|
|
|
INTRODUCTION: THE EMERGING
ALLIANCE OF WORLD RELIGIONS AND ECOLOGY
Mary
Evelyn Tucker and John A. Grim
 HIS
ISSUE OF DÆDALUS brings together for the first time diverse perspectives
from the world’s religious traditions regarding attitudes toward nature with
reflections from the fields of science, public policy, and ethics. The scholars
of religion in this volume identify symbolic, scriptural, and ethical
dimensions within particular religions in their relations with the natural
world. They examine these dimensions both historically and in response to
contemporary environmental problems.
Our Dædalus planning
conference in October of 1999 focused on climate change as a planetary
environmental concern.1
As Bill McKibben alerted us more than a decade ago, global warming may well be
signaling “the end of nature” as we have come to know it.2
It may prove to be one of our most challenging issues in the century ahead,
certainly one that will need the involvement of the world’s religions in
addressing its causes and alleviating its symptoms. The State of the
World 2000 report cites climate change (along with
population) as the critical challenge of the new century. It notes that in
solving this problem, “all of society’s institutions—from organized religion to
corporations—have a role to play.”3
That religions have a role to play along with other institutions and academic
disciplines is also the premise of this issue of Dædalus.
The call for the
involvement of religion begins with the lead essays by a scientist, a policy
expert, and an ethicist. Michael McElroy, chairman of the Harvard University
department of earth and planetary sciences, outlines the history of the earth’s
evolution, thus providing a comprehensive context for understanding the current
impact of humans on global climate change. As McElroy observes, while the
earth’s evolution has occurred over some 4.6 billion years, Homo sapiens
sapiens appeared only some 150,000 years ago. Moreover, in the last few hundred
years of the industrial revolution, humans have radically altered the nature of
the planet—warming its climate, depleting its resources, polluting its soil,
water, and air. He cites the cultural historian Thomas Berry and his
perspective on the evolutionary story of the emergence of life as providing
“our primary revelatory experience of the divine.” McElroy observes that to
change the global environment irreversibly without concern for the consequences
to present or future generations creates a fundamental challenge for the moral
principles of the world’s religions. Public-policy expert Donald Brown
elaborates further on the nature of contemporary climate change and the human
impact on this process. He echoes McElroy’s call for the ethical involvement of
the world’s religions in mitigating the human causes and planetary effects of
climate change. Environmental ethicist J. Baird Callicott proposes a method to
bring together the larger scientific story of evolution outlined in McElroy’s
essay with the diversity of the world’s religions. He describes this as an
“orchestral approach” embracing the varied ethical positions of the world’s
religions in an emerging global environmental ethics.
No definitive attempt is
made in this issue to articulate a comprehensive environmental ethics. However,
the essays that follow, written by scholars of religion, suggest manifold ways
of creatively rethinking human-Earth relations and of activating informed
environmental concern from the varied perspectives of the world’s religions.
The objective here is to present a prismatic view of the potential and actual
resources embedded in the world’s religions for supporting sustainable
practices toward the environment. An underlying assumption is that most
religious traditions have developed attitudes of respect, reverence, and care
for the natural world that brings forth life in its diverse forms. Furthermore,
it is assumed that issues of social justice and environmental integrity need to
be intricately linked for creating the conditions for a sustainable future.
Several qualifications
regarding the various roles of religion should be mentioned at the outset.
First, we do not wish to suggest here that any one religious tradition has a
privileged ecological perspective. Rather, multiple perspectives may be the
most helpful in identifying the contributions of the world’s religions to the
flourishing of life for future generations. This is an interreligious project.
Second, while we assume
that religions are necessary partners in the current ecological movement, they
are not sufficient without the indispensable contributions of science,
economics, education, and policy to the varied challenges of current
environmental problems. Therefore, this is an interdisciplinary effort in which
religions can play a part.
Third, we acknowledge that
there is frequently a disjunction between principles and practices:
ecologically sensitive ideas in religions are not always evident in
environmental practices in particular civilizations. Many civilizations have
overused their environments, with or without religious sanction.
Finally, we are keenly
aware that religions have all too frequently contributed to tensions and
conflict among ethnic groups, both historically and at present. Dogmatic
rigidity, inflexible claims of truth, and misuse of institutional and communal
power by religions have led to tragic consequences in various parts of the
globe.
Nonetheless, while
religions have often preserved traditional ways, they have also provoked social
change. They can be limiting but also liberating in their outlooks. In the
twentieth century, for example, religious leaders and theologians helped to
give birth to progressive movements such as civil rights for minorities, social
justice for the poor, and liberation for women. More recently, religious groups
were instrumental in launching a movement called Jubilee 2000 for debt
reduction for poor nations.4
Although the world’s religions have been slow to respond to our current
environmental crises, their moral authority and their institutional power may
help effect a change in attitudes, practices, and public policies.
As key repositories of
enduring civilizational values and as indispensable motivators in moral
transformation, religions have an important role to play in projecting
persuasive visions of a more sustainable future. This is especially true
because our attitudes toward nature have been consciously and unconsciously
conditioned by our religious worldviews. Over thirty years ago the historian
Lynn White observed this when he noted: “What people do about their ecology
depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them.
Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and
destiny—that is, by religion.”5
White’s article signaled the beginning of contemporary reflection on how
environmental attitudes are shaped by religious worldviews. It is only in
recent years, however, that this topic has been more fully explored, especially
in the ten conferences on world religions and ecology held at the Center for
the Study of World Religions at Harvard Divinity School from 1996–1998.6
Awareness of this reality has led to the identification, in the published
conference volumes, of religious perspectives especially rich in resources for
defining principles that may help us preserve nature and protect the earth
community.7
In soliciting essays for
this issue of Dædalus, we asked scholars of various religions to
address a few key questions: 1) What cosmological dimensions in this tradition
help relate humans to nature? 2) How do this tradition and its sacred texts
support or challenge the idea of nature as simply a utilitarian resource? 3)
What are the core values from this tradition that can lead to the creation of
an effective environmental ethics? 4) From within this religious tradition, can
we identify responsible human practices toward natural systems, sustainable
communities, and future generations? It was considered important that the
religion scholars reflect on these broad questions in order to identify those
attitudes, values, and practices that might be most appropriate in addressing
contemporary environmental problems, especially climate change.
THE CHALLENGE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS
The environmental crisis has been well documented as a
plural reality in its various interconnected aspects of resource depletion and
species extinction, pollution growth and climate change, population explosion
and overconsumption. Thus, while we are using the term “environmental crisis”
in a singular form, we recognize the diverse nature of the interrelated
problems. These problems have been subject to extensive analysis and scrutiny
by the scientific and policy communities and, although comprehensive solutions
remain elusive, there is an emerging consensus that the environmental crisis is
both global in scope and local in impact. The Worldwatch Institute has been
monitoring the global deterioration of the environment over the last two
decades in their annual State of the World report.
In the 2001 report, the concluding article observes: “Despite abundant
information about our environmental impact, human activities continue to scalp
whole forests, drain rivers dry, prune the Tree of Evolution, raise the level
of the seven seas, and reshape climate patterns. And the toll on people and the
natural environment and social systems feed on each other.”8
There is also a dawning
realization that the changes we are currently making to planetary systems are
comparable to the changes of a major geological era. Indeed, some have said we
are closing down life systems on the planet and causing species extinction at
such a rate as to mark the end of the Cenozoic era.9
Others compare the current rate of extinction to earlier geological periods
such as the Jurassic (138 million years before the present) and the Permian
(245 mybp). While this stark picture of the state of the environment has
created pessimism among many and denial among others, it is also increasingly
evident that human decisions will be crucial for the survival of many life
forms on Earth. The long-term health of both people and the planet is in the
balance. As ecosystems deteriorate, as global warming increases, as economic
growth proceeds without restraint, technical solutions alone will be
insufficient to stem the unraveling of the web of life. Some would say
pessimistically, “If current trends continue, we will not.”10
Peter Ravens of the Missouri Botanical Garden puts it more starkly in an
article entitled “We Are Killing Our World.” He writes, “The world that
provides our evolutionary and ecological context is in serious trouble, trouble
of a kind that demands our urgent attention. By formulating adequate plans for
dealing with these large-scale problems, we will be laying the foundation for
peace and prosperity in the future; by ignoring them, drifting passively while
attending to what may seem more urgent personal priorities, we are courting
disaster.”
The scientist Brian Swimme
has indicated that we are making macrophase changes to the planet with
microphase wisdom. As Michael McElroy observes, the deleterious consequences of
the last two hundred years of the industrial revolution have been monumental
for the life systems of the planet. In short, our intervention in ecological
systems can now be regarded as a primary determining factor in the future of
evolutionary processes. Whether our interventions will ultimately be beneficial
or detrimental remains to be seen as we are poised at a critical juncture in
the unfolding journey of the earth community. We need to reexamine the nature
of progress and development and ask at what cost we continue to destroy the
earth’s complex ecosystems. A central question before us is what
are appropriate roles for humans in relation to present and future life on
Earth? As Donald Brown asks, what are the responsibilities of the rich to the
poor as ecological conditions deteriorate due to climate change? What does it
mean to develop ethical sensibilities to people and species at a distance? What
will it mean if twenty-three island nations disappear due to climate change or
if Bangladesh, with one hundred million people, is flooded? Do we in fact have
obligations to future generations that may transcend our contemporary concerns?
One might well ask, if we are not able to encourage the flourishing of life on
the planet, are we not then calling into question the very nature of what it is
to be human? Or, as Thomas Berry puts it, is it we ourselves who are becoming
an endangered species? He notes that while we have developed ethics for
homicide, suicide, and genocide, we have yet to articulate a comprehensive
ethics for biocide or geocide. In response to these kinds of questions, the
authors in this issue reflect on how we might reconceive our role in light of
the world’s religions to foster mutually enhancing human-Earth relations.
SIXTH EXTINCTION AND TRANSFORMATIVE BOUNDARIES
We are entering the twenty-first century with a new sense
of humility at what humans have wrought as well as with a renewed sense of hope
at what we might still achieve. A plaque in the Hall of Biodiversity at the
American Museum of Natural History in New York City suggests that we are in the
midst of a sixth extinction period for which human activities are largely
responsible. Yet it also notes that, depending on our choices, we are still
capable of stemming this massive destruction of life forms. It is this critical
juncture we are facing between pursuing unbridled “progress” and reconfiguring
the relation of economy and ecology for a sustainable future. This constitutes
the potential for new transformative boundaries. A major question we confront
is: What are the appropriate boundaries for the protection and use of nature?
The choices will not be easy as we begin to reassess our sense of rights and
responsibilities to present and future generations, and to reevaluate
appropriate needs and overextended greed regarding natural resources.
This reevaluation of
transformative boundaries has been set in motion by a number of key sectors
ranging from grassroots and nongovernmental organizations to national
governments and the United Nations. The convergence of efforts fostered by
civil society, the nation-states, and international organizations is
noteworthy. Business, too, is beginning to play an important role in developing
principles and practices for environmentally sensitive cost accounting.11
For the first time in human history remarkable new initiatives are emerging
that struggle to restrain our overextended presence on the planet. The results
of these initiatives will be difficult to evaluate immediately, but their
cumulative effect will be indispensable in redirecting our current destructive
course. Indeed, some have suggested that we are in a new phase of cultural
evolution now surpassing biological evolution where human decisions will shape
the course of planetary history as was never before possible.12
This movement toward sustainable human-Earth relations is being led by
individuals and organizations who are developing and implementing alternative
energy sources, environmentally compatible technologies and designs, green
economic and business systems, sustainable agriculture and fishing initiatives,
and environmental education programs.13
These creative movements are not simply technologically driven but are guided
by an understanding of identifying principles and practices that promote the
flourishing of the earth community as a whole.
Further evidence of this
movement toward a sustainable future has emerged over the last decade with the
wide range of international and national conferences that are being held,
research that is being published, and policies that are being implemented.
Indeed, in the decades since the United Nations Conference on the Environment
was held in Stockholm in 1972 and the UN Conference on Environment and
Development (also known as the Earth Summit) was convened in Rio in 1992, the
United Nations has repeatedly identified the environmental crisis as a critical
global challenge. This international political body has highlighted
“sustainable development” as a central goal of the earth community. The 1987
Bruntland Commission report, Our Common Future, outlined
key strategies toward that end. Since the Rio Earth Summit, the United Nations
has held various other major international conferences to analyze our global
situation and devise strategies for ensuring a sustainable future. These
include conferences on social development, habitat, women, population, and
food. These UN conferences have been supplemented by the work of literally
thousands of nongovernmental and environmental organizations around the world
toward formulating more sustainable and just policies and programs for civil
society.
Sustainable development has
been critiqued by some environmental, labor, and human-rights organizations as
often leading toward rampant globalization of capital and the homogenization of
cultures. The unintended consequences of globalization in the loss of habitat,
species, and cultures make it clear that new forms of equitable distribution of
wealth and resources need to be implemented. Indeed, the growing inequities of
North and South that are exacerbated by environmental deterioration and climate
change remain a leading challenge to the global community. One significant
effort to address this growing inequality around issues of sustainable
development is the Earth Charter, which arose out of the 1992 Earth Summit in
Rio.14
The charter was commissioned by the Earth Council, which was established in
Costa Rica to carry out the directives of the Earth Summit. The Earth Charter
consists of sixteen key principles under four headings: respect and care for
the community of life; ecological integrity; social and economic justice; and
democracy, nonviolence, and peace. The charter was drafted over a three-year
period and subject to intensive review from grassroots organizations and NGOs,
international business groups and religious communities. The charter was
formally presented to the international community at the Peace Palace in the
Hague on June 29, 2000. The intention of the Earth Charter Initiative is to
bring the charter to the United Nations General Assembly for endorsement in the
year 2002, the tenth anniversary of the Rio Earth Summit.
CALL FOR THE PARTICIPATION OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES
Many organizations and individuals have been calling for
greater participation by various religious communities in meeting the growing
environmental crisis by reorienting humans to show more respect, restraint, and
responsibility toward the earth community. Consider, for example, a statement
by scientists, “Preserving and Cherishing the Earth: An Appeal for Joint
Commitment in Science and Religion,” issued at a Global Forum meeting in Moscow
in January of 1990. It suggests that the human community is committing “crimes
against creation” and notes that “problems of such magnitude, and solutions
demanding so broad a perspective, must be recognized from the outset as having
a religious as well as a scientific dimension. Mindful of our common
responsibility, we scientists—many of us long engaged in combating the
environmental crisis—urgently appeal to the world religious community to
commit, in word and deed, and as boldly as is required, to preserve the
environment of the Earth.” It goes on to declare that “the environmental crisis
requires radical changes not only in public policy, but in individual behavior.
The historical record makes clear that religious teaching, example, and
leadership are powerfully able to influence personal conduct and commitment. As
scientists, many of us have had profound experiences of awe and reverence
before the universe. We understand that what is regarded as sacred is more
likely to be treated with care and respect. Our planetary home should be so
regarded. Efforts to safeguard and cherish the environment need to be infused
with a vision of the sacred.”15
A second important
document, “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” was produced by the Union of
Concerned Scientists in 1992 and was signed by more than two thousand
scientists, including more than two hundred Nobel Laureates. This document also
suggests that the planet is facing a severe environmental crisis: “Human beings
and the natural world are on a collision course. . . . Human activities inflict
harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical
resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at risk the future
that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so
alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner
that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision
our present course will bring about.”
These changes will require
the special assistance and commitment of those in the religious community.
Indeed, the document calls for the cooperation of natural and social
scientists, business and industrial leaders—and also religious leaders. It
concludes with a call for environmentally sensitive attitudes and behaviors,
which religious communities can help to articulate: “A new ethic is required—a
new attitude towards discharging our responsibilities for caring for ourselves
and for the earth. We must recognize the earth’s limited capacity to provide
for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be
ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement, convincing reluctant
leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect
the needed changes.”16
RESPONSES FROM THE WORLD’S RELIGIONS
Although the responses of religions to the global
environmental crisis were slow at first, they have been steadily growing over
the last twenty-five years. Several years after the first UN Conference on
Environment and Development in Stockholm in 1972, some Christian churches began
to address growing environmental and social challenges. At the fifth Assembly
of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Nairobi in 1975, there was a call to
establish the conditions for a “just, participatory, and sustainable [global]
society.” In 1979, a follow-up WCC conference was held at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology on “Faith, Science, and the Future.”17
The 1983 Vancouver Assembly of the WCC revised the theme of the Nairobi
conference to include “Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation.” The 1991
WCC Canberra conference expanded on these ideas with the theme of the “Holy
Spirit Renewing the Whole of Creation.” After Canberra, the WCC theme for
mission in society became “Theology of Life.” This has brought theological
reflection to bear on environmental destruction and social inequities resulting
from economic globalization. In 1992, at the time of the UN Earth Summit in
Rio, the WCC facilitated a gathering of Christian leaders that issued a “Letter
to the Churches,” calling for attention to pressing eco-justice concerns:
solidarity with other people and all creatures; ecological sustainability;
sufficiency as a standard of distributive justice; and socially just
participation in decisions for the common good.18
In addition to major
conferences held by the Christian churches, several interreligious meetings
have been held, and various religious movements have emerged concerning the
environment. Some of these include the interreligious gatherings on the
environment in Assisi in 1984 under the sponsorship of the World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) and under the auspices of the Vatican in 1986. Moreover, the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has established an Interfaith Partnership
for the Environment (IPE) that has distributed thousands of packets of
materials for use in local congregations and religious communities for more
than fifteen years.19
The two most recent
Parliaments of World Religions—held in Chicago in 1993, and in Cape Town, South
Africa, in 1999—both issued major statements on global ethics, stressing
environmental issues as well as human rights. The Global Forum of Spiritual and
Parliamentary Leaders held international meetings in Oxford in 1988, Moscow in
1990, Rio in 1992, and Kyoto in 1993—and each time devoted significant
attention to environmental issues. Since 1995 a critical Alliance of Religion
and Conservation (ARC) has been active in England, while the National Religious
Partnership for the Environment (NRPE) has organized Jewish and Christian
groups around this issue in the United States. Two member groups of NRPE, the
Coalition on Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL) and the National Council of
Churches, are helping to mobilize the American Jewish and Christian communities
regarding environmental issues, especially global warming. Religious groups
have also contributed over the last five years to the drafting of the Earth
Charter. And the World Bank has developed a World Faiths Development Dialogue
on poverty and development issues with a select group of international
religious leaders.20
Religious leaders and
laypersons are increasingly speaking out for protection of the environment. The
Dalai Lama has made numerous statements on the importance of environmental
protection and has proposed that Tibet should be designated a zone of special
ecological integrity. Rabbi Ishmar Schorsch of the Jewish Theological Seminary
in New York has frequently spoken on the critical state of the environment. The
Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew has sponsored several seminars to
highlight environmental destruction in the Black Sea and along the Danube
River,21
calling such examples of negligence “ecological sin.” From the Islamic
perspective, Seyyed Hossein Nasr has written and spoken widely on the sacred
nature of the environment for more than three decades. In the Christian world,
along with the efforts of the Protestant community, the Catholic Church has
issued several important pastoral letters over the last decade. Pope John Paul
II wrote a message for the World Day of Peace, on January 1, 1990, entitled
“The Ecological Crisis: A Common Responsibility.” More recently, John Paul II
has spoken of the need for ecological conversion, namely, a deep turning to the
needs of the larger community of life.22
In August of 2000, at a historic gathering of more than one thousand religious
leaders at the UN for the Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and
Spiritual Leaders, the environment was a major topic of discussion. The UN
secretary-general, Kofi Annan, called for a new ethic of global stewardship,
recognizing the urgent situation posed by current unsustainable trends.23
RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD AND ECOLOGY PROJECT
It was in light of these various initiatives that a
three-year intensive conference series, entitled “Religions of the World and
Ecology,” was organized at the Center for the Study of World Religions at
Harvard Divinity School to examine the varied ways in which human-Earth
relations have been conceived in the world’s religious traditions. From
1996–1998 the series of ten conferences examined the traditions of Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism, Shinto,
and indigenous religions. The conferences, organized by Mary Evelyn Tucker and
John Grim in collaboration with a team of area specialists, brought together
over seven hundred international scholars of the world’s religions as well as
environmental activists and grassroots leaders. Recognizing that religions are
key shapers of people’s worldviews and formulators of their most cherished
values, this broad research project informs many of the essays gathered in this
issue of Dædalus.
Since 1998, an ongoing
Forum on Religion and Ecology has been organized to continue the research,
education, and outreach begun at these earlier conferences. A primary goal of
the forum is to help to establish a field of study in religion and ecology that
has implications for public policy. The forum is involved in holding scholarly
conferences as well as initiating workshops for high-school teachers,
distributing curricular resources for college courses, supporting a journal on
religion and ecology,24
and creating a comprehensive web site
(http://environment.harvard.edu/religion).
Just as religions played an
important role in creating sociopolitical changes in the twentieth century
(e.g., human and civil rights), so now religions are poised in the twenty-first
century to contribute to the emergence of a broader environmental ethics based
on diverse sensibilities regarding the sacred dimensions of the natural world.
DEFINING TERMS: RELIGION AND ECOLOGY
Religion is more than simply a belief in a transcendent
deity or a means to an afterlife. It is, rather, an orientation to the cosmos
and our role in it. We understand religion in its broadest sense as a means
whereby humans, recognizing the limitations of phenomenal reality, undertake
specific practices to effect self-transformation and community cohesion within
a cosmological context. Religion thus refers to those cosmological stories,
symbol systems, ritual practices, ethical norms, historical processes, and
institutional structures that transmit a view of the human as embedded in a
world of meaning and responsibility, transformation and celebration. Religion
connects humans with a divine or numinous presence, with the human community,
and with the broader earth community. It links humans to the larger matrix of
mystery in which life arises, unfolds, and flourishes.
In this light nature is a
revelatory context for orienting humans to abiding religious questions
regarding the cosmological origins of the universe, the meaning of the
emergence of life, and the responsible role of humans in relation to life
processes. Religion thus situates humans in relation to both the natural and
human worlds with regard to meaning and responsibility. At the same time,
religion becomes a means of experiencing a sustaining creative force in the
natural and human worlds and beyond. For some traditions this is a creator
deity; for others it is a numinous presence in nature; for others it is the
source of flourishing life.
This experience of a
creative force gives rise to a human desire to enter into processes of
transformation and celebration that link self, society, and cosmos. The
individual is connected to the larger human community and to the macrocosm of
the universe itself. The transformative impulse seeks relationality, intimacy,
and communion with this numinous power. Individual and communal transformations
are expressed through rituals and ceremonies of celebration. More specifically,
these transformations have the capacity to embrace the celebration of natural
seasonal cycles as well as various cultural rites of passage. Religion thus
links humanity to the rhythms of nature through the use of symbols and rituals
that help to establish moral relationships and patterns for social exchange.
The issues discussed here
are complex and involve various peoples, cultures, worldviews, and academic
disciplines. Therefore, it is important to be clear about our terms. As it is
used here, the term “ecology” locates the human within the horizon of emergent,
interdependent life rather than viewing humanity as the vanguard of evolution,
the exclusive fabricator of technology, or a species apart from nature.
“Scientific ecology” is a term used to indicate the empirical and experimental
study of the relations between living and nonliving organisms within their
ecosystems. While drawing on the scientific understanding of interrelationships
in nature, we are introducing the term “religious ecology” to point toward a
cultural awareness of kinship with and dependence on nature for the continuity
of all life. Thus, religious ecology provides a basis for exploring diverse
cultural responses to the varied earth processes of transformation. In
addition, the study of religious ecology can give us insight into how
particular environments have influenced the development of cultures. Therefore,
one can distinguish religious ecology from scientific ecology just as one can
distinguish religious cosmology from scientific cosmology.
This awareness of the
interdependence of life in religious ecology finds expression in the religious
traditions as a sacred reality that is often recognized as a creative
manifestation, a pervasive sustaining presence, a vital power in the natural
world, or an emptiness (sunyata) leading to the realization of
interbeing.25
For many religions, the natural world is understood as a source of teaching,
guidance, visionary inspiration, revelation, or power. At the same time, nature
is also a source of food, clothing, and shelter. Thus, religions have developed
intricate systems of exchange and thanksgiving around human dependence on
animals and plants, on forests and fields, on rivers and oceans. These
encompass symbolic and ritual exchanges that frequently embody agricultural
processes, ecological knowledge of ecosystems, or hunting practices.26
The study of religion and
ecology explores the many ways in which religious communities ritually
articulate relationships with their local landscapes and bioregions. Religious
ecology gives insight into how people and cultures create both symbolic systems
of human-Earth relations and practical means of sustaining and implementing
these relations.
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF RELIGION AND
ECOLOGY
There is an inevitable disjunction between the
examination of historical religious traditions in all of their diversity and
complexity and the application of teachings or scriptures to contemporary
situations. While religions have always been involved in meeting contemporary
challenges over the centuries, it is clear that the global environmental crisis
is larger and more complex than anything in recorded human history. Thus, a
simple application of traditional ideas to contemporary problems is unlikely to
be either possible or adequate. In order to address ecological problems
properly, religious leaders and laypersons have to be in dialogue with
environmentalists, scientists, economists, businesspeople, politicians, and
educators.
With these qualifications
in mind we can then identify three methodological approaches that appear in the
emerging study of religion and ecology: retrieval, reevaluation, and
reconstruction. Each of these methodological approaches is represented in the
essays included in this volume.
Interpretive retrieval
involves the scholarly investigation of cosmological, scriptural, and legal
sources in order to clarify traditional religious teachings regarding
human-Earth relations. This requires that historical and textual studies
uncover resources latent within the tradition. In addition, interpretive
retrieval can identify ethical codes and ritual customs of the tradition in
order to discover how these teachings were put into practice.
In interpretive
reevaluation, traditional teachings are evaluated with regard to their
relevance to contemporary circumstances. Can the ideas, teachings, or ethics
present in these traditions be adopted by contemporary scholars or
practitioners who wish to help shape more ecologically sensitive attitudes and
sustainable practices? Reevaluation also questions ideas that may lead to
inappropriate environmental practices. For example, are certain religious
tendencies reflective of otherworldly or world-denying orientations that are
not helpful in relation to pressing ecological issues? It asks as well whether
the material world of nature has been devalued by a particular religion and
whether a model of ethics focusing solely on human interaction is adequate to
address environmental problems.
Finally, interpretive
reconstruction suggests ways that religious traditions might adapt their
teachings to current circumstances in new and creative ways. This may result in
a new synthesis or in a creative modification of traditional ideas and
practices to suit modern modes of expression. This is the most challenging
aspect of the emerging field of religion and ecology and requires sensitivity
to who is speaking about a tradition in the process of reevaluation and
reconstruction. Postcolonial critics have appropriately highlighted the complex
issues surrounding the problem of who is representing or interpreting a
tradition. Nonetheless, practitioners and leaders of particular traditions may
find grounds for creative dialogue with scholars of religious traditions in
these various phases of interpretation.
DIVERSITY AND DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS
The diversity of the world’s religions may seem
self-evident to some, but it is worth stressing the differences within and
between religious traditions. At the same time, it is possible to posit shared
dimensions of religions in light of this diversity, without arguing that the
world’s religions have some single emergent goal. The world’s religions are
inherently distinctive in their expressions, and these differences are
especially significant in regard to the study of religion and ecology.
Several sets of religious
diversity can be identified as being integrally related. First, there is
historical and cultural diversity within and between religious traditions as
expressed over time in varied social contexts. For example, we need to be
sensitive to the variations in Judaism between Orthodox, Conservative, and
Reform movements, in Christianity between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant
varieties of the tradition, and in Islam between Sunni and Shiite positions.
Second, there is dialogical
and syncretic diversity within and between religions traditions, which adds
another level of complexity. Dialogue and interaction between traditions
engenders the fusion of religious traditions into one another, often resulting
in new forms of religious expression that can be described as syncretic. Such
syncretism occurred when Christian missionaries evangelized indigenous peoples
in the Americas. In East Asia there is an ongoing dialogue between and among
Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism that results in various kinds of syncretism.27
Third, there is ecological
and cosmological diversity within and between religions. Ecological diversity
is evident in the varied environmental contexts and bioregions where religions
have developed over time. For example, Jerusalem is the center of a sacred
bioregion where three religious traditions—Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam—have both shaped and been shaped by the environment. These complex
interactions illustrate that religions are not static in their impacts on
ecology. Indeed, throughout history the relationships between religions and
their natural settings have been fluid and manifold.
Religious traditions
develop unique narratives, symbols, and rituals to express their relationships
with the cosmos as well as with various local landscapes. For example, the body
is a vital metaphor for understanding the Daoist relationship with the world:
as an energetic network of breathings-in and breathings-out, the body,
according to Daoism, expresses the basic pattern of the cosmos. Another
example, from Buddhism, of a distinctive ecological understanding involves Doi
Suthep, a sacred mountain in the Chiang Mai valley of northern Thailand: the
ancient Thai reverence for the mountain is understood as analogous to respect
for the Buddhist reliquary, or stupa.
CONVERGING PERSPECTIVES: COMMON VALUES FOR THE EARTH
COMMUNITY
This project of exploring world religions and ecology may
lead toward convergence on several overarching principles. As many of the
essays illustrate, the common values that most of the world’s religions hold in
relation to the natural world might be summarized as reverence, respect,
restraint, redistribution, and responsibility. While there are clearly
variations of interpretation within and between religions regarding these five
principles, it may be said that religions are moving toward an expanded
understanding of their cosmological orientations and ethical obligations.
Although these principles have been previously understood primarily with regard
to relations toward other humans, the challenge now is to extend them to the
natural world. As this shift occurs—and there are signs it is already
happening—religions can advocate reverence for the earth and its profound
cosmological processes, respect for the earth’s myriad species, an extension of
ethics to include all life forms, restraint in the use of natural resources
combined with support for effective alternative technologies, equitable
redistribution of wealth, and the acknowledgement of human responsibility in
regard to the continuity of life and the ecosystems that support life.
Just as religious values
needed to be identified, so, too, the values embedded in science, education,
economics, and public policy also need to be more carefully understood.
Scientific analysis will be critical to understanding nature’s economy;
education will be indispensable to creating sustainable modes of life; economic
incentives will be central to an equitable distribution of resources;
public-policy recommendations will be invaluable in shaping national and
international priorities. But the ethical values that inform modern science and
public policy must not be uncritically applied. Instead, by carefully
evaluating the intellectual resources both of the world’s religions and of
modern science and public policy, our long-term ecological prospects may
emerge. We need to examine the tensions between efficiency and equity, between
profit and preservation, and between the private and public good. We need to
make distinctions between human need and greed, between the use and abuse of
nature, and between the intrinsic value and instrumental value of nature. We
need to move from destructive to constructive modes of production, and from the
accumulation of goods to an appreciation for the common good of the earth
community.
As Thomas Berry has
observed: “The ethical does not simply apply to human beings but to the total
community of existence as well. The integral economic community includes not
only its human components but also its natural components. To assist the human
by deteriorating the natural cannot lead to a sustainable community. The only
sustainable community is one that fits the human economy into the ever-renewing
ecosystems of the planet.”28
This issue of Dædalus
is dedicated, then, to exploring the ways in which the world’s religions can
contribute to ensuring the continuity of the earth community, especially in
light of the challenge of global climate change. It is intended as a mapping of
the contours of possibility that invites further discussion, reflection,
and—inevitably—action.
ENDNOTES
| 1 |
It is important to note that the most recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report noted that climate
change is a serious global problem that requires the efforts of the
international community to mitigate its growing effects. This report has been
endorsed by the National Academies of Sciences of Australia, Belgium, Brazil,
Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland,
Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the
United States. See http://www.ipcc.ch. Back
to Text |
| 2 |
Bill McKibben, The End of Nature
(New York: Random House, 1989; 2d ed. New York: Anchor Books, 1999). Back
to Text |
| 3 |
Lester R. Brown, “Challenges of the New
Century,” in The Worldwatch Institute, State of the World
2000 (New York: Norton, 2000), 20.
Back to Text |
| 4 |
The movement, which began in Britain, has had
demonstrable influence on the decisions of the World Bank and other lending
organizations to reduce or forgive debts in more than twenty countries. See
http://www.jubilee2000uk.org. Back
to Text |
| 5 |
Lynn White, Jr., “The Historical Roots of Our
Ecologic Crisis,” Science 155 (10 March 1967): 1204. Back
to Text |
| 6 |
For more information on the conference series,
see http://www.hds.harvard.edu/cswr/ecology. Back
to Text |
| 7 |
Buddhism and Ecology (1997),
Confucianism and Ecology (1998), Hinduism
and Ecology (2000),Christianity and Ecology (2000),
Indigenous Traditions and Ecology (2001), and Daoism
and Ecology (2001). Forthcoming are volumes on Judaism, Islam,
Jainism, and Shinto. All are published by the Center for the Study of World
Religions at Harvard Divinity School and distributed by Harvard University
Press, 1-800-448-2242. Back
to Text |
| 8 |
The Worldwatch Institute, State of the World
2001 (New York: Norton, 2001),
190. Back
to Text |
| 9 |
Thomas Berry, The Great Work
(New York: Bell Towers/Random House, 1999). See also Niles Eldredge, Life
in the Balance: Humanity and the
Biodiversity Crisis (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1998), and Marjorie Reaka-Kudla, Don Wilson, and Edward O. Wilson, Biodiversity
II: Understanding and Protecting our Biological
Resources (Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press, 1997).
Back
to Text |
| 10 |
See Daniel Maguire, The Moral Core
of Judaism and Christianity: Reclaiming
the Revolution (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1993), 13. Back
to Text |
| 11 |
See Robert Massie’s work with the Coalition for
Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) and the work of Herman Daly and
Robert Costanza on ecological economics. Back
to Text |
| 12 |
Paul Erhlich, Human Natures (Washington,
D.C.: Island Press, 2001). See his last chapter on “Evolution and Human
Values.” Gary Gardner, in the concluding article, “Accelerating the Shift to
Sustainability,” in State of the World 2001,
writes, “The question facing this generation is whether the human community
will take charge of its own cultural evolution and implement a rational shift
to sustainable economies, or will instead stand by watching nature impose
change as environmental systems break down.” Gardner, “Accelerating the Shift
to Sustainability,” 190. Back
to Text |
| 13 |
There are numerous examples of these efforts:
Amory and Hunter Lovins for alternative energy, John and Nancy Todd and William
McDonough for ecological technology and design, Herman Daly and Robert Costanza
for ecological economics, Wes Jackson and Wendell Berry for sustainable
agriculture, David Orr and Anthony Cortese for environmental education. Back
to Text |
| 15 |
“Preserving and Cherishing the Earth: An Appeal for
Joint Commitment in Science and Religion,” 1990. Back
to Text |
| 16 |
“World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” Union of
Concerned Scientists, 1992. Back
to Text |
| 17 |
See preparatory readings for the conference in
Paul Abrecht, ed., Faith, Science, and the
Future (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978). For Christian ethical
reflections from this period see Roger Shinn, Forced Options:
Social Decisions for the 21st Century
(San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1982). Back
to Text |
| 18 |
See Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, Redeeming the
Creation: The Rio Earth Summit: Challenges for the Churches (Geneva:
World Council of Churches Publications, 1992). For further background on the
role of the WCC see Dieter Hessel, Theology
and Public Policy, vol. 7, bk. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Churches’ Center
for Theology and Public Policy, 1995). We are indebted to him for his
suggestions for this paragraph on the role of the WCC. Back
to Text |
| 19 |
See especially the booklet Earth and
Faith published by UNEP in 2000 and available from uneprona@un.org or by
telephone at (212) 963-8210. In June of 2001, UNEP also organized the Tehran
Seminar with the Islamic Republic of Iran on “Religion, Culture, and the
Environment.” Back
to Text |
| 21 |
See the account of the extension of this work
in John Chryssavgis, “The Halki Ecological Institute: Religion, Science, and
the Environment,” Worldviews: Environment, Culture,
Religion 3 (3) (December 1999): 273–278. Back
to Text |
| 22 |
In 1988 the Catholic Bishops of the Philippines
issued a letter entitled “What is Happening to Our Beautiful Land,” and in 1990
the U.S. Catholic Bishops published a statement called “Renewing the Earth.” In
2000 the Boston Bishops wrote a pastoral letter entitled “And God Saw That it
Was Good,” and in February of 2001 the Bishops of the Pacific Northwest
published “The Columbia Watershed: Caring for Creation and the Common Good.” In
June of 2001 the U.S. Catholic Bishops issued a letter called “Global Climate
Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good.”
Back to
Text |
| 23 |
See Kofi Annan, “Sustainable Development:
Humanity’s Biggest Challenge in the New Century” (statement read at UN
International Conference Center, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 14 March 2001). Back
to Text |
| 24 |
The journal is entitled Worldviews:
Environment, Culture, Religion and is
published by Brill Academic Publishers.
Back to Text |
| 25 |
The term “interbeing” is used in the writings
of the Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh. Back
to Text |
| 26 |
See Eugene N. Anderson, Ecologies of
the Heart: Emotion, Belief, and
the Environment (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1996) and John A. Grim, ed., Indigenous Traditions and Ecology:
The Interbeing of Cosmology and Community
(Cambridge, Mass.: Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard Divinity
School, 2001). Back
to Text |
| 27 |
See Judith A. Berling, The Syncretic
Religion of Lin Chao-en (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1980). Back
to Text |
| 28 |
Thomas Berry, “Transforming Economic Myths,”
unpublished manuscript. Back
to Text |
|
|
|
©
2001 by The American Academy of Arts and Sciences
|
|
|
|
|