Window Quarterly Vol. IV, No. 4, 1994 *** ECO-THEOLOGY Toward an Ecumenical Ethic for a Responsible Society in a Sustainable Creation by Archbishop Aram Keshishian *Excerpts from the report of Archbishop A. Keshishian to the meeting of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches in Johannesburg, South Africa, January 20-30, 1994. For the full report see The Ecumenical Review, February, 1994. Humanity seems to have entered a crucial period of its history. Emerging hopes and prospects for a qualitatively new tomorrow brought about by significant changes in many spheres of society's life, are being overshadowed by new tensions and growing fears of a total destruction of life. Unprecedented economic and industrial progress with unlimited use of earth's limited resources has greatly increased poverty, created food scarcity and thus jeopardized the eco-life support system. According to scientists, the world is on the edge of apocalyptic self-destruction. In fact, "as the Cold War fades away, we face not a 'new world order' but a troubled and fractured planet."1 In a letter addressed to the churches, the World Council of Churches (WCC) conference on "Searching for the New Heavens and the New Earth, an Ecumenical Response to UNCED" (June 1992, Baixada Fluminense, Brazil) stated with a sense of urgency: "The earth is in peril. Our only home is in plain jeopardy. We are at the precipice of self-destruction."2 Analyzing objectively the major ecological and economic issues facing humanity in the 21st century, and stating that "something is wrong - terribly wrong - on earth," the Institute for 21st Century Studies posed the critical question: "What shall we do?"3 The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), otherwise referred to as the Earth Summit (June 1992, Rio de Janeiro) called the nations to search for a "sustainable future." Such a goal can be attained only through a responsible society in a sustainable creation because the central issue here is the self-understanding of humanity and its vocation vis-a-vis God and His creation. The role of the churches is no more only to resist, to combat, to react; but also to discern visions and to identify values that will ensure economic justice, political participation and a sustainable creation. These concerns have, in one way or another, always been on the agenda of the ecumenical movement. What the ecumenical movement should do now more specifically is: first, to treat the ecological and economic issues in their inseparable inter-relatedness and as issues pertaining to Christian faith; and, second, to work for ecumenical ethical paradigms that will help the churches to provide clear orientation to societies searching for new meaning and identity. A) TOWARDS NEW ECO-THEOLOGICAL PARADIGMS The ecological crisis is not just environmental pollution. Nor is it a socio-technical problem. It is a crisis of the whole life system. The destruction of natural resources, ozone shields and forests, the pollution of water and environment are only symptoms and consequences of the problem, but not the problem itself, which is essentially a theological-ethical one related to humanity's role in the creation. It is important to distinguish between the micro-ecological phenomenon and its macro-ecological essence. Any political, ecological, economic and social analysis and prescription falls short if it is not undergirded by theological-ethical perspectives and vision. Therefore, we must deal with the macro-ecological aspect of ecological crises. We must develop a new theology of creation that challenges the prevailing paradigms of humanity-creation relations, namely, anthropocentrism, domination and exploitation, and promote a renewed relationship and a new covenant with the creation. We need a new eco-theology and eco-ethic that heal and protect the creation in its original goodness and integrity, and restore the right place and true vocation of humanity within it. Such a theology necessarily implies a clear shift from anthropocentrism to theonentrism, from domination to accountability, from self-centeredness to a holistic spirituality. 1) FROM ANTHROPOCENTRIC TO THEOCENTRIC THEO-ECOLOGY Vis-a-vis the prevailing anthropocentric concepts of creation, it is important to spell out some of the significant aspects and important dimensions of creation which are basic for any Christian-biblical understanding of creation: a) Creation is God's gift of life. It is an accomplished yet a continuous event (creatio continua) in the sense that God constantly recreates His creation by protecting, sustaining, redeeming and perfecting it through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. The Father is the "original cause," the Son the "creative cause," and the Holy Spirit the "perfecting cause."4 In this Trinitarian creative act, the specific function of the Holy Spirit is one of "completing," "perfecting," "fulfilling," "guiding," "governing," "freeing," "renewing," "sanctifying," and "deifying."5 b) The Bible affirms the goodness of creation and the intrinsic value of all beings. Creation is good by its origin, nature and purpose (Gen. 1:32). Evil is not part of creation. It is the negation of creation. Christian faith rejects any dualistic interpretation of creation. Evil is the absence of good; it is a non-being. Evil is due to the rebellion of humanity against the Creator and, as such, it is a threat to creation. c) God's creation is characterized by relationship, order and unity. Each creature has a specific task within the creation and a special relationship with the Creator. The relationship of non-rational creatures with God is one of sheer dependence and contingency, and that of rational beings is one of obedient response. All creatures are in a permanent relationship with each other within a diversified yet inter- dependent whole. The wholeness and integrity of creation are to be safe-guarded by human stewardship. d) Creation is not an aimless self-sufficient reality. It has to be seen in the perspective of the Kingdom of God since it is the beginning of God's economy and covenant with humanity. Therefore, creation has no existence or meaning apart from God who is both immanent and transcendent in the creation. The latter neither stands apart from God (deistic view) nor is it confused with God (pantheistic view). e) In Jesus Christ, God has reconciled the creation to Himself (Col. 1:17-20). The Christ-event is God's recreation of the whole humanity and creation. In Christ, the eschatological future, "the new heaven and the new earth," (Rev. 21) is anticipated; we are in a new creation (Gal. 5:22). Yet through Christ, and in the power of the Holy Spirit, creation moves towards its full redemption. The church is a sign of the "new creation" in Christ. For long, we have developed a Christological doctrine of creation. It is time now to re-emphasize the Trinitarian understanding, eschatological perspective and holistic nature of creation. For a long time, our theology of creation has been dominated by the kind of anthropocentrism that made God's transcendence "wholly other" (Barth). It is time now to regain the theocentric concept of creation and immanence of God within it. 2) FROM DOMINATION TO ACCOUNTABILITY Anthropocentric and hierarchical understandings of creation led humanity to dominate over the creation and to exploit it. The ecological crisis started when the first human being considered himself to be the master of the creation, thereby misusing his free will. The divine command to "subdue the earth" (Gen. 1:28) was misunderstood by the human being who trespassed his God-given mandate and caused destruction and death. The ecological crisis is "in a sense, the contemporary repetition of the original sin."6 Humanity has a special relationship with the creation and special responsibility towards it. It is important to highlight some of its significant features: a) Humanity cannot have a self-centered existence. It is neither separate from the creation nor above it. It is an integral part of it. An anthropocentric, dualistic and hierarchical view of creation, which alienates human beings from each other, from the creation and God, is alien to biblical theology. Such an interpretation, one that has dominated Christian thought at certain periods, must be totally rejected. Humanity must come to recognize its inseparable connection with all God's creation and see its survival closely bound up with the future of all life - human and non-human - in the creation. A hierarchical understanding of imago Dei, putting the human beings above all creatures, must be replaced by a more rational view. The human relationship to the creation is neither absolute dominion over it nor total subservience to it. This means that, first, we must reaffirm God's absolute sovereignty over the creation. It belongs to Him (Ps. 24:1), He is "the King" and "the Lord" of the whole creation. Therefore, acting without God is acting against God. Human freedom should not be opposed to God's law and truth. Second, humanity and creation must be considered as inter-dependent realities. They need each other; they are conditioned by each other. Creation (oikos) is the household of humanity. b) Humanity should rediscover its specific vocation within the creation which is one of stewardship. This is a basic biblical teaching which should not be altered. The human being is given the right and responsibility by God to be oikonomos (manager, steward, administrator, governor), but not the Lord of creation (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7, 15). It is in this context that God's command must be understood (Gen. 1:28). God gave human beings the right to use the natural resources for their survival (Gen. 1:29; 2:16) and not to exploit them for their own pleasure and glory. Christian ethic makes a clear distinction between need and greed, use and exploitation. Our theology of creation often encouraged an exploitative approach to creation. We have often used the Bible to justify our unqualified manipulation of the creation. We must, therefore, redefine humanity's role within the creation which is managing, enriching and preserving it in love and reverence, as well as being preserved and enriched by the creation. c) Human responsibility is not a passive stewardship. The human being is called to become a co-worker (I. Cor. 3:9) with God. This concept, which is so dominant in Pauline letters and in the theology of the early church, has been nearly forgotten in contemporary theology. In fact, being a co-worker with God does not mean just to preserve the creation, but to renew and transform it, bringing it to its fulfillment. It also means to be always accountable to God. Human freedom is subject to God's absolute sovereignty; it is also conditioned by full accountability to God. d) Humanity has to see the creation as a sacrament of God's presence and as a means of communion with Him, considering itself as both the deacon and the priest of God's creation. Therefore, humanity has to protect the integrity, purity and wholeness of creation and has to offer it as a sacrament to God, its Creator and Lord: "Thine own from Thine own we offer to Thee, in all and for all" (the liturgy of St. John Chrysostomos). In sum, first, Christian theology must rediscover the specific role of the human being in relationship with the creation, as deacon of the creation, as mediator between the creation and God, and as co-worker with God. Second, the church must call humanity to conversion from dominion to responsible relationship, and from self-sufficiency and self-glorification to total accountability to God. 3) FROM SELF-CENTERED TO A HOLISTIC SPIRITUALITY Christian spirituality by its very nature is Trinitarian, holistic, and eco-centered. Western Christianity has virtually lost these vital dimensions of spirituality and has confined it to the person-God relationship. This is, in fact, one of the causes of the present ecological crisis. We must go back to biblical and ancient spirituality which looks at the humanity- creation-God relationship as an integrated, coherent and comprehensive whole. The following points deserve our particular attention: a) Christian theology has always emphasized both the immanent and transcendental presence of the Triune God in the creation through His uncreated energies. The created life share in the uncreated life of God through the creative and dynamic presence of the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit, life permeates all creation. In and through Him, the community of all created things is realized - a community where all creatures communicate with each other and with God, each in its own way. The role of the Spirit is not only one of renewing and perfecting the creation, but also reconciling and binding us inseparably with all created life. This is not syncretism, but a significant feature of Christian theology and a basic dimension of Christian spirituality. b) The biblical understanding of creation goes beyond the natural environment. It embraces the "heaven and earth", "all that lives", "human and non-human beings" (Rm. 18:25): simply, the whole cosmos in all its aspects, dimensions and manifestations, Christian spirituality is deeply rooted in and expressed through the creation which has a profound spiritual significance. Creation is a sacramental reality; but it is not sacred, and is not identified with God. God uses the elements of creation as signs and sacraments of His revelation and presence. It is significant that many of the elements of creation are still used, particularly, in Eastern Christian spirituality. c) The human being is the image of the whole creation, imago mundi. Being an integral part of the whole creation (Gen. 2:15), all created things, spiritual and material, meet in Him. Any dualistic attempt to see humanity apart from or above or over against the creation is theological heresy. The church fathers have described the human being as a "microcosm". His God-given task is to reconcile the spiritual and material realms, and become a mediator between the creation and the Creator. Hence, the relationship between humanity and creation should be one of dynamic interdependence and a close partnership. Any power relation which attempts to separate humanity from the creation is a sin against God since it is the denial to the God-given vocation of humanity. d) Sin is the pervasion and alienation of humanity's relationship with God and also with the whole creation. It is not only a personal but also an ecological reality. The goodness, wholeness and integrity of creation is constantly threatened by human selfish exploitation and sin: "The whole creation groaneth" (Rm. 8:20-22) because of human sin. Creation shares in the fallen condition of humanity. It needs liberation and sanctification. As the "priest" of creation, the role of humanity is to liberate creation from the bondage of death and draw it into the fullness of life of the Kingdom of God. e) Eucharist is the place where God's immanence and transcendence are revealed sacramentally and creation, and humanity, are united within one economy of God. Through the Eucharist, the connectedness of humanity to all created life, human stewardship towards creation as well as human accountability to God, are being manifested in a living way. Eucharist is, in a sense, the offering of the creation back to its Creator on behalf of the whole humanity. It is the foretaste of the eschatological consummation of creation. We must, therefore, rediscover the sacramental character and spiritual dimension of creation that challenges the "utilitarian" view of it. We must re-emphasize the healing, liberating and transforming role of Christian spirituality which aims at establishing a right relationship with creation. The pneumatological perspective on creation that so forcefully emerged in Canberra should constantly remind us of the crucial importance of a holistic and a deeper eco- spirituality. B) SOCIETIES IN SEARCH OF RE-ORIENTATION Creation can be healed, renewed and become sustainable only through responsible societies whose relation with God, creation and with each other are guided by binding ethical values and principles. Humanity, as well, is in the process of disintegration. The present structures, norms and policies that govern societies are simply exploiting the people by enriching the rich, impoverishing the poor and destroying the creation. Hence, the emergence of new models of society is a must. Communism has failed. Capitalism, with its exploitative nature, simply cannot become the norm. It is beyond the immediate responsibility of the churches to propose new alternative. But it is a major task for the churches to help societies to set just and accountable structures, to ensure more participation in political and economic life, and to establish sustainable moral values. The churches should develop an ecumenical social that clearly outlines the Christian vision of society, and engages them in common struggle for restructuring and re-orienting the societies. Amsterdam (1948) proposed as an ethical model the concept of "responsible society". This was not an alternative to political and economic systems, but only an ethical criterion. The churches of the third world raised then the question of "social justice" as a key for any system. Later on "development" was considered a vital instrument to promote justice. Nairobi (1975) brought all these concerns and perspectives together under "Just, Participatory and Sustainable Society" (JPSS). Vancouver (1983) felt the urgent need for an "ethical guideline" which should be "both ecologically responsible and economically just, and could effectively struggle with the powers which threaten life and endanger our future".7 The "Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation" (JPIC) process that emerged from Vancouver was, in a sense, the continuation of JPSS. Canberra, in its turn, reaffirmed the crucial importance of JPIC calling for "new value systems" for the re-orientation of societies. In the ecumenical movement, therefore, we have developed the concepts of "responsible", "just", "participatory" and "sustainable" society. But living in different situations and being contextually conditioned, we have not been able to reach common and comprehensive ethical guidelines. Should we not try, then, to reach an ecumenical ethical understanding to address together more efficiently the major burning ecological, social and economic issues of our time? Let me propose some perspectives: 1) FROM QUANTITATIVE GROWTH TO QUALITATIVE DEVELOPMENT It is now generally accepted that one of the root causes of present ecological and economic problems is the commitment to unlimited material growth. The economic production which reached an unprecedented scale in the last few decades aimed, under the name of development, to promote progress, peace, justice and security. But it not only failed to eliminate poverty and social injustice; rather it deepened further the gap between developed and developing countries and between haves and have-nots within the same society. Economic growth was also politicized, becoming for the West a tool to fight against communism, and for the East a means to gain political influence. Thus, the Third World was further exploited and the creation was further destroyed. Uncontrolled economic growth remains a serious threat to ecological and human survival. Progress is no longer an expression of hope and justice, but of fear and injustice. Realizing this growing threat, UNCED placed a special emphasis on the concept of "sustainable" development as an alternative approach. This aims at developing the kind of economic policy that is based on earth's environmental carrying capacity, and enhances a just relationship between people, the earth and economy. In my view, "sustainable" development will remain a sheer slogan if it is not sustained and guided by clear ethical values. I would like to make a few observations: a) Development has become synonymous to growth. It is important to make a clear distinction between mere economic growth and "sustainable" development. We must redefine the whole concept of development opposed to the Western growth models. "Sustainable" development should have ethical meaning and implications; otherwise, it will become simply another expression of economic growth. It must strongly challenge any model of development that encourages indefinite growth, which simply and eventually tends to the destruction of life in the finite system of the planet. It should aim at enhancing the quality of life which cannot be measured by quantitative growth. In other words, there has to be a shift from growth-oriented development to "qualitative" development that fully respects ecological laws and concerns as well as ethical values. b) "Sustainable" development must necessarily ensure the eradication of poverty, which is, indeed, one of the concrete repercussions of unlimited economic growth and increasing ecological deterioration.8 The environment is primarily destroyed by major industries and transnational corporations which deprive people of their own land and resources, thus making them poorer. As a survival mechanism, the poor destroy their own environment. This, in turn, aggravates poverty. According to estimates, some 15 million people are said to die every year as a consequence of starvation or malnutrition. The churches cannot endorse the kind of development which results in the enormous development of the few at the expense of many. The churches cannot support those so-called "developmental" projects that are politically conditioned. They cause more damage, rather than healing the wound. What is needed is not charity or aid, but structural change, transformation of systems and re- evaluation of policies that are unjust and sinful. c) Development should serve justice otherwise it becomes another vehicle for oppression. Just and equitable distribution of wealth is a key factor for putting a limit to material growth and stopping the growing poverty. In order to develop poor countries, one has to "de-develop" the rich countries. In other words, the rich countries should change their structures of production and patterns of consumption and respond to the needs of the poor. In fact, the gap between the rich and the poor is wide and threatening. Sharing resources and mutual accountability ought to become the criteria and guiding principles of any developmental model that claims to be "sustainable." An important element in sustainable development is the poor. They should not be used for the development of the rich. They must become the agents of their own development. They ought to be empowered to become self-reliant and full participants in the development process. This is a major political challenge which has not yet been met because of the implications of power. Therefore, limiting economic growth and enhancing "sustainable" development are both moral and ecological necessities. "Sustainable" development itself must be ethically sustainable and should generate dignity, freedom, participation and justice, otherwise it destroys the creation and endangers human survival. The rich countries have the primary responsibility of re-evaluating and re-orienting their policy of development. 2) FROM ELITE-CONTROLLED ECONOMY TO PARTICIPATORY ECONOMY The idolatry of the present global economic system is a fact. Controlled by a few countries, it continues to cause ecological destruction, social injustice and high-level consumerism, alienating people from each other and from creation. The present economy must be restructured so that it ensures participation and justice, and functions in harmony with ecological reality. Such an attempt should, in my judgment, necessarily involve the following perspectives: a) With the collapse of communism, the world is now steadily moving from the state-controlled economy towards the free-market economy. In the absence of any possible choice, the free-market economy has become for many a new source of liberation. For others, however, it continues to generate, with ever-increasing pace, poverty, inequality, domination and ecological destruction. The question is: is free-market capitalism a solution? Should we not look for qualitatively different and realistic alternatives that meet the needs and concerns of societies and the creation? The WCC in its first assembly, criticizing false promises and assumptions of both communism and capitalism, stated that "It is the responsibility of Christians to seek new, creative solutions which never allow either justice or freedom to destroy the other".9 Canberra spoke of "the immorality of our world economic order", and clearly stated that the market economy is in need of "reform".10 We should not idealize any system. Nor should we attempt to initiate an alternative system. This is not the task of the church. As the "prophetic sign" of the coming Kingdom, the church must constantly recall the "provisional character" of all structures, systems and ideologies; they will all be judged by the demands of the Gospel and the values of the Kingdom.11 This criterion and perspective must constitute the only basis of the churches' involvement in the reconstruction and transformation of economic systems. b) The free-market became an expression of neo-racism in various situations by oppressing people and violating human rights in the name of freedom and democracy. It brought about a dominant and privileged elite and a marginalized majority. Any economic structure that is not participatory produces economic and ecological injustice and thus is sinful theologically and ethically speaking. The people have the right to full participation. A Christian vision of society condemns any kind of ideology or system that reduces people to by-products of social and economic forces. Seoul affirmed that any form of human power and authority ought to be subject to God and accountable to people.12 Therefore, economic structures and policies should be based on people's participation and empowerment and not on their exploitation as consumers and factors of production. A Christian ethic stands firm for a participatory democracy that protects human dignity, value and the people's right to full justice, freedom and life. What might be called "dictatorial" democracies that are emerging in some parts of the world are new forms of totalitarianism. They must be strongly challenged. When the people are neglected and not given full right in decision-making processes, there is no true democracy. Any structures or ideology that has an "elitist" character and does not have a popular basis in the long run becomes oppressive. The outburst of young people in the streets of Berlin, Bucharest and Beijing in recent years reflect the relentless drive of people for participation, dignity and life. c) One of the major problems with free market capitalism is the unequal distribution of its fruit. Exploitation and domination are inherent to the uncontrolled free market economy since it is founded on power and profit. It looks as if we are moving from political colonialism to an economic colonialism since the wealth in the North has its origins largely in the exploitation of the South. Therefore, poverty cannot be addressed by aid programs, but by eliminating its root-causes, i.e. redistribution of economic access, power and wealth. We endorse ownership provided that is not perceived in terms of exclusive individualism and practiced as domination and to the detriment of the common good. Democracy and inequality simply cannot co-exist. Inequality is the negation of democracy since it creates a privileged and oppressive minority. In fact, "the mark of an economic system is measured not by its power, wealth or size, but by how it cares for the poorest and weakest members".13 The world economy has moved from authoritarian collectivism to exclusive individualism. However, injustice continues to remain. It can only be healed when the world economy moves from elite-controlled capitalism to a democratic, participatory and equalitarian economy. I want to conclude this section with the following remarks. We are against centrally planned and controlled economic systems. We are also against the uncontrolled neoliberal, capitalistic marked-economy system. Both dehumanize the human being, considering him the center of creation striving for self-sufficiency and self-glorification. Besides measuring all economic structures and policies against its ethical values, the prophetic role of the church also implies a creative participation in political, economic and social renewal and reconstruction. The churches should, therefore, commit themselves to re-shaping and re-orienting the present free- market system in a way that transcends the deficiencies and failure of both Marxist collectivism and liberal capitalism, and practices fully the economic democracy based on participation, shared responsibility, equality and mutual accountability. 3) FROM LIFE-DESTRUCTIVE CONSUMERISM TO A PATTERN OF RESPONSIBLE LIVING The present level of consumerism is such that the resources of the earth can no longer meet human needs. The life-styles of affluent societies are greatly challenging the sustainability of human life and eco-life. UNCED recognized the far- reaching consequences of consumer practices in developed countries, and proposed a pattern of "sustainable living". It is important to spell out two basic points: a) The restoration of the quality of human life is vitally important. This is not only an ecological, social or economic necessity, but essentially an ethical requirement. Life given to humanity and to the whole creation is a gift of God. Humanity is called to preserve and enrich it for the glory of God. Life is sacred, not only because its giver is holy, but also because it is given for the building of the Kingdom of God. Sacredness, integrity and wholeness of life should be safe-guarded. This is a basic demand of Christian faith. b) For a Christian, the question is not one of "sustainable " living, but rather one of responsible living. Life is not only a divine gift to be preserved sacredly, it is also a vocation to be carried on with the sense of responsibility and accountability. Life is a theo-centered and theo-oriented reality. A self- centered and self-sufficient understanding of life is alien to Christian faith. Consumerism is not only a way of life, it is also a way of understanding the meaning and purpose of human life. Therefore, consumerism is not only at the root of economic injustice, ecological disorder and human survival, it is fundamentally the denial of the sacredness and wholeness of life. It is a moral sin because it generates poverty and threatens life. The church has to deal with consumerism as an ethical issue. First, by condemning the accumulation of wealth, which was a legitimate expression of human rights for self- determination and security, but has become a source of injustice and insecurity for many. Second, by encouraging the reduction of consumption and waste, and sharing the resources of the earth in ways that enhance the lives of all people and preserve the integrity of creation. Third, by promoting a culture that can build up the quality of life and live in harmony with creation's integrity. Fourth, by aiming at breaking down the prejudice of race, class and gender to re-build an all-inclusive community of sharing and participation. Economic justice and ecological sustainability require fundamental changes in consumption and life-styles. Christians should be examples of a new way of asceticism by consuming less and living responsibly. C) ECUMENICAL IMPLICATIONS: A FEW CONSIDERATIONS The churches and the ecumenical movement should deal with ecological and economic issues on the basis of an ethic that moves the church from its prophetic role of merely denouncing or alerting to the dynamic role of educating and participating. Simply, a responsible society in a sustainable creation can be built up when, first, the churches' theology, liturgy, spirituality, diakonia, mission and evangelism are re- shaped and re-oriented in a way that provide the people with the basic ethical values of the Gospel and make these values relevant and responsive to the present realities and concerns. Second, when the churches become agents of change and conversion by fully participating in reconstructing and transforming the societies based on justice, peace, human rights and respect for creation. Christian faith must be lived out in the midst of the ambiguities of a complex world and be enacted in concrete ethical decisions and commitments. This is not, of course, an easy task in a world full of evil "powers and principalities". But, this is the calling of God which is more urgent today than ever before. The churches should take this missionary challenge with courage and faithful obedience to the imperatives of the Gospel. The following priorities should, in my view, acquire in the coming years more focal attention on the ecumenical agenda in general, and within the programmatic priorities of the WCC, in particular. 1) JUSTICE, PEACE AND INTEGRITY OF CREATION: MORE URGENCY AND FOCUSING The JPIC process must continue to remain at the heart of the work and witness of the WCC. The recommendation of Canberra to launch a global decade for JPIC to be observed through an annual ten-day celebration deserves serious consideration.14 Furthermore, it is important that the debate on "Just, Participatory and Sustainable Society" (1976-79) be revived in new perspectives within JPIC. I consider this inter-linkage crucial since it sharpens the ethical and socio- economic dimensions of JPIC. I believe that due consideration should be given to the following concerns: first, the JPIC process needs to be more clearly focused and contextualized and brought into a clear relationship with action-oriented concrete programs. Second, it should not be confined only to a few regions and groups rather it should become a place where the participation of all people of God is secured, the voice of the voiceless heard and broader networks of solidarity established. Third, one of the weaknesses of the JPIC is its omission from the agenda of many churches. Therefore, more educational work is needed with the churches to make JPIC an integral part of their Christian witness. 2) TOWARDS A NEW ECUMENICAL SOCIAL THINKING One of the factors contributing to the present ecological and economic crises is that the western Christian ethics is predominantly anthropocentric and dualistic. As we enter a new period of ecumenical history, issues related to church and society must be given serious attention. Canberra said that the WCC should "focus on the central ethical concerns of our time".15 The role of the ecumenical movement is not only one of reminding, serving and challenging the churches, but also developing ecumenical social thinking which will help the churches in their efforts to seek the most appropriate ethical responses to the burning questions facing humanity. While this concern should permeate all the programs of the WCC, it should also find a clear point of expression, particularly in the work of Unit III. 3) A LIFE-CENTERED THEOLOGY OF CREATION The subject of creation has always remained on the periphery of ecumenical discussion. Being immediately concerned with unity, the ecumenical movement turned is attention mainly to Christology. The development of a life-centered and eco-oriented theology of creation has to be a major thematic priority for the WCC for the coming period. In such an initiative, pneumatological perspectives provided by Canberra and growing emphasis on Trinitarian theology in the ecumenical movement should be taken seriously. Particular consideration should also be given to the inseparable inter-connection that exists between humanity and the creation, and to the whole meaning of life. Faith and Order and JPIC could become appropriate contexts to treat the issue in a comprehensive manner. 4) POPULATION EXPLOSION: STUDY AND ACTION I have already referred to the urgency of this problem. Our churches are not well prepared to deal with this global issue. The WCC should immediately embark on a study process, tackling the issue in all its dimensions and manifestations. Two factors must be taken into consideration. First, demographic explosion and ecological and economic issues are inter-dependent. Second, the problem of population growth is not primarily about numbers of people, other factors are also involved, such as human rights, women's rights, consumption patterns, sustainable development, etc. Besides the study, the role of the WCC must be to build public awareness, collaborate with international organizations and establish guidelines for action. The WCC should also bring a specific contribution to the forthcoming International Conference on Population and Development (1994 Cairo). 5) CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING OF THE HUMAN BEING The UNCED, the WCC conference in Baixade Fuleminence and the Fifth World Conference on Faith and Order asked for a renewed Christian anthropology. I consider this crucial for the future of the ecumenical movement. The Humanum Studies, concluded in 1975, helped the churches and the ecumenical movement to refocus on anthropology as a major theological, ethical and ecumenical issue. A separate program within the programmatic framework of the WCC may not be appropriate at this time. What is vitally needed, in my opinion, is a renewed understanding of the place and vocation of the human being in the creation. Anthropology must become a permanent concern of the ecumenical movement, as it attempt to grapple with issues emerging from the church, humanity and creation relationship. An inter-unit approach, including Faith and Order, must be established to provide a focus for this concern. 6) TOWARDS A CULTURE OF NON-VIOLENCE Societies are in search of the kind of culture that transforms unjust structures and promotes non-violence, sacredness of life and human rights; a culture that can live in immediate nearness and harmony with the whole creation; a culture that enhances the equal dignity of all people and races, and partnership between men and women. In fact, commitment to a culture of non-violence, dialogue and solidarity has become a major concern for the pluralistic societies of today. The WCC could treat this concern through many of its major programmatic priorities, including particularly, the program of Gospel and Culture and Education for all God's people. 7) AN ECCLESIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR THE "CIVIL SOCIETY" DEBATE The concept of "civil society" has become a challenging one in this transitional historical moment. There are, of course, different understandings of civil society. For some, it is to enable the society to preserve its autonomy. For others, the role of civil society is the critique of the state and the search for "post-statist policies". In spite of its different meaning in different socio-political contexts, society is a new terrain of democratization and protection of human rights. The debate on civil society that just emerged in the WCC is a helpful one particularly for the JPIC process. It needs, however, more clarity and focusing. It needs, particularly, a clear ecclesiological basis since churches are part of civil society. The parliament of World Religions (August 28 - September 5, 1993, Chicago) emphatically stated: "No global order without a new global ethic"16 It attempted to develop a consensus on binding values and basic moral attitudes for a global ethic. Can the ecumenical movement by its prophetic and renewing power promote "sustainable value systems" (Canberra) that will undergird the ecological and economic decisions of nations and build a responsible society in a sustainable creation? Can the churches become a sign of hope and an instrument of a socially just, politically participatory and economically equitable society? Can the churches act as the avant-guard of one earth community built on binding global ethical values and principle? The ecumenical movement is called to give to Christendom and the whole world "a vision in which the promise of life is stronger than the accusation of death...critical hope that does not bow to the powers of destruction but is turned towards the future of life"17 This is a challenge with which the ecumenical movement must seriously grapple. *** 1 F. Kennedy, Preparing for the Twenty-first Century, Harper, Collins publ. Toronto, 1993, p. 349 2 W. Granberg-Michaelson, Redeeming the Creation, WCC, Geneva, 1992, p. 70 3 G.O. Barney with J. Blawett and K.R. Barney, Global 2000 Revisited; What shall we do?, 1993, p. XV (mimeographed) 4 Basil, <> in P. Schaff and H. Wace, editors, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. VIII, p. 23 5 Gregory of Nyssa <> and <>, in P. Schaff and H. Wace, editors, A Select Library, vol. V. pp. 320, 338 6 E.B. Ecopomou, <>, reprinted from Theologica, Athens, 1990, p. 618 7 D. Gill ed., Gathered for Life, official Report IV Assembly World Council of Churches Vancouver, Canada 24 July - 10 August 1983, WCC - Wm. B. Eerdmans, Geneva-Grand Rapids, 1991, p. 242 8 Christian Faith and the World Economy Today, A study document from the WCC, WCC, Geneva, 1992, p. 23 9 W.A. Visser 't Hooft, ed., The First Assembly of the World Council of Churches, New York, 1949, p. 80 10 M. Kinnamon, ed., Signs of the Spirit - Official Report, Seventh Assembly, WCC, Geneva, and Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1991, p. 242 11 Towards Koinonia in Faith, Life and Witness, WCC, Geneva, 1993, p. 36; C. Villa-Vicencio, A Theology of Reconstruction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992, p. 232 12 Now is the Time, World Convocation on Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation, Seoul, 1990 WCC, Geneva, 1990, p. 12 13 Christian Faith, p. 44 14 Signs of the Spirit, op. cit. p. 68 15 Ibid., p. 187 16 A Global Ethic; 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions, August 28 - September 5, 1993, Chigago, Ill., 1993, p. 3 (mimeographed) 17 W. Hubier, "Perspectives for Ecumenism in the Nineties" in The Ecumenical Movement Tomorrow, Suggestions for Approaches and Alternatives, eds M. Reuver, F. Solms and G. Huizer, WCC-Kok Publ. House, Geneva, 1993, p. 378 =================================================== _ _ _ _ _ |_| ___ _| | ___ _ _ _ | | | | | | _ / _ \ / _ | / _ \ | | | | | | | |_| |_| || |_ | | | || |_| || |_| || |_| |_| | \_________/\___||_| |_| \___/ \___/ \_________/ View Of The Armenian Church ===================================================