PACIFICA 13 guNE 2000) 125

The Challenge of Ecojustice Readings for

Christian Theology

Norman C, Habel

Abstract: This article expounds the principles of interpretation and praxis

that have inspired the Earth Bible project. It first sets out a general
hermeneutic of ecojustice, showing how it embodies and applies to the
Earth the principles of suspicion and retrieval currently operative in
biblical interpretation from a social justice and feminist standpoint. The
paper then expounds the six principles of an ecojustice hermeneutic: the
principles of intrinsic worth, interconnectedness, voice, resistance,
purpose, and mutual custodianship. In each case the paper shows how
interpretation from an ecojustice standpoint requires radical reassessment
in the interpretation of familiar texts and poses challenges to theology.

What, after all, is earth's creation?

A virus in the morgue of space.
What's Mozart but a weird vibration
Congenial to a brain sick race.
THESE UNES FROM THE RECENT POETIC NOVEL of Vikram Seth, en-
titled The Golden Gate,1 reflect the voice of the cynical scientist. Earth is
reduced to a virus in the morgue of space. Certain rabid apocalyptists
echo a similar theme when they reduce Earth to a ball of corrupted
matter about to be thrown onto the waste dump of eternity. Both
negative valuations of Earth stand in diametrical opposition to the prin-
ciples of ecojustice espoused by many contemporary ecologists, ethicists
and religious thinkers.
Ecojustice and its challenge for contemporary religions is the central
focus of this Charles Strong Lecture. Justice for all human beings is a
fundamental tenet of all major religions, whether or not justice is
evident in practice. Ecojustice extends this basic principle of justice to
planet Earth and the entire community of Earth. Earth has a right to
justice, regardless of its relative size in this quadrant of our galaxy or its
diminished condition by virtue of hufnan abuse. Earth has a right to
justice as much as those human beings who currently inhabit it.
1. Vikram Seth, The Golden Gate (London: Faber and Faber, 1997).
 126 PACIFICA 13 (JUNE 2000)

ECOJUSTICE PRINCIPLES

A team of scholars in Adelaide, drawing on the expertise of écolo-

giste, environmentalists and ethicists, explored the overarching concept
of ecojustice to identify the basic principles inherent in this concept. The
interests of this team, while designated the Earth Bible team, are not
confined to matters biblical. A wider perspective of social justice, world
religions, theology and indigenous issues also characterises the orien-
tation of this team.
Six ecojustice principles have been identified, debated, vetted and
formulated as a guide for interpreting sacred texts or doing theology.2
The wording of these principles is explicitly non-theological so that
dialogue with secular scientists and ecologists can proceed without the
barrier of God-language. Yet, those of us who work with these
principles, find them totally sympathetic with the orientation of theo-
logy and interpretation of sacred texts in the religious traditions we
know.
The six principles involved can be summarised as follows:
The principle of intrinsic worth: Earth and all its components have
intrinsic worth/value.
The principle of connectedness: Earth is a community of inter-
connected living things that are mutually dependent on each other for
life and survival.
The principle of voice: Earth is a living entity capable of voicing its
cries against injustice.
The principle of purpose: Universe, Earth and all its components are
part of a dynamic cosmic design within which each piece has a place in
the overall goal of that design.
The principle of mutual custodianship: Earth is a balanced and
diverse domain where humans function as responsible custodians with,
rather than rulers over, Earth to sustain the balance and diversity of the
Earth community.
The principle of resistance: Earth and its components not only suffer
from human injustices but actively resist them in the struggle for justice.
In the course of this presentation, I shall explore most of these prin-
ciples and the radical challenge which they pose for doing theology. I
shall pursue this exploration from the background of my experience
with scholars in the Earth Bible project attempting to apply these prin-
ciples as they seek to re-read the Christian Scriptures in the current
environmental crisis.

2. See Norman Habel and Shirley Wurst (eds.), The Earth Bible Volume 1: Readings from
the Perspective of the Earth (Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000) Chapter 2.
 HABEL: ECOJUSTICE READINGS 127

AN ECOJUSTICE HERMENEUTIC

Before we interrogate a text or seek to challenge theology with these

ecojustice principles, we need to first clarify our stance in relation to
Earth. Is Earth a theme or concept in the text which we plan to analyse?
Is Earth a topos for developing an appropriate doctrine? Are we asking
what the text says "about" the Earth? Or are we pursuing a
hermeneutic in which Earth is a partner rather than an object of
investigation?
Let us consider for a moment the role of an advocate pursuing social
justice. If that process is to be more than the political paternalism of
those in power or the self-gratifying charity of those in love with the
cause, then its advocates must join the struggle of those oppressed by
injustice and in some way identify with the apparent victims of the
injustice. Social justice means joining the struggle of the oppressed.
Correspondingly, ecojustice requires more than a romantic love of
nature or the unspoiled wilderness, more than a model of
environmental management driven by economic necessity, more than a
rejuvenated theology of stewardship that assumes the superior right of
humans over Earth. Ecojustice demands that we take sides, that we
stand with Earth as an oppressed party, that we join Earth in the
struggle for justice for the entire Earth community.
I have summarised this move as follows in our Introduction to
Volume One of the Earth Bible:
Our approach in this series attempts to move beyond a focus on
ecological themes to a process of listening to, and identifying with,
Earth as a presence or voice in the text. Our task is to take up the
cause of Earth and non-human members of Earth's community by
sensing their presence in the text - whether their presence is sup-
pressed, oppressed or celebrated.3
The task of joining in the struggle of Earth is not necessarily a move
that we can make readily. It is no longer second nature to us in
contemporary society. I am not a rock or a tree. I am not an elephant or
an earthworm. I may feel no natural kinship with a kangaroo or a
honey ant as many of my Indigenous fellow Australians still do. It may,
therefore, be difficult for me to identify with other partners in the Earth
community as I read the text. As a fellow member of Earth's community
concerned with ecojustice, however, our task is to identify with Earth,
even if difficult and contentious.
The task of identifying with Earth and standing with Earth as a
partner in the struggle is made all the more difficult because of a
Christian heritage which has exalted humans as being "a little less than
God" and Earth as mere matter that can be trodden underfoot or as a
3. Earth Bible Volume 1, Chapter 1.
 128 PACIFICA 13 GUNE 2000)
cache of resources that can exploited for human wealth. In spite of all
our efforts to erase this memory, in spite of a growing ecological
awareness, and in spite of imminent environmental disasters, this
arrogant attitude persists in our minds and theologies like a penetrating
poison.
The antithesis of this dominion attitude is a kinship attitude: we are
related to all the members of the Earth community as our kin, an
intricate and ancient family tree that comprises all parts of Earth since
its origins. The kinship model is one of mutual sharing. Elizabeth
Johnson summarises this attitude as follows:
Appreciating the deep patterns of affiliation in the cosmos, the
kinship model knows that we are all connected. For all our distinc-
tiveness, human beings are modes of being of the universe. Woven into
our lives is the very fire from the stars and the genes from the sea
creatures, and everyone, utterly everyone, is kin in the radiant tapestry
of being. This relationship is not external or extrinsic to who we are, but
wells up as the defining truth from our deepest being.4
The challenge we face as we read the text, is acknowledging that the
text may itself be in conflict not only with a kinship attitude but also
with the very ecojustice principles of the Earth Bible approach. We may
suspect the text of being hierarchical, dualistic and anthropocentric. A
hermeneutics of suspicion, therefore, seems quite reasonable. After all,
the sacred Scriptures were written by human beings and have the
potential for being anthropocentric, relegating Earth and its non-human
community to the margin.
A hermeneutics of suspicion and retrieval are integral to this ap-
proach. We may indeed find texts where Earth is valued and celebrated.
We may retrieve significant parts of the biblical Earth story that have
been hidden or misread in the past. But we dare not avoid the prior step
of suspecting the text of being anthropocentric.
Many ecotheologians and interpreters search the Scriptures, unfor-
tunately, primarily to retrieve Earth positive passages and ignore those
where Earth is devalued. The challenge facing theology is to deal open-
ly with those parts of the biblical tradition that are clearly anthropo-
centric and do not value Earth. Much of the Bible is simply not Earth
friendly.
THE PRINCIPLE OF INTRINSIC WORTH

The first ecojustice principle that challenges us is the principle of

intrinsic worth. Earth and all its elements - no matter how small or
apparently insignificant - have intrinsic worth. Their value is not
dependent upon whether they have been endowed with unusual beauty
- as humans may define beauty - or whether they are found useful for
4. Elizabeth Johnson, Women, Earth, and Creator Spirit (New York: Paulist, 1993) 39.
 HABEL: ECOJUSTICE READINGS 129

particular human purposes. Anne Primavesi makes the point clearly

when she writes,
So the pursuit of truth in education becomes identified with the
pursuit of utility, and this in turn is measured by the creation of
wealth. The usual training in science and practical technologies
today is part of this continuum. The phenomena studied are not
assumed to have intrinsic value or worth in their own right.5
When we approach the biblical text with the suspicion that the Earth
is likely to be devalued by human authors in one way or another, what
do we find? The answer is a complex picture which we are still
unravelling. There is one group of texts in which the Earth is not only
marginal but abused by both humans and God. We are all familiar with
the scorched earth policy attributed to Joshua who devotes to
destruction all human and animal life in Jericho (Jos 6:21). And when he
does not kill the horses he has them hamstrung as a cruel testimony to
his policy Qos 11:9).
More significant, perhaps, are certain texts where God is portrayed in
theophanies or grand demonstrations of power. Let us consider for a
moment Psalm 29. Perhaps, as some scholars argue, this psalm was
originally a Canaanite Baal hymn that was appropriated by Israel and
modified as a theophany of YHWH. In any case, YHWH is depicted in a
mode that is just as brutal as that of Baal.
The Psalm commences by summoning all the heavenly beings to
proclaim YHWH's power and glory. These beings function as a kind of
celestial cheer squad as YHWH roars into action. YHWH appears as a
fierce thunderous storm with no apparent purpose but to display
power. There is no enemy here against which YHWH might conceiv-
ably do battle. As a storm, YHWH thunders, roars and wrecks havoc on
the forests of Lebanon and the wilderness of Kadesh. They writhe in
pain as this storm God strips the forest bare. And all the while, the
cheer squad in the heavenly temple shouts, "kabod, Glory"! YHWH's
display of power over nature culminates with YHWH enthroned over
the water. Three cheers for the mighty storm God!
And when the cheering dies down, the cringing Psalmist, as if in
protest against this sabre rattling by YHWH, adds one last line, "How
about some peace, some shalom for your people?"
Read from the perspective of justice for Earth, YHWH is portrayed as
a storm king who apparently does what he likes with the forests and the
wilderness to satisfy a need to exhibit meteorological glory and power.
The challenge before us is to discern whether the biblical theophanies
portray God as using or abusing the phenomena of Earth, whether they
be the elements of a storm or plagues of small creatures. Is YHWH
5. Anne Primavesi, From Apocalypse to Genesis: Ecology, Feminism and Christianity
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991) 11.
 130 PACIFICA 13 (JUNE 2000)
depicted as valuing the Earth or simply using it, willy nilly, to impress,
punish or bless humans? Is Earth ever an end in itself, or simply a
means to God's ends in human history?
Ruth Page has rightly recognised the difficulties of understanding
just how God is involved in creation.6 It is not enough to proclaim God
is "in creation"! We need to ask how? And that is where the biblical
heritage presents another challenge, especially if one reads the text from
the vantage point of creation. God's involvement in creation in Psalm 29
hardly inspires a sense of justice for the Earth. Just as problematic are
the many occasions where YHWH is depicted as manipulating parts of
creation to teach humans a lesson. Already in the fallout from the Fall,
YHWH announces "Cursed is the ground because of you, adorn" (Gen
3:17-18). What on earth did the ground do to deserve this curse? Why
does God seem to devalue Earth and curse it in this arbitrary manner?
Examples could be multiplied ad nauseam. The plagues of Egypt
seem to be nothing more than divine manipulation of creation to test
Pharaoh's limits. It takes ten acts of cruelty to prove God's point. Ten
acts where creation suffers unfairly: the Nile must taste blood, the
animals must enjoy boils, the land must celebrate locusts, and so on.
The story has no sensitivity to creation; God is Lord over creation and
can use, or abuse it, to force the hand of humans.
Other biblical traditions reflect a deity who relates to creation in quite
different ways. The so-called Priestly Writer of the Pentateuch has
YHWH appearing in a kabod, a strange mobile cloud glimmering with
inner fire - a kind of biblical UFO. This kabod lands on Mount Sinai and
Moses enters to speak with God. When Moses leaves the kabod his face
glows like an alien from another planet. Subsequently the kabod fills
both the tabernacle and the holy of holies in the temple built by
Solomon. The kabod is the mysterious visible presence of YHWH.
More significant than these anomalous appearances of a mobile
cloud, is the cry of the seraphim in Isaiah's vision.
Holy! Holy! Holy is the Lord of hosts.
The whole Earth is full of his kabod. (Isa 6:3)
How does God relate to Earth here? God's kabod, God's visible
presence, "fills" Earth. The Earth, like the tabernacle or the temple, is
God's sanctuary. Planet Earth is chosen to be a sanctuary of YHWH in
the cosmos. Here the worth of Earth is clearly affirmed by God. God
relates to Earth as a chosen home, not a place of intermittent visitations.
These texts, when read from the perspective of Earth, reveal many
diverse ways in which the relative value of Earth is implied. The
ecological principle remains, however, as a challenge: Earth has value of
itself, regardless of how God or humans relate to Earth.

6. Ruth Page, God and the Web of Creation (London: SCM, 1996) xii.
 HABEL: ECOJUSTICE READINGS 131

THE PRINCIPLE OF INTERCONNECTEDNESS

It can be argued that this principle is the foundational principle of
ecology. It brings into focus what Primavesi calls a new paradigm, the
ecological paradigm. 7 Chaos theory taught us that of the myriad of
similar entities on Earth, no two are absolutely identical - no two leaves,
no two butterflies, no two snowflakes. Ecology is now teaching us that
no two systems and no two entities within these systems stand alone -
no two species, no two living creatures, no two grains of sand. All are
interdependent in many diverse ways - some mysterious and still
unexplored. We have barely touched on the patterns of inter-relation-
ships between the members of the Earth community
This principle at the heart of the ecological paradigm challenges the
dominant Western mode of scientific thought of recent centuries. This
mode is summarised by Primavesi as follows:
This mindset Newton bequeathed not only to Western scientific
thought but also to all its teaching. The presuppositions upon
which the teaching are based are that mind is separate from matter
and that phenomena can and shall be studied and evaluated in
quantitative terms. The resulting philosophy of nature was one
based on mechanical analysis and division of matter into atomic
parts separated by void space. A mechanistic model of the world
was built on the notion of passive, inert matter acted on by external
forces. Mechanical models of the self, society and he cosmos
became accepted and are still used in spite of evidence from modern
science that organisms influence their own destiny in interesting,
complex and interconnected ways.8
The ecological paradigm of reality, by contrast, recognises that there
is no isolating space between phenomena, but that are all connected.
There are no hierarchies of power where those claiming to be on one
level are independent of those on an assumed lower level. There are no
absolute dualities of inanimate and animate, humanity and nature, male
and female, subject and object, mind and matter - dualities whose
destructive forms have been forcefully identified by scholars like Val
Plumwood.9
On the biological level we have come to the realisation that you and I
and Jesus Christ have at some point breathed the same oxygen, and that
you and I and Mary Magdalene depend on plants sustained by the same
minute organisms that once lived in decaying dinosaurs. Earth is one
living organism, one infinite complex of interlocking ecosystems.
7. Primavesi, Apocalypse to Genesis, 17.
8. Primavesi Apocalypse to Genesis, 11.
9. See Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature (New York: Routledge, 1993)
43.
 132 PACIFICA 13 0UNE 2000)

The challenge comes when I realise that I am not outside of these

systems - either biologically, emotionally, intellectually or spiritually.
The neurons of my mind are not detached any more than the lifeblood
in my heart. My reason is not a reality unrelated to my body and
capable of remaining free of bodily bias. My spirit is not an entity that
can be separated from the 23 chromosomes that comprise my genetic
make-up. I am intimately related to my flesh. I am a body dependent
on other bodies. I am a mind linked to other minds. I and all parts of
Earth are connected - in multiple and mysterious ways.
The first challenge for theology, therefore, is the ecological paradigm
itself. Can we really separate body and soul, the material and the
spiritual, salvation and creation, humanity and nature, heaven and
Earth, life and death? Fundamental to the ecological paradigm is the
connection rather than the separation between things, the existing and
potential interaction between realities, the dependency of life on what
has died. Doing theology involves collaboration with more than a
handful of few scholars; our very thoughts - be they theological or
otherwise - are intertwined with the ecosystems of Earth. I do theology
with Earth - in my head as well as my heart.
If, in the light of this principle, we read the biblical text again, can we
make connections? At the outset, we need to acknowledge that this
paradigm is so radically different from our Western way of thinking,
that we are not likely to have discerned it in biblical texts. The unclean
creatures of Leviticus are hardly viewed as kin, even if they were all
preserved on the ark. The whole system of animal sacrifice may imply
animals can die in place of humans, but there is no sense of justice for
the animals. Even where a lion lies down with a lamb in some Utopian
vision, we have viewed the image as one of peace between opposites,
not connection between kin. The interconnectedness of all things is
rarely discerned in the biblical text and may well be absent in most texts.
In spite of the remarkable image of YHWH's presence filling the
Earth in Isaiah 6, the Old Testament God is generally portrayed as the
one who intervenes, interrupts, separates and divides - or at least that is
the way we have read the text. God separates the family of Noah along
with selected species and watches a massive ecological disaster from a
distance. The Earth again suffers for what humans have done. It took
an Indigenous Australian called Wally Fejo to make me realise that if, as
they believe, God is in the Earth, then God too suffered that disaster
with the Earth. God was not detached.10
The challenge for theology still stands: the ecological paradigm of
total interconnectedness stands in tension with the biblical imagery of
God's people, humanity and the diverse parts of creation as discrete

10. Wali Fejo, 'The Voice of the Earth: An Indigenous Reading of Genesis 9", Earth Bible
Volume 1, Chapter 10.
 HABEL: ECOJUSTICE READINGS 133

entities, physically, biologically and spiritually unconnected. And

YHWH seems to transcend them all - the disconnected Creator.

THE PRINCIPLES OF VOICE AND RESISTANCE

The principle of voice assumes first that Earth is a subject intended to
be heard rather than an object destined to be analysed. In reality, Earth
is multiple subjects with multiple voices to be heard. This principle also
holds that Earth as a subject may be viewed as a living organism rather
than a voiceless machine governed by rigid "laws of nature". Whether
one endorses the Gaia hypothesis of scholars like Lovelock, or the
position that Earth is a total community of subjects "like a forest whose
'spirit' is the sum total of its living beings", 11 a consciousness is emerg-
ing that Earth is a living whole, a subject and partner.
Indigenous and tribal peoples have long communicated with the
spirits in trees, animals, mountains, rivers and birds as a natural process.
From our supposedly superior rational approach to reality, we desig-
nated this apparently naive way of life as animism. Christopher Manes
asks, how did nature grow "silent in our discourse, shifting from an
animistic to a symbolic presence, from a voluble subject to a mute
object"?12
Manes argues that in our Western culture, animism as a coherent
system broke down in the medieval period with the introduction of two
"powerful institutional technologies: literacy and Christian exegesis".13
With the development of literacy, the "articulate subjectivity that was
once experienced in nature shifted to the written word". In the develop-
ment of Christian exegesis, it was concluded that hidden behind the
litera (the literal or mundane), there lay moral truth and a divine
purpose. "Exegesis established God as a transcendental subject speak-
ing through natural entities which, like words on a page, had a symbolic
meaning but no autonomous voice."14
When we apply the principle of voice, we may suspect that the
history of interpretation since the medieval period has tended to silence
the voice of Earth and the non-human Earth community. While there
may have been exceptions, like Francis of Assisi, the Christian tradition
of the West has generally read the text to hear the voice of God not the
voice of Earth, God speaking through the whirlwind, not the whirlwind
itself.

11. Cited in Dieter Hessel, After Nature's Revolt: Eco-Justice and Theology (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1992) 15.
12. Christopher Manes, "Nature and Silence", in Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm
(eds.), Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology (Athens, GA: University of Georgia
Press, 1996) 15-29; see p. 15.
13. Manes, "Nature and Silence", 18.
14. Manes, "Nature and Silence", 19-20.
 134 PACIFICA 13 GUNE 2000)
When we read more closely, however, we discover that there are
numerous passages where Earth and the Earth community speak with
non-human voices in lament or praise. I am not referring to the odd
dialogue between Balaam and his recalcitrant donkey, but to the way
that many Psalms embrace all parts of creation in their celebration of
their Creator. "O sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord all the
Earth" (Ps 96:1) encompasses, as the rest of the Psalm reveals, the
natural phenomena of Earth. To reduce this language to the poetic
exuberance of the Psalmist, is to silence the voice of Earth once again.
The significance of Psalm 96 is not confined to its festive portrayal of
Earth celebrating. This Psalm is actually a revision - or if you wish a
redeeming - of Psalm 29, in which the voice of Earth was silenced by the
roar of YHWH's storm theophany. The silenced voice of Earth is now
heard; in Psalm 29, for example, the cedars were stripped bare, but in
Psalm 96 the trees of the forest "sing for joy". The suffocated Earth now
rejoices. If we recognise that a text like Psalm 29, for whatever reason,
has silenced the voice of the non-human Earth community, we may
suspect that other texts also suppress the voice of Earth. The task is to
find ways, wherever possible, to enable these voices to be heard.
Some biblical writers hear a suffering Earth crying out in resistance
against Earth violations by humans. Already in Genesis 4, the ground
opens its mouth in sympathy to receive the blood of Abel which then
cries out for justice (4:10-11). The suffering of creation is quite explicit in
the oracles of Jeremiah. The violation and defilement of the land by
God's people is felt deeply by Jeremiah, by God and by the land itself.
Jeremiah hears the land crying out to God under the burden of the curse
that Israel's corruption has provoked. Elsewhere I wrote,
Jeremiah speaks of the land mourning under the curse YHWH has
pronounced because the people have defiled the land with the
worship of false gods (23:9-12). The ultimate suffering of the land is
reflected in the famous vision of Jeremiah as he watches the earth
being transformed into a wasteland, the very tohu wabohu that
preceded creation (4:23-26). In response to this vision, Jeremiah
foresees a day of such desolation for God's land that the land and
the sky will perform rites of mourning (4:27-28).15
In the struggle for justice, particular groups do not necessarily view
themselves as hapless victims, but as oppressed human beings who find
ways to survive and resist their oppressors. Biologists and ecologists
have made us aware that the ecosystems of Earth are not necessarily
fragile. They have a remarkable capacity to survive and adapt to
changing physical circumstances. In reading the biblical Earth story we
need to listen for more than the cries of Earth suffering under human
15. N. Habel, 'The Crucified Land: Towards our Reconciliation with the Earth",
Colloquium 28 (19%) 3-18; see p. 5.
 H A B E L : ECOJUSTICE R E A D I N G S 135

domination. We need to discern whether Earth is also a subject that

resists wrongs and strives for a new future. The "groaning" of creation
in Romans 8 points in this direction as does the way the land "vomits"
out inhabitants who defile the land (Lev 18:24-30).
The suffering of creation today is far more extensive and serious than
in Jeremiah's day. The cries of the fallen forest, the dying deserts and
the acid air now envelope the earth. It is an axiom of social justice that
the true nature, depth and force of any injustice can only be understood
by those experiencing that injustice. Their voice must be heard first,
taken with the utmost seriousness and made an integral part of the
process of justice. So too with ecojustice. The challenge for theology is
to find ways of hearing the muffled cries of Earth resisting human
oppression, whether in the biblical tradition or the world around us.

THE PRINCIPLE OF PURPOSE

Integral to the ecological paradigm is a claim, based on a growing

body of ecosystem evidence, that Earth functions according to an in-
built design. Admittedly this evidence of mysterious ecological
balancing acts between interdependent life forces is still being explored
by fascinated philosophers, once sceptical scientists and intuitive poets
who have long sensed this mystery. Ecology as a discipline is still in its
infancy. As a means of restoring our planet to health, ecology remains
largely in the dark. As David Suzuki and Amanda O'Connell say in
their recent book The Sacred Balance,
Each discovery reveals the magnitude of our ignorance; far from
filling in the picture, these discoveries show us just how much still
remains to be learned. The total knowledge base currently accum-
ulated by scientists is still so limited that it can rarely be prescrip-
tive; it is almost impossible to generate scientifically based policies
or solutions for managing our surroundings we know so little. It is
as if we are standing in a cave holding a candle; the light barely
penetrates the darkness and we have no idea where the cave walls
are let alone how many more caves there are beyond.16
We can accept that Earth possesses an almost limitless set of inter-
locking systems, or closing circles, as Charles Birch calls them, that form
an internal design that still remains a mystery.17 We also have to accept
that as human beings we have broken many of these circles and
tampered with the intrinsic design of things. But we must now accept
that science does not know enough about the eco-systems to restore
them, if that were even possible in some cases.
16. David Suzuki and Amanda McConnell, The Sacred Balance: Rediscovering Our Place in
Nature (Vancouver: Allen and Unwin, 1997) 19-20.
17. Charles Birch, Confronting the Future - Australia and the World: The Next Hundred
Years (Ringwood, Vic: Penguin, 1993) 18.
 136 PACIFICA 13 0UNE 2000)

Here lies the challenge for theologians and biblical interpreters.

Scientists still have a question about the riddle of Earth's nature. Do we
have a deeper understanding of the purpose of this planet that can
inform this question? According to the ecological paradigm it may be
sufficient to recognise that Earth is a magnificent green planet with an
inner impulse to sustain the life in its diverse interlocking circles.18 The
living planet has intrinsic worth and integrity as a community of
partners. Is that sufficient reason for existence? Or does theology need
to go further?
The early theology I learned reduced Earth to either secondary
phenomena listed under the doctrine of creation, or to a transition place,
a kind of refugee camp for those on their way to heaven. Heaven was
our real home and Earth was an alien country for pilgrims. For this
attitude, the Book of Hebrews has much to answer. Earth, therefore
became disposable matter, cosmic waste. Earth would come to an end
and it did not matter. Earth was viewed as the scene of spectacular
apocalyptic fireworks to be viewed en route to a higher domain.
Ecotheology may have come a long way since the simplistic model I
have just outlined. But little has changed for many of the worshipping
community who use liturgies and sing songs that devalue Earth. The
challenge for theology is the frightening fact that much of biblical apo-
calyptic and salvation theology still seems to support an individualistic
yearning to be with God in a far better place than Earth.
What ultimately is the purpose of Earth? To house humans for a
while? To demonstrate God's creative prowess?
I can point you to numerous texts that have been read to say that
Earth is here for the benefit of humans, a gift of God in anticipation of a
greater gift in heaven. But is there another biblical tradition, however
hidden or suppressed, that tells the story of Earth as an entity in its own
right, a subject with its own design and purpose? What is the biblical
Earth story? We have, in reading the Scriptures to date, generally
focused on two grand narratives: the story of God and the story of God's
people. We have largely ignored the third grand narrative, the story of
Earth. We have long explored Heilsgeschichte but rarely considered
Erdegeschichte. (Incidentally, the term for Earth/land [erets] occurs more
often than any other term in the Bible except for the word God).
Thomas Berry has introduced us to the concept of the new story, the
story of an evolutionary universe, a cosmos in the process of becoming,
a cosmogenesis of which Earth is an integral part.19 Before we explore the
potential of this new Earth story, it seems to me we first need to uncover

18. Charles Birch, On Purpose (Kensington, NSW: University of New South Wales Press,
1990) 18-19.
19. Thomas Berry and Thomas Clarke, Befriending the Earth: A Theology of Reconciliation
Between Humans and the Earth (Mystic, CT: Twenty Third Publications, 1991) 73-77.
 HABEL: ECOJUSTICE READINGS 137

and understand the dimensions of the primary biblical Earth story, the
third grand narrative of the Scriptures.
The profile and plot of the biblical Earth story are still being un-
covered. The studies in the Earth Bible project are making a significant
contribution to this process. Let me illustrate insights that have come
from an ecojustice reading of two key texts: Genesis 1 and Job 38-39.
In the past, we have generally read Genesis 1 as a sequence of mighty
creative acts of God. Our orientation was theocentric. If, however, we
read the text from the perspective of Earth, the other central subject in
the narrative, we get a rather different narrative. Within the scope of
this paper I shall focus on what we have traditionally called Day Three,
though from the perspective of Earth that is an obvious misnomer.
God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place,
and let the dry land appear." And it was so. And God called the dry
land Earth. (Gen 1:9)
The implication of these words may elude us because of our past
images of this event. Let the dry land appear! Let Earth appear! Let the
waters step aside - let the curtains be drawn - so that Earth can make its
appearance, centre stage. The word here translated "appear" is the
Niphal of ra'ah, the expression used for the appearance or epiphany of
God and angels. This is Earth's epiphany, Earth's coming out from the
darkness of eternity, Earth's revelation. This is a geophany in which
Earth is liberated from obscurity and finally appears. And that is how
the Earth story begins.20 You will have to wait for another day to hear
the rest of the story. In the meantime theology has the task of coming to
terms with the Earth story as a narrative in its own right.
A second text that deserves a second look is Job 38-39. This
magnificent poem is not a song of praise to the Creator, but a challenge
to explore the design of creation, the mysteries of meteorology, the
inscrutable laws of nature, intricacies of the biological life cycle, and the
capacity of species to survive. Job 38-39 is not so much an ancient
cosmology, as an ancient ecology. Everything on Earth has its way, its
impulse and its order. Everything has its own wisdom, like the soaring
hawk, and its own impetus, like the spiralling eagle. The mystery of
how everything functions on Earth leaves us all with the question God
poses to Job: "Have you comprehended the expanse of Earth?" (38:18).
And God, after exploring the structures, systems and balances of every-
thing on Earth, summed up the mystery in one word: wisdom (see Job
28).
The portrayal of this ancient ecology has omitted one component,
apparently quite deliberately. The missing piece of the puzzle is
humanity. This superb portrait of the ecosystems of Earth stands alone.

20. Norman Habel in Norman Habel and Shirley Wurst (eds.), The Earth Bible Volume II
(Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000) Chapter 2.
 138 P A C I F I C A 13 0UNE 2000)

Earth is not merely an abode for humans, given for the benefit of the
human species. Earth, in and of itself, is a wondrous mystery, whose
design is wisdom and whose purpose is life.

PRINCIPLE OF MUTUAL CUSTODIANSHIP

How will justice be done for Earth? What kind of relationship be-
tween Earth and humans is likely to effect healing and reconciliation?
How would the Earth itself pose this question? Perhaps the first
message from the Earth runs something like this:
Arrogant humans. You think that for so long you have been taking
care of Earth, when all along Earth has been taking care of you,
providing your food, your oxygen, your homes, your water supply,
your chromosomes. Earth has been your custodian, looking after
your needs - whether you were conscious of the fact or not. Earth,
like a good mother, has been cleaning up your environmental
messes. Oh, you may have celebrated harvest thanksgiving and
praised God for the produce of Earth. But Earth remained the silent
provider, the quiet custodian, the unseen guest. Now it is time for
you to become a custodian.
Our team have chosen the word "custodian" in connection with this
principle because of the connotations it has among Indigenous
Australians. A custodian has a sacred responsibility to maintain the
rites of a site or a species with which members of the custodian's
community have kinship. 21 A custodian sustains life forces and
maintains kinship. Earth has long done that for humans; now humans
need to see their role in similar terms.
To date, however, stewardship has been the model most frequently
proposed by Christian theologians and ethicists. As Ruth Page so aptly
puts it:
The major Christian response to the ecological crisis has been to
dust down the notion of stewardship under God and make it play
what is undoubtedly an important role. It is far better to be a
steward than an exploiter, an indifferent onlooker, or merely a
consumer. Yet on its own that is not enough.22
I heartily agree. I have elsewhere exposed the inadequacies of the
stewardship model, which ultimately implies management of the
household on behalf of a landlord. 23 The stewardship model is another
version of the dominion model with the welcome addition of respon-

21. Rainbow Spirit Elders, Rainbow Spirit Theology (Melbourne: HarperCollins, 1997) 29-
42.
22. Page, God and the Web of Creation, xiii.
23. N. Habel, "Stewardship, Partnership and Kinship I", in Viggo Mortensen (ed.), A
Just Asia: LWF Studies (Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1998) 45-75, esp. 45-54.
 HABEL: ECOJUSTICE READINGS 139

sible control. As Elizabeth Johnson quite rightly points out, "In this
model, humanity is still at the top of the pyramid of being...and [the
model] misses the crucial aspect of human dependence on that which
westeward." 24
Just as problematic as "dusting down" the stewardship model, is
"whitewashing" the dominion model derived from Genesis 1:26-28. We
are all familiar with the famous mandate of this text (Gen 1:28): "Be
fruitful and multiply, and fill the Earth and subdue it; and have
dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over
every living thing that moves upon the Earth."
Most interpreters refuse to acknowledge that this passage is not only
aggressively anthropocentric, but devalues the Earth quite unjustly.
From the perspective of justice for Earth - whose pristine life-giving
presence has just been revealed on Day Three - there is no justification
whatsoever for giving humans license to "subdue". Earth has done
nothing rebellious. The verb "subdue" (kabash) is always harsh and
forceful. It is far from being a blessing, as Brennen Hill suggests. 25
"Subduing" refers to subjugating slaves (Jer 34:11,16) or treading
something under foot (Mic 7:19). Joshua "subdues" the land when he
conquers Canaan (Jos 18:1; see 2 Sam 8:11). From the posture of Earth,
"subduing" is an injustice that humans have appropriated as if it were a
divinely approved form of subjugation. If slavery is wrong, so is slavery
of Earth.
The argument for redeeming the dominion model in Genesis 1:28
runs something like this. The terms for "rule" and "image" reflect royal
language. As "rulers" on Earth humans represent God and should
reflect God's just rule. The ideals of God's just rule through a chosen
king are given in Psalm 72. These ideals include judging the poor with
justice. This is interpreted as "taking care of" the needs of the poor.
"Ruling" the Earth, therefore, really means "taking care of" Earth.
I agree the language is royal and depicts humans as "rulers" who
have dominion over the Earth community. But the term for "rule" (rada)
implies force and power, not justice and mercy. This is royal rule, not a
covenant of care. And the frequent appeal to Psalm 72, far from sup-
porting the argument, does just the opposite. For the ideal king in that
Psalm plays several roles. In verses 1-4 he is to exercise justice by
defending the needy. In verses 5-7 he is to mediate prosperity. But in
verses 8-11, where he is said to "rule" from sea to sea, the role is one of
conquest, overpowering foes and forcing enemies to kiss his feet.
Hardly a portrait of loving care.
It is time to recognise that the text of Gen 1:26-28 stands as a
testimony to a hierarchical dominion model that must be exposed for
24. Johnson, Women, Earth and Creator Spirit, 30.
25. Brennan Hill, Christian Faith and the Environment: Marking Vital Connections
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1998) 41.
 140 P A Q F I C A 13 0UNE 2000)

what it is. There are, of course, other texts which speak of a different
relationship between humans and Earth. This text, however, reflects a
pyramid of power, with God on top, then humans representing God on
the second rung, next living creatures on Earth and finally Earth itself.
And Psalm 8 goes even further. Humans are a little less than God,
crowned with glory, while the works of creation are located "under the
feet" of humans. Here the subjugation of Earth is total.
We can follow the lead of Ruth Page and consider departing from the
ancient text in order to address the present.26 It is my contention that we
must read the text from the position of the oppressed Earth and expose
the ancient tradition in terms of its bias against Earth. We must hear the
voice of Earth in the wider Earth story and confront this dominion
model as part of a hierarchical worldview that can no longer be
supported.
We need to develop a model that captures the Christian mind, moves
Christian faith and guides Christian ethics toward revering Earth as kin
with us and with God. The model of mutual custodianship offers one
option that is consistent with the ecological paradigm. The model of
companionship, following the lead of St Francis of Assisi, offers another
option.27 Boff calls for new society with an ecocentric consciousness.28
As the Earth story unfolds, examples of these and other models may
also emerge. An obvious text is Genesis 2, where humans who have a
kinship with the soil of the garden, are expected to "till" the soil and
"preserve" it (2:25). The verb for "till", as is well known, is also the
verb for "serve". Humans are to serve the soil. It is quite striking that
the verbs "rule"and "subdue" in Genesis 1:28 are the very opposites of
the verbs "serve/till" and "preserve/keep" in Genesis 2:15. The two
texts seem to present diametrically opposed views of the relationship of
humans to Earth and reflect a dual tradition of devaluing and valuing
Earth in the Scriptures.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, let me draw together the various challenges to contem-

porary theology which arise from the insights we have gained through
an ecojustice reading of key biblical texts:
1. Within the ecological paradigm, Earth is an integrated, inter-
dependent, balanced complex of eco-systems governed by an in-built
impulse for life and survival. A God outside this complex domain, who
interrupts these systems with floods, plagues or other forms of inter-
vention, acts contrary to the very nature of the paradigm itself. The

26. Page, God and the Web of Creation, 124.

27. See Denis Edwards, "The Integrity of Creation: Catholic Social Teaching for an
Ecological Age", Pacifica 5 (1992) 182-203.
28. Leonardo Boff, Ecology and Liberation: A New Paradigm (Maryknoll, NY: Ortris, 1995).
 HABEL: ECOJUSTICE READINGS 141

biblical YHWH is typically portrayed as such a God who acts by

intervention to punish or rescue.
2. Alongside the grand narratives of God and the people of God, the
biblical tradition preserves a third grand narrative, the story of Earth
and the Earth community. Much of this story has been suppressed and
the voices of Earth have not been heard. The biblical plot involves an
ecological Trinity: God, humanity and Earth. Most contemporary theo-
logy has yet to embrace Earth and the Earth story as crucial subjects for
life, liturgy and mission.
3. Ecojustice calls for Earth to be valued as a subject. The biblical
tradition reflects two conflicting portraits of how Earth is treated, one
negative and the other positive. According to the negative tradition
God is depicted as devaluing the Earth by cursing without provocation
or manipulating Earth forces for reasons unrelated to Earth's actions.
Humans are portrayed as subduing Earth and members of the Earth
community without any concern for Earth itself. The positive tradition,
which has been largely hidden or ignored, presents Earth as a living
domain of majesty, presence and mysterious design that both humans
and God celebrate.
4. Ecojustice calls for a radical change of heart in the way humans
relate to Earth. Past models of dominion and stewardship retain
humans high on a hierarchical ladder of power. The classic texts justify-
ing these models - Gen 1:26-28 and Psalm 8 - need to be acknowledged
as part of an anti-Earth orientation common in the Old Testament. In
their place, theology needs to develop a concept of kinship with Earth
and foster a model of mutual custodianship.
If theology meets this challenge, then hopefully, our image of Earth
will not be that of a virus in the morgue of space, but of a soul in the
body of space.