Page:The Second Christ, Saint Francis of Assisi and Ecological Consciousness.pdf/8

 out a principle ecologists have only recently begun to prove scientifically: all of life is interconnected.’ Francis’ respect for nature is characterised by an ‘I-thou’ relationship instead of an ‘I-it’ relationship (Sorrell 1988:134, following Rosemary Reuther). It is also given its own ‘voice’: ‘The Little Poor Man loosed the tongues of rocks and meadows to raise their voices in brotherly concord singing “Glory to God in the Highest and on earth peace”’ (Armstrong 1973:242). It is remarkable how the Canticle reflects almost all of Habel’s (2000a:38–53) six eco-just principles, namely intrinsic worth, interconnectedness, voice, purpose, mutual custodianship and resistance, already neatly noticed by Sorrell (1988:137) long before Habel precisely coined these principles.

So what can we learn from Francis and what not? Voltaire launched a scathing, rationalist attack on Francis and discredited him for being a mad fanatic, going about naked, speaking to beasts and catechising a wolf, someone who could hardly be taken seriously in this age of enlightenment. Such a strong verdict, however, would be missing the point of the stories, markedly those that incline more to the fictional (e.g. hagiography) as if they have nothing to offer (Armstrong 1973:169). Francis, similar to Jesus, as children of their time can obviously not offer scientific insights as to ‘how’ ecosystems work, but they can change attitudes towards the environment and offer meaning-seeking answers as to the ‘why’ of an environment at all.

In his complete submission to Jesus, Francis was deeply touched by ‘… the presence of the Word made flesh’, of God’s presence in the created order (Dennis et al. 1996:105), binding all of creation together into an interconnected web of life: ‘Francis offered a spiritual description of the interdependence of an eco-system’ (Warner 1994:228). He was convinced of the fraternity of all (Warner 1994:237; 2011:120), hence his addressing of the non-human elements of nature in familial or kinship terms, ‘brother’ and ‘sister’. By doing this, he conferred intrinsic value on all other nonhuman being and evoked a lifestyle of reverence and respect. His overt personification of everything was thus a logical consequence of his faith stance. Even though Francis went to these extremes, which are admittedly not that palatable to our modern taste, personification is perhaps something that we can hardly escape, even amongst natural scientists who nowadays plead for an animal-centric personification (De Waal 2006:77). Concomitant to his personalisation of everything stood also Francis’ dream of a return to an idyllic, almost non-real, Paradise marked by perfect harmony. Although deeply respecting the natural, he often inclined to an unnatural utopia in his acts toward nature (e.g. the taming of the Wolf of Gubbio), which sounds similarly naïve (as does his personification) to the modern ear. This was, however, also a consequence of his literal reading of the Bible and following Jesus (see Habel above) and the unquestioning ascription to him of thaumaturgical actions. These acts that go against nature was not a problem in the medieval context of his early followers (Sorrell 1988:17). What should not be missed behind all these miraculous anecdotes is his sincere love and empathy for all of creation.

Instead of mimicking Francis (and Jesus), what should be taken from these stories of the past is an awakening to the ‘… communion of life …’ and not that he (sentimentally) preached to the birds (Warner 2011:123)! Francis’ overwhelming sense of the interconnectedness of all life is perhaps the outstanding characteristic of his life. This indeed made him the worthy patron saint of oecologicae cultorum or ‘ecological consciousness’. It simultaneously acknowledged him as a special (moral) figure in the conversation with science, as Pope John Paul II envisaged in 1979 (Warner 2011:121). Our task today is to retrieve the green values of these icons of Christianity of the past and translate them meaningfully and creatively for the context of our contemporary culture in addressing the ecological crisis (Warner 2011:118). Francis (and Jesus) can offer alternative attitudes to a crude anthropocentrism today, namely a deep reverence, kinship, compassion and affection for the cosmic and planetary community (Boff 1997:203). Francis markedly emphasised ‘… the rights of the heart, the centrality of feeling …’ (Boff 1997:208). Emotions precede actions, they trigger what we do (De Waal 2006:18), and therefore the compassion and empathy that these icons of the past had for nature should become our own and inspire and energise our green acts (Sorrell 1988:128). Whilst internalising these positive feelings for the environment, it is also time to finally discard the attitude of disgust or rejection of the earthly that for so long shaped and legitimised Christianity’s past exploitation of nature (White 1967). This new environmental ethics and emotional energy should be channelled and guided with ecological knowledge from the sciences (Warner 2011:126), working towards a natural Eden as we have come to know it (Habel 2009:104). Natural science, because it knows ‘how’ the world works, should provide the pragmatic and informed agenda for conserving the natural world. Religious figures like Francis and Jesus can inspire new ecologically conscious attitudes to provide the political (and moral) will for these endeavours and make them deeply meaningful and worthwhile.

The life stories of prominent figures of the past can have a meaningful shaping effect on modern-day ethics. Even though the stories of Jesus and Francis incline to the fantastical, their value for a modern ecological consciousness is defendable. The larger-than-life portrayals of these iconic figures of Christianity make sense in the pre-modern contexts in which they lived and should not blur their authentic sense of bondedness with all of creation. Behind Francis’ personification of nature and his mystical experiences of nature lies an intuitive sense of interconnectedness and interdependence, of being fully part of the natural web of life (and confirmed by empirical science). The same is true of the immanence of Jesus. Francis and Jesus can therefore inspire a sincere respect, acknowledgement and affection for nature, an attitude of care. The right attitudes, however, also need an