Earth household

Earth Household

!

[This is a copy of notes written in 1993 for my portfolio for the ‘Emerging Patterns of Thought and Belief course at the University of Bath as part of my degree in business administration. Unfortunately the sheet containing the bibliography has been misplaced.]

!

Many people are aware today that the earth is suffering from an ecological crisis - from the hole in the ozone layer, the destruction of the rain forests to the litter in our backyards. This view is coupled with the realisation that the current reigning western mind—set is causing us to rape nature, and as one eminent Christian scholar Tony Campolo puts it "the reckless disregard for the environment, whether out of ignorance or greed, is sinful.” The emergence of this view and the impeding ecological crisis has led to the recognition by those involved in the new thinking in science and those of the new thinking within the Christian realm that they are dealing with similar concerns.

Further they recognise that there is a need to understand and care for what Gary Snyder calls our “Earth household”.

!

Thus we have in the overall new paradigm movement an emergence of new thinking in science which seeks to reconnect itself with spiritual values. On the other hand we have also the new thinking in the Christian community which addresses social issues and ecological responsibility.

!

Each new paradigm or tradition of rationality, Lesslie Newbigin (1992), seeks an ideal community in which it strives to transform our present culture into. This essay looks at the ideal community put forward by advocates of the new—paradigm view in Christianity and note that it has similarities to that expressed by the new paradigm thinkers, although it is fundamentally different in many respects. But this view is also used to highlight the fallacy of the New Age movement with it’s over lopsided optimism. The result is that we need to adopt a view that is characterised by both/ and thinking, which enables us to avoid being too optimistic or too pessimistic. This is a perspective that helps us to realise our human capacity for both good and evil.

!

However, before the above, the essay will investigate that the biblical worldview is also wholistic in nature and therefore ecological. It will be noted that from this realisation the new paradigm thinking in theology leads to the view of the ideal community we will give reference to. But the most significant fact will be the identification of dualistic thinking within the church and society as a whole that has been part of the cause of our ecological crisis.

!

The question arising is what constitutes the new paradigm thinking? The answer to this is complex, as there are many diverse elements that constitute this new—paradigm, for as Michael Ventura notes this emerging paradigm is totally chaotic, but there appears to be a world wide movement in this area to form a new faith. However, Capra attempts to answer this type of question by arguing that the new paradigm thinking represents a shift in thinking from the old scientific paradigm of Cartesian, Newtonian, or Baconian worldviews, and the patriarchal value system, to a new paradigm, which maybe called holistic, ecological, or systemic. However, this is only a limited definition. To understand this view in a little more detail please refer to Appendix A.

!

From Appendix A we see that the proponents of the new thinking argue, that they are in the process of initiating, and we are seeing the making of, a cultural transformation. This is a phenomenon that is changing the mind-sets of people within our western culture. Additionally, it is a transformation that will make us think in an ecological way and one that will give value back to nature as a living and mindful organism, which certain proponents refer to as Gaia. This would lead to the

development of a community of people living in peace with themselves and nature, and through a new faith creating a better life for all. However, a view which can be considered to be characterised by a high degree of optimism, but optimism that is rather lopsided.

!

The above movement has been very much born within our contemporary spiritual awakening. Yet new paradigm thinking is not only the exclusive property of the enlightened science but also it is evident within the Christian tradition. In this area we are witnessing that the old theological paradigm is being renewed or transformed by new paradigm thinking in theology. This process is partly a consequence of the series of Christian renewal movements of the twentieth-century. The last two were the restoration of spiritual power and gifts to the church - the body of Christ - and the social justice movement. Yet the new paradigm thinking realises also that these renewal movements have been relatively fragmented and therefore what is needed is the emergence of thinking that is holistic and “ecumenical”. This is equivalent argues Thomas Matus to the ecological view in science — whereby one maintains an integrated vision of renewal in every dimension of the church’s life, John Stott (1992). Thus the new paradigm thinking within Christianity is challenging the traditional church and many of its mainline denominations — those effected or not by the charismatic movement.

!

As a result of this new thinking, which to a degree is reflective of the general paradigm shift we are now experiencing, Christian scholars are rediscovering the wholistic and systemic nature of Hebrew and early Christian thinkers, for example, Jesus, the Prophets and other writers within the total Old and New Testament books. In this area there is the realisation that nature/ creation is to be valued and that God has spoken of various conditions in which man should be following to ensure that nature is treated respectfully and with responsibility.

!

The Christian Bible is filled with positive images of nature - a theme that runs from Genesis to Revelation. The Christian view purports that nature is infinitely godly and is marked everywhere with their God’s fingerprints. Additionally, there is the aspect of the “fall” which was brought about by humankind’s attempt to become autonomous, which led to the view of creation existing for man: the move from theocentric to anthropocentric. As a result, ‘theocentricism’ for a Christian is the true position where all things exist for and have their meaning in God. The move from theocentricism to anthropocentrism, however, should be considered as a sin. For Calvin he saw the fall as perverting the ‘whole of nature in heaven and earth’. Nature was disrupted and the ‘shalom’ that existed in the Garden of Eden between God, humanity and nature was ruptured, Bishop (1992).

Because of this, the Christian view suggests that nature, which is essentially good, is frustrated because of humankind’s fall. Therefore, the Christian perceives that because of the systemic characteristics of creation, the fall has caused a terrible impact upon and within creation. However, the Christian story maintains that through Christ Jesus - redemption is truly ‘cosmic’, radically affecting everything in God’s world, including the “renewal of all things” in Christ’s future reign.

!

The question arising is that if the above represents the Christian view, and to a Christian is the truth, then why has the church taken so long to develop an ecological conscience and ethic? As we noted earlier the church has experienced a number of ‘revivals’ which have transformed many churches, putting life back into them, whereby the message of the gospel resonates within people and to a degree becomes manifest in everyday life.

!

The problem is due to what Seaton (1992) calls ‘missing links’. A view similar to John Stott, which argues that the church has only preached a fragmented message and one that is rarely preached in a

very green - that is, in a very whole - form. Therefore, if the Bible - the Christian view - is so clear on the goodness of the earth, then why, as Seaton questions are its believers so reluctant to declare it?

!

A part of the answer to this question is that Christian thinking has been co-opted into the reigning western world view which has domesticated the Christian view of life, Newbigin (1992). Thus a Christian maybe seeing the world through the lenses of the biblical tradition of rationality or as many people have done by looking at the Christian tradition from the perspective of the reigning culture. Thus the criticisms of the new paradigm thinking can be just as much applied to many Christians as it can to secularists.

!

To be more specific towards the Church dimension, on this matter, Dave Tomlinson has identified five key reasons for the Church’s lack of response. Four of these factors can be found in Appendix C. However, it is intended that we concentrate now on one of the most significant and dangerous factors to enter into Christianity and the reigning Western worldview, and that is - as many new paradigm thinkers have highlighted - the aspect of ‘dualism’.

!

In the scientific new paradigm thinking there is the realisation that the Western worldview - the map in which we interpret the terrain - has been infiltrated by dualism. This has led non-enlightened people to hold worldviews that are dualistic in nature. Dualistic thinking is based on Creek philosophies of neo-Platonism, Jones (1991). These ideas were picked up and re-interpreted during the Age of Reason by Rene Descartes and other deists - the period of enlightenment, Capra (1987), Jones (1991), Newbigin (1992). This led to the dualistic separation of matter/ spirit and what Newbigin calls public/ private or fact/ belief distinctions, which has profoundly affected the whole of our thinking and the working out of our values. In turn this has naturally become reflected within our culture’s plausibility structures, Newbigin (1989). The church is also a victim of this dualistic onslaught. As a consequence many Christians’ worldview differs from the biblical tradition of rationality. This is because many Christians make the mistake of interpreting the scriptures through the lenses of the Western culture worldview and not as Newbigin calls for by indwelling the biblical story and seeing the world through its' tradition of rationality. This task, however, is not an easy one, and within us with have this internal dialogue and conflict between the biblical and worldly traditions.

!

Dualistic thinking within Christianity has been a negative force, leading to many separations being read into Christianity over the centuries: Soul and body; flesh and spirit; sacred and secular; holy and worldly; heaven and earth, and so on. Thus to make a distinction is one thing, but to push it to the extremes is quite another. Instead the new paradigm in theology expresses that concepts of body, soul, and spirit and so on are to be seen positively as all being part of the wholeness of a person, a view which also includes a relationship to God and nature.

!

The above realisation also has parallels with the view held by the advocates of new paradigm thinking - whereby the idea that there is dualism within nature are to be considered as dangerous and therefore to be avoided. A view expressed by Gregory Bateson in his writings. However, Bateson does note that Christianity still contains a dualistic view in respect of its description of God - being transcendent and separate from creation. If this is true, however, it represents only a limited and lopsided understanding of the biblical picture of God. This is a view that has sometimes been overemphasised without maintaining the tension of the other perspective, which shows God as being intimately involved in nature.

Therefore, the new Christian understanding creates a position of tension, whereby both/ and thinking is maintained. For it avoids taking the extreme view of monism - the theory that all reality is one. Monism is also closely linked to pantheism, which is the view adopted by deep ecologists where God equals nature. Yet the Christian position also avoids the extreme of dualism, which sees God only as totally other and uninvolved in creation - the view that Bateson attacks. Therefore, the new paradigm view expresses that, “Jesus is before all things, and in him all things hold together”, Colossians 1:17. In other words, the Christian belief is that God is before the cosmos/ universe, and in him the cosmos/ universe holds together. However, the new paradigm in theology maintains that at the level of the cosmos/ universe, the idea that there are also dualisms within nature is incorrect and therefore to be avoided. At this point there is a correlation between the understandings of the emerging new scientific worldview and the new paradigm in theology. Appendix E gives a further discussion of this perspective.

!

From the above it is clear which ever perspective one takes - the scientific or theological, there is the realisation that dualism grips our culture and the Christian church. Due to this phenomenon the emerging traditions of rationality - scientific and Christian - seek the antidote to this dualism. In both cases there is an attempt to secure a wholistic worldview by the transformation of culture.

This will change the heart attitudes and mind-sets of people by creating the appropriate community and culture to enable wholistic and ecological thinking to reign. It is this context that the new thinking in science and theology has many similarities and some fundamental differences. Both realise that they hold profound social implications, and as such the new paradigm thinking in science holds valuable insights for Christian thinking, just as society is becoming aware that its problems have a spiritual dimension and implications. We shall now explore in more depth the results of such thinking.

!

The Christian new paradigm antidote to dualism and the way to secure a holistic worldview lies within the Christian bible itself, through the concept of the Kingdom of God. The social implications of this view are clearly expressed by Martin Luther King Jr. in his concept of the “Beloved Community”. This view is in line with the new paradigm thinking in theology and has been expanded to incorporate a higher emphasis on the ecological dimension. King’s, view is also characteristic of the thinking within the emerging new scientific school of thought. And in this sense enables both Christian and their neighbours to seek together in dialogue the working out of this beloved community that cares for the “Earth household” - both humankind and nature.

!

In both traditions of rationality one is encouraged to seek reconciliation and the formation of a community based on love. To King and the new paradigm thinking in theology would see this community operating in the following way. However, it must be noted that the information written below are based on the work of John Ansbro’s writings on King, and other sources of new paradigm thinking within the Christian tradition.

!

People would allow, in this community, the spirit of ‘agape’ to direct their entire individual, social and ecological relationships. Thus they would manifest a persistent willingness to sacrifice for the good of the community or Earth household, and for their own spiritual and temporal good. In their private lives and as members of the caring Earth household or community, they would regard each person as an image of God and a heir to a legacy of dignity and worth with rights that are not derived from the state but from God. In this picture one also incorporates the view that people will regard nature as good, ‘alive’, and has worth and rights that are not derived from the state but from

God - spiritual dimension. The biblical worldview challenges the idea of anthropocentrism, but in a completely different way to that expressed by deep ecology, for it also challenges the alternative extreme of biocentrism - for a fuller discussion see appendix D.

!

Within this community people will be inspired by a vision of ‘total interrelatedness’ and of the solidarity of the human family - culture - and ones interconnectedness to nature. These are the very principles of systemic thinking. Whereby people will be aware that what directly affects one person affects all persons indirectly, and what effects one part of nature will affect all nature including humans indirectly - ecological understanding. By their laws, actions, and attitudes people would never reduce a person to a mere means, but always treat them as ends in themselves with the right of rational self-determination. In addition, people will treat nature in a sustainable manner.

!

In this community all races are considered equal and all forms of discrimination will be excluded.

Whereby “genuine inter-group and interpersonal living” is achieved, King (1963). Every member of such a culture/ community would be committed to brotherhood and sisterhood due to the awareness of their interconnectedness which is a part of the Kingdom of God teaching, and the heart of the new paradigm, Capra, et al (1992). The sense of belonging to the Earth household, where we are not only sensing belonging to a community of people, but also to nature and God as a whole. This is the heart of religious experience.

!

In this community industries will be more concerned with people and the environment than with profits, seeking to rid the destructive feeling of alienation from peoples’ work and their relationships as well as pursuing ecological and social sustainability. Lester Brown defines a sustainable society as, “one that satisfies its needs without diminishing the prospects of future generations,” quoted in Capra (1992). In addition, governments would concentrate on developing moral power, and would arrange to share political power with their citizens at the local level (the principle of subsidiarity) and for the rest of humanity and nature. These governments will also ensure equality and justice in all things.

!

The churches in this community would seek to actively promote ecumenical endeavours, and to be involved in community programmes to enhance the spiritual and temporal well being of all, Ansbro (1982), Newbigin (1992) and Stott (1992). Additionally, the churches will be developing along with others ecologically and socially sound projects.

!

The above is a beautiful and wonderful picture of the ‘beloved Community’; one although different from a new paradigm view because of its Christian bias, nonetheless has many similarities. Each hopes for a better future, whereby this type of view becomes manifest in reality. However, there is a difference between the new paradigm thinking, which has been mainly adopted by the ‘New Age’ movement and the new paradigm view in Christianity. In the former there is the belief that this new thinking is a good thing and will inevitably lead everyone to have a better life. For in their view people have the potential to create this ‘community’. Yet as Berman (1989) argues this is but a lopsided optimism because it fails to look at the shadow side of the “holistic worldview”, which in Berman’s mind is “potentially very dark”.

!

However, this aspect is realised within the Christian new-paradigm. Although like King we may allude to the above ideal of the “beloved Community” as if it could be achieved, nonetheless, their is the realisation that as Berman notes because of the dark side of human nature the ‘perfect’ beloved community could not be realised in all its fullness - to become an historical reality, Ansbro

(1982). As King realised and Reinhold Niebuhr argues we need ‘realism’ to avoid the illusions of a superficial optimism concerning human nature, and as Ansbro notes the dangers of a false idealism.

Additionally, according to King, we need to be more aware of “the glaring reality of collective [and systemic] evil”. In ‘Strength to Love’, King asserted that, “Man collectivised in the group, the tribe, the race, and the nation often sinks to levels of barbarity unthinkable even among animals.” King also indicated that Niebuhr emphasised those thinkers such as “Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Freud in their explorations of the dark depths of the human heart to confirm the biblical doctrine of the sinfulness of man,” Ansbro: King (1982).

!

The new paradigm theology also realises along with King that, “evil is with us a stark and grim, and colossal reality. The Bible affirms the reality of evil in glaring terms… The whole history of life is the history of a struggle between good and evil”, Ansbro: King (1982). However, this ‘dualism’ is not only exclusive to Christianity; other great religions have recognised that in the midst of the upward thrust of goodness there is the downward pull of evil. As Ansbro puts it “they have discerned a tension at the very core of the universe”. Thus Hinduism regards this tension as a conflict between reality and illusion; Zoroastrianism, as a conflict between the god of light and the god of darkness; and Judaism and Christianity, as a conflict between God and Satan.

!

Thus the view that as we evolve we will be able to progressively eliminate evil is an illusion. The above view recognises the New Testament reference to the universality of sin, evil or the dark side of human nature”. Of course one must not over react with the above view and proclaim that all human deeds are therefore sinful or that sin prevails over good. For the new paradigm realises that there are ‘righteous people’ who conform to the law of goodness, so to speak, and care for the needy and the environment. Yet none of us are perfect we still have the potential to do good or evil (and be complicit with evil). However, just as humanity has the potential for evil it also has an amazing potential for goodness, Ansbro: King (1982).

!

Yet this potential for goodness is limited. This is a notion that one would ascertain from the existentialist and others which realise that human freedom is limited, and that a man or women is but a finite child of nature. This view will not only highlight humanities interdependence on nature but also indicates that environmental conditions may hinder the ideal of agape. For example, if one is in poverty it may be hard not to chop down trees in a way that is sustainable for money and food.

Hegel in his works also notes that the human spirit develops dialectically as it struggles against objective evils, which implies that no community can be manifested whereby it eliminates the necessity for continuous struggle, Schaffer (1982).

!

There is, however, a realisation of another limitation, which both new paradigm thinking notes, and that is government regulations and law, and programmes although they can provide a means of protection and initiative for change and the care of the environment are only a partial step toward genuine community. For it might bring together people physically, but not necessarily spiritually, because laws can not reach inner attitudes and change the heart, and bring an end to fears, prejudice, pride, and irrationality which hinder the attempts of belonging, Ansbro: King (1982), Schaffer (1982) and Stott (1992). Only love can affect such change.

!

If the above view indicates that humanity could not achieve the perfect actualisation of the ideal community - Earth household - then what is the purpose of such a view one may ask? The answer is that it sets a standard in which people can both hope and strive towards realising. To bring one closer to ideal, so, as King maintains, we may develop this vision in “judgement, in personal

devotion, and in some group life.” In a sense as DeWolf maintains although we may not see the ideal perfectly fulfilled, we can preserve this beloved community as a very realistic and active goal, and use it for determining if our actions are moving in the direction of this ideal. In this sense one can strive at obtaining ‘Utopia’ - living in the Earth household. This in turn will help guide our actions towards establishing ‘Utopia’ as a reality as far as possible.

!

King believed that although the world will never be perfect there is a propensity for good – for in this world, “…the other world, the world of the perfect ideal, will always be at work in it.” As surely as there is a world against which we protest, so surely the ideal in the name of which we protest is more potent than the world’s evil.” Although this was spoken in connection to the civil rights movement it is just as applicable to our aim of establishing a community that cares for nature as a whole.

!

Gandhi also argued that the individual could not reach the perfect state, but the striving after the ideal/ Utopia is the basis for all spiritual progress. The ideal must remain the goal:

!

“Man will ever remain imperfect, and it will always be his part to try to be perfect; so that perfection in love or non-possession will remain an unattainable ideal along as we are alive but towards which we must ceaselessly strive”, quoted by Bose: Gandhi (1948).

!

Capra mentions the need for people to pursue non-violence, however, he to suffers from a lopsided optimism, for as King would argue we may never be strong enough to be entirely non-violent in “thought, word, and deed... but we must keep non-violence as our goal and make steady progress towards it.”

!

Overall, by following King’s position and emphasising humanity’s “moral obligation to struggle against injustice”, and to fight against the rape of nature, and by affirming humanity’s capacity to move closer to the ideal of the Earth household, we will be able to avoid the lopsided optimism of New Age thinking. Likewise, we will also overcome the potential to fall into a pit of despair, pessimism and doom and gloom. In a similar vein to the new paradigm in theology we don’t adopt a thesis of liberalism, which is also reflective of the New Age movement, but instead strive towards a synthesis that includes the ‘truths’ of both. This enables us to obtain a realistic view of human nature that ignores neither the human capacity for good nor its capacity for evil. Thus as King concludes, “Even though all progress is precarious, within limits real social progress may be made.”

This would be social progress that incorporates ecological progress - care of the planet.

!

Christianity has not only to rid itself of dualism but also to seek the above holistic gospel. One in which we are called to work in the community to transform it into the ideal community or earth household, working together with those in our society who have become enlightened, and to participate with them in dialogue. For the new paradigm thinking Christian, realises that God does not exclusively work just in the church but in all things - the extension of the fruits of the kingdom to all human beings, Matus (1992). However, it must be noted that the new paradigm thinking has not got the ‘truth’ in the sense that we don’t have anything more to learn. We must become aware that we as finite beings cannot possible comprehend all reality. Our way of thinking and perceiving will be continually challenged and changed as we test out our Christian tradition of rationality against our experiences and in dialogue with those of other worldviews.

!

The Christian ideal of the community is that of the Kingdom of God, the eschatological view whereby the presence of the ultimate, final manifestation of God as referred to both in the old and new testaments, is the focus in the present, of the believer. However, this biblical worldview also maintains that through God’s grace we are in a ‘middle time’ in which the Kingdom is already manifesting but yet not fully consummated. This Kingdom is constituted on the earth not only in the Church but also as the extension of the “fruits of the kingdom to all human beings.” Thus according to this view God is not exclusively working in the church but in all things. So for the Christian we are to join with the world in fighting for justice for the whole of creation and humanity which is a part of it. In affect, as a Christian we are co-workers with God in the process of advancing the kingdom of God on earth. Although as Christians we often differ, we should seek in dialogue to establish where justice lies and discern what is happening in the world so that we may follow the way of love - realistically.