will be able to adapt to the environmental changes: are we going to be confronted with “breakdown” (that allows for creative re-structuring) or “collapse”, to use the terminology of Thomas Homer-Dixon in his recent The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization (Washington …: Island Press, 2006), a book which can profitably be read in conjunction with Jared Diamond’s Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive (London …: Allen Lane, Penguin, 2005). Both authors point to the importance of becoming aware of and assuming the responsibility for a sustainable future, precisely at a moment when we become more and more conscious of the human impact on environmental changes (with their consequent social changes). Historical studies as the one presented in the National Geographic Magazine article offer us a visualisation and a concrete case of such realities.

Is ecofeminism still an unknown?

I was surprised, a few days ago, to discover that some of my master’s students had not as yet heard about ecofeminism, a theological current that I myself consider to be of the utmost importance in our world today. Of course, I understand that the matter is not easy and that the novelty of feminist and ecofeminist approaches may appear as a threat, particularly given the fact that there have been some excesses and that the pain experienced by some has let them to take on very radical theological (?) positions. Nevertheless, I think that the unmasking of patriarchal modes of thought – not only in theology (!) – where tensions are understood as mere oppositions and dualisms and, so, lose their creative power for community building and life together, is a crucial endeavour today.

I understand the feminist concerns not as a perpetuating of the opposition between men and women by reversing it, but rather as an attempt to deconstruct these oppositions so that new and creative forms of life together between men and women may be developed and articulated. Existing concrete experiences of painful oppositions that result in exclusions and unjust hierarchies are the point of departure of feminist theologies, not their aim or goal. In a constructive way feminist theologians look for new and holistic perspectives on community building, for a fresh perspective on reconciliation that is willing to learn from the past mistakes and sufferings. In a way, theologically speaking, feminist theologies attempt to unfold the incarnation not as opposition between God and human beings, but as a creative attempt to build up community, with a deep respect for non patriarchal differences. When I encounter severe criticism of feminist approaches, therefore, I will also always ask the question why it is that one wants to safeguard existing oppositions, what are the interests at stake.

Eco-feminism can best be understood through this last question, I think. Why is it that some of us want to maintain patterns of worldwide life together based on patriarchal modes of relating, in which dualisms between rich and poor, included and excluded, centre and periphery, play such an important “real” role (a role that one can observe in “real” reality, particularly by becoming sensitive to the cry of those who are suffering – such patriarchal features are often hidden by our systems of thought, however, as we cannot bear to hear the cry of those who suffer and hide ourselves from the “real” reality by taking refuge in the “thought” reality of economic, political, social and military prejudice)? What are the interests hidden behind the refusal to lower the highly unsustainable ecological footprints in the rich world, out of solidarity with the poor? Is it not, that we do not want to give up our standards of life and our cravings for power and wealth? And is that not the reason for constructing patriarchal thought? Is not the tragedy of patriarchal thought that it is born out of the fear to lose to others, precisely that what we have acquired and maintain at their expense?

The struggle surrounding ecofeminism, therefore, is not merely intellectual. It is also profoundly spiritual and ecclesial. This is what I read in the writings of Ivone Gebara, of Rosemary Radford Ruether, of Leonardo Boff and of Marcelo Barros, to name but a few. And it is a concern that I also descry in official RCC teachings that refuse to bow to oppositional modes of thought (that explains the reaction against the influence of marxism in some theologies) and that stress reconciliation. It’s a tight rope to walk, however, particularly if the word reconciliation comes to be used to minimize or even hide existing “real” and painful oppositions and dualisms. There is a challenge never to forget that theologies of community building should not forget their origins in the cry of those who are excluded from the communities of life. That also, as the preferential alliance with the poor, belongs to the wisdom of the Church.

This world and the next – eschatology and sustainability

The concept of sustainability is so much on my mind, that I found myself interestingly confusing about a quote of C.S. Lewis in The Tablet, May 12th, 2007, p. 18: “If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who tought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this”. When reading it first, without paying much attention, I interpreted the “next” as: the world of the next generation – reflecting the idea of sustainability: those Christians who do most for the present world, are the ones that thing in terms of sustainability … Of course, it became clear that C.S. Lewis refers to the “other” world, the beyond this world. But it leaves me with the interesting question of how the idea of sustainability is linked to eschatology and a vision of the Reign of God.

In a theological perspective, lifestyles are sustainable when they take into account the future, both as a gift coming to us from the part of God in our children, grandchildren etc, ánd as an effort of ours born in the awareness of the necessities of those who will dwell on this world after us. Sustainability, as trust that the coming generations – and that ultimately all of us in the future and, therefore, in a sense already now – will enjoy full life together, empowers a positive and pro-active outlook that helps us to design sustainable lifestyles today, even if an effort is required.

More than 1.200.000.000 eco-refugees and IDPs by 2050

Christian Aid is an NGO that, since the end of World War II, has been committed to respond to the plight of displaced people and refugees. This week, it published a report, Human tide: the real migration crisis, drawing our attention to the fact that by 2050 and as a consequence of global climate change, the number of the already existing 165.000.000 displaced people (refugees and IDPs), may well swell with an additional 1.000.000.000 people, mostly living in poor countries. Inevitably, this will exacerbate existing violent conflicts and lead to new ones.

Churches and their theologians may play an important role in how we will deal with this crisis. It will be necessary to prepare for crisis responses, but in a wider perspective we should also focus on capacity building to cope with the coming climate changes particularly in the poorest countries that are bound to suffer most. Moreover, there is the urgent need for serious changes in lifestyle so as to mitigate human induced climate changes (e.g. by controling our CO2 emissions) and for global life together that takes as a perspective dignified and sustainable life for all. This also means to structure our worldwide life together in such a way that special attention is paid to the poorest.

Theologians have the responsibility to stimulate and foster frames of reference that allow us to see human life from the vantage point of sustainable life for all of us and for creation as a whole. People need such frames to help them to envision and to cope with the ongoing global environmental crisis without giving in to despair; they also need encouragement to make important changes in their lifestyles and habits. Another task for theologians is to become convenors in the transdisciplinary effort to tackle the climate changes in their connection with development worldwide.

A summary of the report is available on the ENS website.

The Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

I just discovered a wonderful and stimulating website, The Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, with its various subsections on Peace, Ecology, Economic Justice, and Social Justice. I can only recommend it and hope that other religious organisations, such as my own Society of Jesus, would put their resources at the service of such initiative.