Missionary Grow Home: Bio-Regional Eco-missiology of Place
MISSIONARY
GROW HOME !
Re-placing Mission
in Bioregions:
A Christian Eco-Missiology of Place
Marcus Curnow
MISSIONARY
GROW HOME !
Re-placing Mission
in Bioregions:
A Christian Eco-Missiology of Place
INTRODUCTION
Whilst there
has been a significant movement in recent times toward articulating an
eco-theology I contend that in the main this has not been translated into our
discourse and practice of mission.
Exploring
recent discourses and theories of place, I will argue that one of the key reasons
for the failure of mission to address and heal the environment is that its
discourse; particularly in its conception and articulation of ‘place’, has been
too global and universal to be of much local, practical use.
Critically
examining some of the similarities in the discourse of eco-philosophy,
environmentalism, and missiology, I will suggest reasons why the motif of
‘replacement’ is vital in shaping a new eco-friendly mission paradigm. ‘Replacement missiology’ draws strongly from
bioregionalism, a practical ideology that has emerged out of the environmental
movement. I will explore ways that its understanding of place and in particular
its discourse of ‘home’ may be helpful in developing a more grounded, practical
eco-missiology.
The main aspect
of my focus here will be considering its usefulness for ‘re-placing’ ecclesial,
economic and political life and for the missiological task of
contextualisation; briefly exploring the bioregional approaches of Ched Myers
and David Tacey.
A MISSIOLOGY OF REPLACEMENT
In his widely
acknowledged “Transforming Mission”, David Bosch undertakes what Lesslie
Newbigin describes as a kind of Summa
Missiologica. Adopting the paradigm
theory of Thomas Kuhn he reviews and attempts to define mission thinking and practise
over the last two millennia within six “paradigms.” He concludes by suggesting
that mission, as we currently understand it is in crisis and at the cusp of a
new age. Bosch then “tentatively
suggests” contours of a new model; naming “interrelated elements” of an
“emerging, postmodern, ecumenical missionary paradigm.” (1991 p.367) It is in the spirit of this undertaking
that I am suggesting that one of these elements needs to be clearly named as a
missiology of replacement. Replacement
mission can be conceived of in a number of ways, all of which have a currency
that is of value in defining the new paradigm.
That is of
course if there should be a new paradigm at all. An obvious use of the term replace-ment would be to suggest that
mission itself is redundant and in need of total
replacement. Bosch states that
“Some, including many Christians, have drawn the conclusion that the Christian
mission and everything it stood for now belong to a bygone era. It should be eulogised… as… an episode in the
history of Christianity and …be safely buried.” (1991 p.365)
However he
contends that “In the case of each (mission) paradigm change … there remained a
creative tension between the new and the old. The agenda was always –
consciously or unconsciously – one of
reform not of replacement.” Rather,
he argues that – in light of a fundamentally new situation and precisely so as
too remain faithful to the true nature of mission – mission must be understood
and undertaken in an imaginatively new manner today.” (1991p.367; emphasis
mine)
It is in this
sense of continuity that a re-placement
missiology could be imagined as a “re-discipline” within missiology. Bosch locates the current crisis in which
missiology finds itself within the broader context of the collapse of modernism
in the West, “whose modern gods –science, technology, and industrialisation
have lost their magic.” As a result he suggests that “never before….have
scholars in all disciplines been so preoccupied, not with the study of their
disciplines themselves, but with the metaquestions concerning these
disciplines” (1991p.363). This has seen the emergence of what I call
“re-disciplines;” that in their critique of old methodologies and boundaries,
pioneer new directions for their discipline (eg. re-visionist history.) Bosch asks, “How can the church re-pent of past mistakes? How can it try
to re-discover the essence of its
missionary nature and calling?” (1991p.365; emphasis mine.) Re-placement missiology can be conceived
as a “re-discipline” appropriate and essential for missiology, which sits well
within this broader movement.
Replace-ment can also
suggest returning something that was taken inappropriately. This could be a
helpful term for missiology in framing an acceptable response to the now well documented
complicity of mission in the practise of colonialism.[1] Bosch suggests that the very origin of the
term ‘mission’, as we still tend to use it today, presupposes the ambience of
the West’s appropriation of overseas territories, acquisition of its resources
and subjugation of its inhabitants.
“Therefore since the sixteenth century, if one said mission, one in a
sense also said colonialism” (1991p.302-3).
In light of this complicity, replace-ment missiology would suggest a
current focus for the discipline upon returning and repairing that which has
been stolen and destroyed. It will also
help mission to resist contemporary forces of colonialism, which, I will argue,
continue to flourish in new and tempting guises.
The primary
currency however, for a re-place-ment missiology in the present
moment is in emphasising the relationship of mission to place. In the climate
of increasing global interaction and the transcending of boundaries,
geographers such as McDowell (1996) are suggesting that “ideas about
positionality, location, borders and margins are hot on the lips” of most
social scientists. This recognition has been labelled by some as the “spatial
turn” (Massey, et.al, 1999), a theoretical movement towards the study of
place/space.
Studying the interaction of
mission and place is relevant, as recent theorists have described how our sense
of place is constructed or ‘made’ in ways that are inherently social and
political. Building on the structuration theory of Giddens, Pred asserts that “Place…always involves an appropriation and
transformation of space and nature that is inseparable from the reproduction
and transformation of society in time and space. As such, place is
characterised by the uninterrupted flux of human practice – and experience thereof
– in time and space.” (1985 p.34) According to Massey (1999), place is made
through the ‘randomness’ of social interrelations, together with the
historical, social, political and economic aspects of the structures within
which it is located. Place’s then are not arbitrary, a-historical or non-social
constructs, but rather arrive strongly out of concrete human actions in history
and reflect social conditions. Place therefore should be no more taken for
granted, as a given, than should any other objects of inquiry. (Massey, et.al,
1999: 146).
The social
practise of Christian mission has greatly affected ‘place/s.’ Testerman states
“Wherever Christian missionaries have journeyed around the world, they have
transformed not only human lives but also the land. Such an impact on the environment has been
both constructive and destructive.” (1992 p.11) A re-place-ment missiology is
currently required as mission’s conception of place has often taken ‘place’ as
a given or has been inadequate.
This can be
seen in the historical exclusion of the non-human environment in its
socio-political construction of place. For example, a practical response of
mission toward ecology and the environment, does not appear anywhere in Bosch’s
review of mission practise through the last two millennia. Whilst he does acknowledge the current global
environmental crisis as a causative factor in the changing mission paradigm
(1991 p.363, 355), it is given no reference in his otherwise comprehensive,
emerging alternative.[2]
From a slightly different angle, Testermann describes the arrogance lurking
behind the historical assumption of mission that humanity is the sole object
God’s concern (1992 p.12).
Where the non
human environment has been given reference it has often been around the Genesis
discourse of human ‘dominion’ which has been practised in ways that have
brought degradation to creation. (McDonagh 1990 p.119, DeWitt & Prance 1992
p.vii). Focussing upon land management
traditions of monastic missionaries and colonial appropriations, Testerman
(1992) describes the history of Christian mission’s transforming the
environment. Demonstrating how religious, social and physical aspects interact
to influence ‘place,’ he describes monks in the middle ages who appeared,
“sometimes axe in hand, at the head of a troupe of believers scarcely
converted, or of pagans surprised and indignant, to cut down the sacred trees,
and thus root out popular superstition.”
He quotes an early twentieth century missionary who is reputed to have
said, “I made up my mind that I would make it my work to bring the heathen out
of the forest, to give them sunlight, to show them how to live in God’s open
world, to teach them to abandon this darkness“ (p.11-12).
These are
examples of mission practising its construction of ‘place’ in ways that have
been ignorant of, or destructive of the environment and traditional,
‘place-based’ communities. Whilst the
entire story has not been a negative one;[3]
this tendency has been significant enough to lead many to lay the blame of the
environmental crisis at the feet of Christianity. (eg. White 1967 p.1203-7) The
primary task then of a replacement missiology is to re-construct ‘place’ in the
discourse and practise of mission in a way that affirms the environment and
dis-placed communities.
In the
tradition of “re-disciplines” which collapse boundaries between traditional
fields of study, a replacement missiology will need to take cues from
environmentalists, rural organisers and indigenous communities that have
maintained a prophetic advocacy on behalf of land. (Myers 1994 p.343) This can
be done by taking a critical look at the ‘place’ discourses of the
environmental movement and ecological philosophers, which often overlap with
missiology in their attempts to envision a better world.
This overlap
is particularly evident in the utilisation of the visual image of the earth as
viewed from space as a ‘blue globe.’ This “powerful“ blue globe image is
often utilised on the covers of official scientific, corporate and mission
documents putting the case for ‘sustainable development’ (Northcott 2000
p.71). As it is a popular motif that
crosses disciplines it shall be a focus point for this discussion as we
critically consider the value of various ‘place’ discourses for constructing an
eco- missiology.
‘PLACE’
DISCOURSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT, MISSIOLOGY AND ECOPHILOSOPHIES: The
Blue Globe and the Agenda of Global Capitalism.
Northcott describes this ‘blue globe’ image of the earth as one of the
dominant framings of nature in the late twentieth century. He suggests that
recent technological developments including jet and space travel and images of
earth from space, represent material and symbolic features of the shift in
human ways of knowing and perceiving nature; effectively shrinking our view of
the world (2000 p.71). It reflects that
we now know the world as a whole, and there are a variety of discourses that
can be adopted to describe this ‘place’.
For instance science describes a unified sphere of chemical and organic
interaction, whilst commercial airline companies describe a globe shaped site
for tourist, business or academic travel.
James Lovelock famously adopted the Greek word gaia as the name for his systems hypothesis concerning the workings
of this unitary ‘place’ (1988).
Missiology has
embraced this emphasis on constructing ‘place’ at a global level. Seeing the
world ‘contract’ after the Second World War, Tillich cautioned that no one
group, nation, or singular theoretical or practical approach could embrace or
reply to the world situation. “The more a Christian group embraces elements
from all these different aspects of the present world, the more adequately will
it comprehend the true questions and formulate right answers. This means that the Christian church can
speak authoritatively and effectively to our world today only as it is ….universal” (1945 p.39 emphasis mine). According to J. Mark Thomas, “This then is the new situation that all
groups – secular and Christian – and world missions face today. World missions
has become world missions” (1992 p.3
emphasis his). This overlap of discourse
and agenda can be seen when the famous phrase, coined in response to the global
impact of the environmental crisis, “Think Global, Act Local,” (attributed to
French microbiologist and environmental campaigner Rene Dubois), is described
by McDonagh as “setting one dimension of the agenda of modern mission” (1990
p.3).”
ENVIRONMENTAL
MOVEMENT
This global
construction of ‘place’ could be deemed necessary or even vital given the
planetary nature of the environmental crisis. Northcott (2000) however
critiques the ‘place’ discourse of the environmental movement. Looking at a
variety of papers from the 1992 Rio Earth Summit that utilise the image of the
‘blue globe’ he argues that this universal language is often subverted in
practise by the particularism of nation states and multinational corporations
with an agenda to promote growth led technological change as the only realistic
solution to the environmental crisis (p.72).
Constructions
of ‘place’ that concern Northcott in ‘blue globe’ bearing reports presented by
multinationals at the Summit
include the discourse of the earth as ‘customer’. Here the natural environment is effectively
treated as a customer whose needs must be managed alongside, and where possible
in synergy with, the needs and demands of businesses’ principal customers, the
consumers of products and services (Schmidehiny 1992). Also the earth as
‘product’; a ‘bank of resources’ able to be evaluated using accounting
frameworks (Bruntland 1989 p.8). Chatterjee & Finger (p.123) suggests that
this construction of place around a productionist management philosophy does
not represent a genuine move towards more sustainable industrialism because it
is still focused on the management and profitability of individual firms.
Northcott also
critiques the place discourse of “global commons” by such groups as a
subversion of an older construction of ‘place’ where ‘commons’ was once
understood to describe land areas managed communally by local people, involving
a complex set of traditional social and exchange relationships. He now suggests
it is used to promote a global management agenda controlled by an “ecocrat”
elite with science-informed treaties, institutes and experts in a complete
contradiction of this traditional approach to socially owned and conserved
resources (2000 p.76). Chatterjee and
Finger suggest that this “global management means global policing and therefore
a militaristic model of fighting for ‘freer’ and more ‘competitive’ markets
that will supposedly distribute things more equitably without examining the
inherent nature of enclosure, export and community destruction in these
methods” (p.26).
Historically
sensitive to such issues, The Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi contends that
in this framing of the ‘global place’, commoners, especially poor commoners,
are often conceived of as the problem, not the solution to the problems of the
commons. They name this “environmental colonialism” as such constructions “make
no distinction between the production of greenhouse gases in the South in order
that people may eat, and the production of greenhouse gases by luxury
technologies such as air conditioners and cars for the comfort of Northern consumers.”
Whilst intelligent consumers in the North may be capable of scientific and
informed interventions, with support of Northern–trained development experts,
commoners in the South are unlikely to find, or be able to afford, the
solutions (Goldman 1998 p.40) .
Pointing out
that the image of the ‘blue globe’ was captured from a space craft whose
production and launch imposed a considerable burden upon the planet’s fragile
eco-systems, and whose funding is linked with the dominant global industry of
weapons production, Northcott highlights its ambiguity as an image of
‘sustainability’(2000 p.76). He cites
two interrelated reasons for this. Firstly the distance it sets between the
observer and the observed, and secondly the capacity of distance to present the
earth as a unified whole in a way that suggests that it is amenable to unified
management. (p.76)
This
interrelated ambiguity can be explained further. The subject-object distinction was a key
tenet of the Cartesian model of viewing the world by which Bosch argues that
Enlightenment culture misinterpreted both humanity and nature “fundamentally
and totally” (1991p.355). One of the key
consequences of this has been the ecological crisis, as people have viewed
nature, (and other people), as objects that are manipulable and exploitable by
others. For Northcott, this view of the particular and the universal which
‘blue globe’ imagery sustains has given birth to abstract universal utopia’s which have “plagued the
twentieth century” under discourses of ‘nationhood’, ‘ethnic purity’, ‘the
brotherhood of man’, and ‘freedom in the global market’. He argues that these
have been used by elite groups to justify their own controlling global
interests in a way that does damage to particular places (topias).
MISSIOLOGY
Interestingly
the image of the ‘blue globe’ has been highly appropriated in the visual
discourse of mission organisations. It is a popular image for instance in the
texts of evangelical mission movements[4]
who have also been bolstered this century under the cry of the ‘Great
Commission’ of Jesus “Go ye into all the world”[5]
(Bosch 1991 p.341). It is interesting to think how these two discourses
interact and subtly affect our view of the ‘world’ and what going into it
actually means.
Bosch critiques
evangelical’s use of this biblical text as it is usually couched in simplistic,
biblical literalism with little attempt at understanding the commission from
within the context it appears in Scripture and would have been first understood
(p.341). [6] He quotes the renown German missionary Gustav
Warneck who is reported to have responded to the expansionist pace of American
evangelicals by reminding them that the command was to, ‘go’ into all the world
not ‘fly.’ This is made ironic in the context of this discussion as it was made
in 1910 before the advent of commercial air travel which further shrunk the
world for mission (p.341).
Unfortunately
popular use of the blue globe image has often been a true reflection of
Christian missions’ close association with the aforementioned ‘utopian
plagues.’ Yates (1994) looks at the
great missionary conferences pre World War One suggesting the discourse of the
triumphant slogan ‘Evangelisation of the World in this generation’, both
reflected and gave birth to the scintillating missionary optimism of the period
(p.7-33). Bosch however, outlines
numerous ways in which this optimism was connected with abstract global agendas
such as colonialism and millenialism (p.302,313). From this emerged the
discourse of the ‘social gospel’ which became inextricably linked with the
expansion of science, technology and industrialisation in what Myers describes
as the ‘Myth of Progress’ (1994 p.389).
Bosch quotes
Mott from early last century. “Providence
and revelation combine to call the Church afresh to go in and take possession of the world for
Christ….Now steam and electricity have brought the world together. The Church of God
is in the ascendant. She has well within
her control the power, the wealth, and the learning of the world. She is like a strong and well appointed army
in the presence of the foe. The victory
may not be easy but it is sure” (1991 p.337-8; emphasis mine).
Bosch
describes how much of this ‘progress’ had an American flavour as its economic
and political rise to global superpower was paralleled in it becoming the most
aggressive missionary sending country. This also meant that Christian mission
became tainted with the peculiarly American, triumphalist discourses of
‘Manifest Destiny’ (Bosch p.298-302; Myers p.118-124).
As the century
concluded discourses of the mission task as ‘civilisation’ were repackaged
under the banner of ‘development’ (Bosch
1991 p. 334). Myers critiques Christian
mission practises that have used ‘development’ discourse as all to often simply
continuing an agenda of Western control and domination. (1994 p.123, 352,
389-404) ‘Sustainable development’ is variation of this that is very prevalent
today in both environmental and missiological circles seeking to take the
environment seriously, however Northcott suggests that it often still remains a
gloss for an agenda of unitary control. (2000 p.76.)
He states that
these “ utopian discourses are destructive of particular places (topias) – and their human and non-human
inhabitants – because they invite, cajole or coerce individuals and communities
to commit or submit to processes of governance which are disconnected from the
welfare of particular people in particular places. They promise welfare to an imagined community
– of market actors or members of the nation – while subverting human and
non-humans flourishing in those particular traditional communities of place
which are disrupted or displaced in the service of this abstraction” (2000
p.78). He highlights that these utopian dreams are historically connected and
successive and suggests that the currently dominating utopia is described by
the discourse of ‘freedom in a global market’.
This aspect of
control inherent to such discourses is most concerning for a replacement
missiology that is seeking to embrace the environment as well as break ties
with colonialism and its successor global capitalism. Given previous
complicity, there is no room for neutrality here. It is this
dimension of who holds power that has been at issue in recent popular, (and
ironically) worldwide protests against the elite institutions of global capital
such as the International Monetary Fund, The World Trade Organisation and World
Economic Forum.[7]
Recognising
that a replacement missiology will have to disassociate itself from these
successive utopian abstractions, Bosch states that a new and appropriate
epistemology for mission will ensure that nature and especially people may not
be viewed as objects, manipulable and exploitable by others. This will mean also, that within a context of
a powerful global capitalism,
“…technology must be confronted with a reality outside itself which does
not depend on its canons of rationality and which therefore will not be
subservient to its deterministic power.
This reality may be identified as the reign of God, which stands in
polemical tension with the closed system of this world” (1991 p.355).
ECOPHILOSOPHIES
In the light of this many have seen
hope in the discourses ecological philosophies, in which, for the purpose of this
discussion, I will rather simplistically include eco-theology, deep ecology and
eastern metaphysical traditions. These have risen in popularity partly in
response to the accusation that Western Christian traditions are to blame for
the global crisis. This is often attributed to a perceived dualism concerning
nature caused by its ‘placing’ of a monotheist God outside of the realm of
matter, bodies and cosmos. In response
deep ecologists tend to colonise various features of Buddhist and more
generally 'oriental' philosophy in their elaboration of an ecological
metaphysic.
In seeking to connect the interests of
humanity with the interests of non human organic and biological forms of life,
the tendencies of these philosophies is to construct place even more broadly
than that of the ‘blue globe’ around discourses of ‘Identification with the
universe’ or the ‘Cosmos–as-a-whole’ or that of a ‘Great Self’ present in all
beings.[8]
Not suprisingly, Northcott is quick to highlight the similarities here between
ecocrats and deep ecologists. He
considers The abandonment of any sense of an ontological difference or boundary
between humans and other life forms as a way of conceiving of the human nature
relationship that collapses difference and otherness into an Enlightenment
construct of the higher human self . He
argues that this pantheistic construction of place again devalues local
attachments to particular places or relationships for an abstract ideal,
highlighting that this counter metaphysic has not produced ‘Eastern’
civilisations with unblemished ecological records (2000 p.79-81).
This practical
record is fundamental to assessing the potential of eco-philosophical discourse
for a replacement missiology. Whilst
Eco-theology is an increasingly popular discipline it doesn’t seem to easily
translate into pragmatic missiological frameworks. Again noting the historical
context in which mission finds itself, Myers critiques the political and social
location of the eco-theology movement and its fruits stating that “ If creation
spirituality’s attempts to recover earth symbols and earth spirituality for the
church also inspires concrete politico-economic struggle in a defence of Gaia,
then it will become a major component of reclamative theology. In so far as it animates a flight from modern
capitalism into nature mysticism, however, it will prove to be nothing more or
less than the contemporary equivalent of nineteenth century bourgeois
transcendentalism”. He suggests that the
new cosmology’s discourse of “global consciousness” – employed by New Age
religionists, urban environmentalists, and peace activists alike – may be a
less than useful fiction in the struggle against capitalist technocracy (1994
p.344).
RE-PLACING THE
ABSTRACT WITH THE PARTICULAR
Wendell Berry
admits that universal discourse rightly points “to the interdependence of
places, and to the recognition, which is desirable and growing, that no place
on the earth can be completely healthy until all places are. But words such as ‘planetary’ also refer to
an “abstract anxiety or an abstract passion that is desperate and
useless exactly to the extent that it is abstract.” How after all, can anybody - any particular
body do anything to heal a planet?
(1989 p.16 emphasis mine)
Lasch (1984)
agrees stating that “Many advocates of
disarmament and environmental conservation, understandably eager to associate
their cause with the survival of the planet as a whole, deplore to local
associations and attachments that impede the development of a planetary consciousness
but also make it possible for people to think constructively about the future
instead of lapsing into cosmic panic and futuristic desperation” (p.17).
Northcott
contends that what is missing from both corporate and eco-cratic accounts of
‘sustainable development’ and from accounts by deep ecologists of mystical self
identification with nature as a whole, is an adequate conceptualisation of the
heterogeneity and contingency of life on earth, both human and non human. We
learn that we are loved, not through rational study of universal truths, but
through particular, partial relationships of love, care and reciprocity, which
we experience at significant moments in our lives. Just as we cannot love humanity in general
without first experiencing the love of particular persons, and returning that
love, so we cannot love nature as a whole, in abstraction from particular
places or communities of species which we inhabit. (2000 p.77) Berry
states “Love is never abstract. It does not adhere to the universe or the
planet or the nation or the institution or the profession, but to the singular
sparrow of the street, the lilies of the field, the ‘least of these my
brethren” (1990).
In his book “A
Sense of Place”, Lilburne (1989) follows a similar line in his attempt to
articulate a Christian theology of the land.
Having made connections between contemporary indigenous attitudes to
land and place and ancient Hebrew culture he states that from its very
beginnings Christian thought moved away from any development of land and place.
He seeks to remedy this by reconnecting Christian thought with its land based
Hebrew roots through the particular nature of love expressed in the incarnation
of Jesus which occurred not only in time, but space (p.54).
Remembering
the incarnated Jesus entails the need to remember the Jesus of a particular
land and therefore the space which he occupied takes on great significance. As
a first century Jew, Jesus life was rooted in the land, its physical presence
and its religious significance. Lilburne suggests that unless we grasp these
facts and understand the entire New Testament in the context of the Old and set
Jesus firmly in the geographical locus of the land, we go far astray in our
understanding of our Christian faith. “The engagement of the God of the Hebrews
with the space and time of their history in the land comes to a fitting climax
in the entry of that God into space and time in the person of Jesus Christ”
(1989 p.53-55).
When it comes
to mission, McDonagh’s statement (see above) about mission’s global agenda is
qualified by this way of knowing when he suggests that a missionary’s
perspective on ecological problems does not derive primarily from flow charts,
annual reports or graphs. Instead it emerges from an experience of living with
another culture, with the daily struggles of a faith community trying to live
out the gospel in faithfulness to their own culture and in the footsteps of
Jesus. He then ‘places’ his own struggle to live this from the context of a
particular island in a particular Phillippino province (1990 p.2).
Bosch states
“The church in mission is, primarily, the local
church everywhere in the world.” (p.378 emphasis his.) He describes the history of Western ‘sending’
missions and church hierarchies maintaining control and a sense of superiority
over lesser ‘receiving’ churches as “a pure abstraction”. Bosch highlights within his emerging paradigm
the new discovery of the old New Testament concept that the universal church
actually finds its true existence in the local churches and that these, not the
universal church, are the pristine expression of church. Indeed it is through
the mutual ministry of mission that
the church is realised, in communion with and as a local concretisation of the
church universal (1991 p.380).
Constructing
place in a ‘particular’ way is a practical and urgent task for an
eco-missiology of replacement. Dryzek (1997) contends that the effectiveness of
global discourse and international environmental protocols in defending or
preserving the global commons from industrial depletion and pollution has been
extremely limited. Instead there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that
traditional common property regimes have a better record of efficient and
sustainable resource use than their modern supplanters (p.134, also Shiva, 2000
p.13; Myers 1994 p.351).
Northcott
proposes, that place based communities provide vital loci in which conservation
of ‘particular’ natural places, and species communities, may be sustained (2000
p.81). Highlighting the diversity of
local food cultures that exist across the world and across micro-regions of her
native India,
outspoken anti-globalisation activist Vandana Shiva speaks of the threat to
these unique food cultures as they increasingly cede power to global food
monocultures legitimised by secretive global institutions such as the World
Trade Organisation (WTO). Her Navdanya
model of local seed collection protects local biological and cultural diversity
in contravention of WTO patent laws (2000 p.2-4). This emphasises the significance of the local
economy, local ecological resistance and the increased need of local
communities of place to recover control over the welfare of their own natural
places and to uphold the welfare of the human and non-human inhabitants of such
spaces.
Citing various examples Myers highlights the
difference between the active resistance of place based cultures and the
passive resignation of non –place based cultures to environmental
encroachments. He suggests the where people
have no relationship with the land, it is abandoned to the forces of vandalism;
conversely, only those who are rooted in a place will defend it. “Only love for
specific place can motivate us to struggle on its behalf” (1994 p. 345; also
Northcott p.82). The challenge for replacement missiology then is not so much
one of cosmology as of geography, with the key question being not how to heal
the globe but how to heal and sustain human life within millions of complex,
bio-diverse, ‘particular’ localities.
Thankfully there is a discourse of the environmental movement isn’t
limited to abstraction .
BIOREGIONALISM
AND ‘HOME’
Bioregionalism
is one such ideology that has emerged out of the environmental movement. It
derives from the Greek word bios for
“way of life” (as in biology) and from the Latin regere meaning “territory to be ruled.” Bioregionalism constructs place by using the
land as a starting point. Appreciative
of its bio-diverse nature it notices how differences in drainage, physiography,
climate, and topography create differences in the plants, animals and insects
that inhabit different regions. Contrary to the abstract, arbitrary and
anthropocentric boundaries of ‘nation-states’ or ‘markets’, bioregionalism
creates places by identifying natural
geographical patterns and regions. [9] It then argues that the biological and
ecological requirements of the ‘life territory’ or region should dictate the
ways of life that can be sustainably carried out there. This principle then acts as a guide for human
cultural desires and concerns. Purchase states that “Human ‘life ways’ must be
made to work with the ‘way of life’ (bios),
that is all the animals, trees, plants that are native to the region” (1993-4
p.18).
Clearly
valuing ‘particular’ places, Kirkpatrick Sale suggests “the crucial, all
encompassing task of bioregionalism is to understand place; the immediate
specific place where we live” (1993-4, p.7). Berry expresses it with stunning simplicity.
“Make a home. Help to make a community. Be loyal to what you have made. Put the
interest of your community first. Love
your neighbours – not the neighbours you pick out but the ones you have” (1989
p.22). Plant concurs; “Find a place and stay there….ultimately means staying
home” (1990 p.21).
‘Home’ then is
a popular discourse in bioregional construction of place and is potentially
fruitful for a re-placed missiology as Peter Berger suggests that “Modern man
has suffered from a deepening condition of “homelessness”. The result of the
migratory character of his experience of society and of self has been called a
metaphysical loss of home (1974 p.77).
Reflecting this, McNaughton considers the pain of his displacement from
European land and its resultant effect of displacing indigenous people. He concludes that whilst the injustice of
Aboriginal dispossession continues “no-one can find home” (1993-94 p.11).
Berry captures a
sense of this migratory character and its impact upon the environment in his
scathing critique of the mercenary nature of modern capitalism..
A powerful class of itinerant
professional vandals is now pillaging the country and laying it waste. Their vandalism is not called by that name
because of its enormous profitability, (to some), and the grandeur of its
scale. If one wrecks a private home,
that is vandalism, but if, to build a nuclear power plant, one destroys good
farmland, disrupts local community, and jeopardises lives, home and properties
within an area of several thousand square miles, that is industrial progress. The members of this prestigious class of
rampaging professionals are the purest sort of careerists – upwardly mobile
transients who will permit no stay or place to interrupt their personal
advance. They must have no local
allegiances; they must not have a local point of view. In order to be able to desecrate, endanger,
or destroy a place, after all, one must be able to leave it and to forget
it. One must never think of ones place
as ones home; one must never think of
any place as anyone else’s home
(1987; emphasis mine).
In her
introduction of the bioregional reader entitled Home! Judith Plant evocatively
articulates home as a place that a replaced eco-missiology would seek. “Home!
Remembering and reclaiming the ways of our species where people and place are
delicately inter-woven in a web of life- human community finding its particular
place within the living and dying that marks the interdependence of life in an
integrated ecosystem” (1990 p.ix).
In considering
the notion of home, bioregionalists turn towards ecology, which derives from
the Greek word for home oikos,
indicating that home is much broader than simply the nuclear family. As it is in the natural world, where all of
life is connected and inter-related, teeming with diversity and complexities so
it is with human domestic life (Plant 1990 p.21). Here is a scene of ‘human’ ecology from which
much could be gleaned for a replaced eco-missiology in seeking to re-understand
the oikos based churches planted in
the New Testament.
Home can
becomes the locus of liberation from a culture of destruction, because it is
here where people feel they have a measure of control over their values. It is
where the consequences of political actions are felt personally. Chaney (1997)
suggests that the home is the ‘prime site’ for identity shaping. It also
represents an important interface between the public and private worlds, a
dwelling where cultural and societal norms are symbolically juxtaposed with
expressions of individuality. (Thompson 1994 p.35) This is something that differentiates
bioregionalism from many current theories of social change – it places equal
emphasis on cultural, political and personal understanding and action.
McCartney
highlights personally what may be an appropriate direction for replacement
missiology. “The important thing for me now is to understand my place, the
place in which I was born and the place in which I live. I’m slowly learning more about the natural
habitat, the original inhabitants of the place and understanding, that without
that connection to my environment and the spiritual base of my place, I will
never be able to play a useful part in the transformation of our white-centred,
predominantly spiritual-less society that we call home” (1993-94 p.9).
BIOREGIONALISM
AND REPLACEMENT MISSIOLOGY
So in what
ways can bioregionalism assist the development of a replacement missiology?
Purcell (1990 p.2) indicates that bioregionalism
does not mean merely one thing; it isn’t restricted to a single issue or
special activity. She describes it as
connective tissue joining the diverse parts of a growing organism. Bioregional
thought then encompasses a broad range of ideas because as Berg states it is “
more than saving what is left, more than environmentalism, rather it is the
political means for directing society toward restoring and maintaining the
natural systems that ultimately support all of life” (1990 p.3). Most pragmatically I suggest that
bioregionalism offers replacement missiology an agenda for economic and
political organisation of church and society and a new way of approaching
indigenous spiritual traditions in a way that aids contextualisation and
indigenisation.
Imagining a
replaced economics and politics within bioregions, Myers reads Jesus three seed
parables in Mark’s gospel not as abstract spiritual teachings, but as a
concrete, land based agenda. (1994 p.346-367) Using the motif of “Seed sown in good soil”[10]
he traces the Sabbath/Jubilee traditions of the Old and New Testament to
suggest an affirmation of economic practices within the limits of the land.
Bioregionalism suggests that land areas are self sustaining and that human
economics should complement this.
Different land types must be allowed to support different, native
agricultures at only the levels they can sustain. Trading can occur between
bioregions but only out of a regions' surplus. For Myers these natural
boundaries constitute a natural ‘market place’ in contrast to the ‘placeless
market’ of global capitalism.(p.)
Using the
motif ‘Scattered upon the earth’[11]
he outlines the biblical vision through Judges, the prophets and early church
models, of an “anarchical”, decentralised politics that affirms the dispersal,
rather than concentration of power.
Bioregional boundaries often transcend anthropocentric, geo-political
constructions of place and embracing them could provide liberating new ways of
thinking about traditional political problems. However Myers asks if we affirm
the maximum dispersal of power, on what basis can we imagine self determining
groups voluntarily associating, and what are the limits to freedom?(p.363)
Ideology and
economics have often failed to provide the necessary glue in this instance. In
fact Morley and Robins (1993) demonstrate how discourses of ‘home’ around
economic and political constructions have often been used to exclude minorities
in a process known as spatial purification (p.3-33). For many ‘home’ is both a
place of exclusion and/or oppression. (Thompson 1994) This is where for Myers
the land gives a social construction of ‘place’ that is more inclusive than
anthropocentric models. Using the motif ”All the birds of the air”[12]
Myers names his vision of home as one of bioregional self-determination, where
anyone of any race, language, religion or origin is welcome, as long as they
live well on the land (p.364). Snyder suggests that “such a non nationalistic
idea of community, in which there is commitment to pure place, cannot be ethnic
or racist.”(1992 p.65)
Northcott
highlights the historical role the church has played in affirming such processes
where parochial governance and communities of place were traditionally marked
and sustained by religious narratives and rituals. He describes the ancient
local conception of ecclesiastical polity where the worship and polity of the
parish church provided the focal point of the productive, ritual, familial and
moral life of English Society. This
vision reflected the pre-modern function of the parish church as the focus for
the human experience of place, land, settlement, community, governance and transcendence
(2000p.84).
In today’s
postmodern, secular society however, the maintenance of the territorial
character of religious community seems no more than a quaint longing to revert
to bygone days which are seen as simply unachievable given the financial
pressures and reality of a highly mobile, privatised economy. Some church growth mission models respond to
this by focussing on regional (as opposed to local) gatherings of like minded,
mono-cultures of people in mega-churches of particular styles. Northcott
however argues that this privitisation and congregationalism of the church
simply reflects the utopianism towards which so many features of modern
industrial and post industrial society are pressing us (p.84).
He reminds us
that within the European Christian tradition, parochial polity has been a
central mode of Christian ministry and mission, as well as providing many of
the historic precursors of modern systems and local governance. Outlining a
Christian ethical agenda for a “parochial ecology” as an important counter
sign, he suggests that the continuing affirmation of communities of place in
local Christian churches offers a potential source of empowerment to local
communities in a society where other points of face to face community life are
increasingly attenuated (p.84-85).
The Catholic
bishops of the Pacific North West and South Eastern British Columbia, who are
using the watershed of Columbia River as a
boundary, are currently embracing this ‘parochial’ bioregional approach.[13] Their attempt at drafting a pastoral letter
concerning this ‘place’ includes a listening process with a broad range of
people involved with and concerned about the watershed; from Native American
communities, to fishermen and big business. Four key themes outline the scope
of the project. “Rivers of our Moment”, analysing the present situation of the
watershed; “The Rivers through our Memory”, reflecting on social and religious
history; “The Rivers in our Vision”, imagining an
alternative future for the watershed; and “The Rivers as our Responsibility”,
calling forth action to make the vision a new reality in the watershed.
The letter is
unique because it is the first combined regional/international bishops’ letter.
The natural shape of the bioregion then has literally reshaped the way the
church has related across dioceses. In
re-placing their mission in this way, this example of reorganisation and
community consultation prophetically models a re-placed governance and way of
seeing the environment to the broader society with the land as its unifying
factor.
Other
important ways in which the parish church might recover a role in parochial
ecology are by promoting through its worship, teaching and community actions
local ecological practises which contribute to the quest for a more sustainable
society.(Northcott 2000 p.84 ) Snyder affirms this by challenging organisations
such as the church to re-place our
theological discourse, in a way that creates symbolic space for us to imagine
and work for re-placed societies, economics and politics. (1990 p.3)
An example of
this approach is demonstrated in the liturgy resource provided by the Uniting Church
in Australia
for its National Social Justice Sunday (2000).[14] Seeking to bring focus to the needs of rural
and remote Australia
it takes as its central theme the quandong or native peach, a species of flora
known by a variety of aboriginal names in the various bioregions in which it
appears. Qualities of this unique fruit
are reflected upon biblically and practically for their relevance to building a
just, communal life.
In the remote
town of Hawker in South Australia’s outback where traditional
employment has dried up as a result of rural decline caused by global economic
forces and poor environmental practises, young people from the church have
begun to cultivate the quandong fruit. Flourishing naturally in the Lake Eyre Basin watershed, the quandong represents
a new (and yet very old!) source of employment and hope for young people in the
area. Its inclusion in the liturgy then
becomes a powerful spiritual acknowledgment of local place, integrating aspects
of its environment, its history, and economics.
This
integration of liturgy and ‘place’ alludes to another great potential of
bioregionalism for replacement mission; namely the development of contextual
theology. Contextualisation, which includes
the construction of ‘particular’, local theologies, is a very important aspect
of mission in Bosch’s emerging paradigm (1991 p.421ff). The dimensions of ‘context’ in his discussion however centre
upon mission as ‘liberation’ and ‘inculturation’; socio-political and
anthropological constructions of ‘place’ respectively. Using bioregionalism as
a cue however, a replacement missiology is interested in the land as a starting
point in constructing ‘context’.
Snyder
elaborates upon how the boundaries of bio-regions can be discerned by the
presence of different species (eg. tree).
He suggests that by identifying more closely with such a species .....we
begin to take on the “spirit of a place.”
(1990 p.3 & 14) There are
obviously many cultural ways in which this ‘spirit’ can be discerned and
described, but whichever way, this ‘spirit’ can act as a starting point.
Myers says “a
truly contextual theology must pay attention not only to history and social
location, but to the songlines of the land,” from which, and for which, we were
created. By songlines, he refers to the Aboriginal cultural ways of seeing,
describing and navigating their way through landscapes. Highlighting similar biblical songlines (eg.
Isaiah 42), Myers makes connections between local Aboriginal ‘spirits of place’
and the great ‘cloud of witnesses’ spoken of in Hebrews 12:1. He sees the task
of contextualisation as “to reclaim symbols of redemption that are indigenous
to the bioregion in which the church dwells.
To remember the stories of the people of the land and to sing anew its
old songs. These can be woven together
with the symbols, stories and songs of biblical radicalism.” He suggests that
this will necessarily be a local and personal exercise (p. 369).
Correlating
the Indian tree of life with the Christian cross, Myers imagines the now
endangered native oak, “as the new symbolic centre of a re-placed church in
California”(p.379). Using three bioregional spheres he hones in from a macro to
a micro view of the land, writing a ‘love song’ about his ‘home’, including
different species, social history, place names of different occupiers,
historical wounds, communities of refuge and ‘angels of place’.
Beyond the local
and personal, Tacey (2000) uses a similar approach, but uses the vast and
unique land of Australia
as a starting point in his attempt to articulate a “New Australian
Spirituality.” He suggests that Western
European cosmology of the ‘head’ is reversed in Australia giving rise to a
completely different spiritual phenomenology. We experience the spirit through
the ‘feet’, coming up from the land. “In Western cultures, ‘spirit’ is almost a
synonym for that which is abstract, remote, and detached from matter and
nature. In contemporary Australia
people can feel the spirit in this place, but it is the opposite of
transcendent and remote” (p.98).
Qualifying the
cultural aspect of contextualisation, Bosch suggests that ‘inculturation’
always remains a tentative and continuing process, for example one may never
use the term ‘enculturated’. He states that at one point Western Christianity
saw itself in this way; a singular, fully indigenised, culturally superior,
finished product (p.456). Part of the
current and essential process of re-placement for Western theologies (plural!)
involves the exchange of a plurality of local, contextual theologies. Bosch
describes this as “Inter-culturation”.
What is popular then in much bioregional writing, including Myers and Tacey,
is a looking to the wisdom of indigenous, place-based cultures in helping shape
a land sensitive contextual theology, who’s maintained knowledge of places
extends for thousands of years.
Tacey
proclaims that “The cultural ‘mixing’ of Aboriginal spirituality and Christian
revelation will give rise to an embodied religious sense, an awareness of the
sanctity and sacramentality of nature. Australia’s future contribution to
world religious experience will be profound, and many Aboriginal people, who appear
to know this already, are waiting for the new to be consciously embraced… This
development will put an end to the colonial phase and allow the post colonial
spirit to be born” (p.109).
The process of
‘colonisation in reverse’ intrigues both Tacey and Myers. Described as spiritual, psychic and subtle,
this is said to come through the land itself and the traditions of long term
place-based communities. Tacey quotes
Jung who suggests that as we deepen our connection with place, the place slowly
conquers us. “Man can be assimilated by a country.” Some indigenous traditions
also assert that one cannot conquer foreign soil, because in it there dwells
strange ancestor-spirits who reincarnate themselves in the new-born (Tacey 2000 p.135; Myers 1990 p.368). Whilst Christianity has no
doctrine of reincarnation or ancestral spirits Tacey suggests it is the power
of this ‘spirit of place’, however described,
that has caused many sensitive Australians to feel at ‘home’ in
Aboriginal Australia.
He concludes
that the best way for Aboriginal Australians to bring about a social revolution
is not to shout “Europeans, go home”, but to cry “We are your soul”, then
observe the changes. (2000 p.137) Myers
observes these changes in his own life. “The love in the land has summoned a love in me for it. This love was buried in my soul like the smallest of seeds,
placed there by ancestors I never knew. The nights and days of my life have
passed and the seed has grown, ‘I know not how’ (Mark 4:27; 1994 p.368,
emphasis his).
CONCLUSION : “GROWING HOME”
The historical
cry of colonised communities whose social and physical ‘places’ have been
destroyed by a Christianity complicit with imperialism is “Missionary go
home!” Having forgone its place based,
biblical roots in its dance with the Enlightenment, missiology has itself been
displaced. It now finds itself (and often its missionaries!), intellectually
and practically home-less. Berry asks the haunting
question, “How do we fight against…robbery, if we who have been displaced by it
have no place to stand?” (1987 p.50) I have argued that it is in the critique
‘from below’ that mission can find a clue to its, and the earths salvation. It
must be re-placed!
Rejecting the
tempting environmental discourses of abstraction, and drawing strongly from the
practical ideology of bioregionalism, and its discourses of ‘home,’ an
eco-missiology of re-placement offers a ‘particular’ framework for a political,
economic, social and spiritual renewal. Both conceptual and practical; personal
and political; the work of re-placement is an empowering and creative process
of literally ‘growing home.’ A
‘place’ both old and new where we can fulfil the oldest (and yet newly urgent)
biblical call to mission; the call to take care of the creation.[15]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berg
P.
1990 “More Than Just Saving What’s Left” in Home! : A Bioregional
Reader, Andruss, Plant, Plant & Wright (ed’s), New Society
Publishers, Philadelphia.
Berger
P.L., Berger B. and Kellner H. 1974 The
Homeless Mind: Modernisation and
Conciousness, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Berry W.
1987 “Higher Education and Home Defence”, Home Economics, North
Point Press, San Francisco, CA.
1989
“The Futility of Global Thinking”, Harpers, September,16.
1990 “What
are People For?”, North Point Press, San
Francisco, CA.
Bosch
D. 1991 Transforming
Mission: Paradigm
Shifts in Theology of Mission,
Orbis, New York.
Bruntland
Commission 1989 Our Common Future, Oxford University
Press,UK.
Chatterjee
and Finger 19 The Earth Brokers
DeWitt C.B.
& Prance G.T. 1992 Missionary
Earthkeeping, Mercer
University Press,
Georgia.
Dryzek J.S. 1997 The Politics of the Earth:
Environmental Discourses, Oxford
University
Press, New York.
Goldman M. 1998 “Inventing the Commons: theories and Practises of a Commons
Professional” in Privatizing Nature, Pluto Press, London.
Lasch
C.
1984 The
Minimal Self: Psychic Survival in Troubled Times,
W.W.Norton, New York.
Lilburne G.R. 1989 A
Sense of Place: A Christian Theology of the Land, Abingdon,
Nashville.
Lovelock J. 1988 The
Ages of Gaia: An autobiography of our Living Earth, Oxford
University Press, UK.
Massey,
et.al, 1999
McCartney
B. 1993-94
“Recognising our Place” Inhabit, Summer, 2,
Headwaters
Press, Northcote, Australia.
McDonagh
S. 1990 The Greening of the Church, The Canterbury Press,
Scoresby, Australia.
McDowell
1996
McNaughton
1993-94 in
Inhabit, Summer, 2, Headwaters Press,
Northcote, Australia.
Morley D.
& Robins K. 1993 “No place like Heimat: Images of Home(land)
in European
Culture” in
Carter E, Donald J & Squires J.(eds), Space
& Place:
Theories of Identity and Location, Lawrence and Wishart,
London.
Northcott
M.S. 2000 “From Environmental U-topianism to
Parochial Ecology:
Communities of
Place and the Politics of Sustainability”,
Ecotheology, 8, 71-85.
Plant
J.
1990 “Growing Home; An Introduction” in Home! : A Bioregional
Reader, Andruss, Plant, Plant & Wright (ed’s), New Society
Publishers, Philadelphia.
Pred
1985
Purcell
S.R. 1990 quote in “What is Bioregionalism?” Home! : A Bioregional
Reader, Andruss, Plant, Plant & Wright (ed’s), New Society
Publishers, Philadelphia.
Purchase
G. 1993-4 “The New Commonwealth” Inhabit, Summer, 2, Headwaters
Press, Northcote, Australia.
Sale K.
1993-4 “Giants Stalk, Creation Trembles”, Inhabit, Summer, 2,
Headwaters Press, Northcote, Australia.
Schmidheiny
S. 1992 Changing Course: A Global
Business Perspective on
Development and the Environment, MIT Press,
MA.
Shiva
V.
2000 Stolen
Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply, South
End Press, Cambridge.
Snyder
1990 “Bioregional
Perspectives” in Home! : A Bioregional
Reader, Andruss, Plant, Plant & Wright (ed’s), New Society
Publishers, Philadelphia.
1992
“Coming into the Watershed”, Special Issue, Wild Earth, Cenozoic Society, New York.
Tacey
D.
2000 ReEnchantment:
The New Australian Spirituality, Harper-Collins,
Sydney.
Testerman
D.E. 1992 “Missionary Earthkeeping: Glimpses of the
Past, Vision of the
Future” in DeWitt & Prance (ed’s), Missionary Earthkeeping,
Mercer
University Press, Georgia.