Page:The Second Christ, Saint Francis of Assisi and Ecological Consciousness.pdf/4

Page 4 of 9Original Research Romans 8 highlights a groaning that is common to creation, humans and the Spirit in creation: here we have an alternative to the popular notion that God, in Christ, now rules above and is no longer suffering deep in creation below. (p. 112)

Habel (2009:118) conspicuously chooses the ‘story’ of Jesus (idealised or divinised) or what he calls the ‘Gospel principle’ and not ‘history’ (historical Jesus), and he therefore accepts all its thaumaturgical elements. His book is intended for the church and therefore Habel does not (deliberately) ‘demythologise’ this rendering of faith but stays true to the master-narrative of Christianity. However, when he emphasises a specific version or nuance of the Jesus story that may have been overlooked or neglected or ignored in the past, namely a strong emphasis on the immanent Jesus instead of a transcendent Jesus, some sort of demythologisation is taking place. The immanent, earth-bound Jesus is a ‘greener’ Jesus than the one distancing himself from earth. Although to converse meaningfully on matters ecological with inter alia secular science does not seem to be his primary aim (at least with this book), his deliberate new emphasis of the Jesus story allows some direction in this regard. When he says that ‘heavenism’ and unnatural ecosystems are out (Habel 2009:34, 100–104), being part of ancient idealised versions of a new world to come, science should agree. Furthermore, the Jesus story of ‘serving’ the earth, taking responsibility for her as she does for us (mutual custodianship), should also provide common ground for an ethics of care into which even science might finally translate (although the ethical is not necessarily up front in the scientific discourse). If the Jesus story relates that ‘earth is God’s body’, this metaphor confers (ultimate) intrinsic value, the highest we can confer, onto our planet and again adds an ethical dimension to our ecological awareness. Furthermore, whether understood as faith by some or just a mythical story by others, the story of Jesus’ redemption and suffering along with all of creation emphasises the interconnected bond with all, the web of life, that we are all in the same ship so to speak, hopefully on our way to a better, healthier and, in terms of this contribution, a ‘greener’ future. Theology can provide the ethics and science the agenda for such a better world. The thaumaturgical or miraculous (but unnatural) ‘lamb and wolf’ lying together will, other than in pre-modern times, not be attentiongrabbing in our scientifically informed age but rather a natural Eden as it has evolved over millions of years where lamb and wolf and human have sustainable living habitats (‘heavens’) where they can thrive and die as nature intended it to be.

Who was Francis?

The life story of Francis is richly documented (see e.g. Habig 1973), and his two well-known biographers, Thomas of Celano and Bonaventura, commenced with it shortly after his death. It is a rather formidable task to reconstruct or retrieve Francis from history, as with Jesus, with many of the early sources being hagiography. The latter, the writing of the lives of saints, are more than often presented as larger than life (Warner 2011:116).

Francis was born in 1181 AD in the city of Assisi, part of the Umbrian province of Italy. He came from a wealthy house – his father, Pietro Bernardone, was a well-to-do textile merchant who often visited France for his business, which most probably inspired the name Francis. As a typical young and rich libertine from the bourgeois class, Francis lived a worldly life of gambling, banquets, singing and dancing, the life of a typical, carefree troubadour (Boff 1997:206). Interestingly, his gaiety and sensuousness also characterised his later life after his conversion (Armstrong 1973:19–23; Warner 1994:228). As a typical young man, Francis considered many options as a career – merchandise (as his father), becoming a feudal nobleman, the military and so on – but none really spoke to his heart. In about 1210 or 1213, he became ill and often retracted to the caves and forests, the beautiful natural surroundings of Assisi, to contemplate and ponder on his life’s direction. During these retreats, he became convinced that he should follow Christ, the Poor Man par excellence (Boff 1997:207) who emptied himself completely for others in obedience to his Father. His option for the lifestyle of the poor, pledging to marry ‘Lady Poverty’ (Boff 1997:207) and becoming a fool in the eyes of his former rich fellows and family, was immediately set into action. The Poverello (the little poor man), as his admirers fondly referred to him, began to repair small and poor churches and chapels on the margins of Assisi, promoting and embodying his new commitment to poverty. He even left the luxury of the city and his class to go and live in a leprosorium outside of the city, associating closely with the cast-out lepers. One can understand the dismay his father had for all of this. In the presence of the bishop of Assisi, he and his father had a irreparable fall-out, so much so that Francis stripped naked (for which Voltaire later on scorned him) and gave his clothes back to his father, and he determined that the habit of the church would be sufficient for his needs (Hooper & Palmer 1992:78). Francis was not and did not become a clergyman, but as a layman, he fulfilled his mission as a kind of gospel pilgrimage (like Jesus), visiting the squares, villages and fields and not striving for the stability of the established church monasteries (Boff 1997:207). Although he followed an alternative way of ‘being church’ in the world, he was not opposed to the mainstream church. In 1209 or 1210, he requested approval from the Pope for his new way (rule) of poverty, chastity and obedience and was granted this in 1223. This ‘new way’ was also the First Order of Franciscans, later followed by his close woman friend and confidant, Clare’s Second Order of Franciscans, the Poor Clares. A third order http://www.ve.org.zadoi:10.4102/ve.v35i1.1310