Inspirations, Visions, Thoughts and Meditations

The causes of our modern world’s problems such as hunger, slums, high infant mortality, illiteracy, high unemployment, and low wages were considered as the result of structural forms of exploitation and oppression. Prescriptions for the resolution of these problems are relatively simple even though the practice is not easy. The developments of the production system and technology through globalization does not help the resolution of the problems, but rather becomes more serious by widening the gap between rich and poor, and creates more serious ecological problem which is urgent for sustaining global household.

Without pointing out the substantial cause of the problems, we cannot expect any effective resolution. The first step for the resolution is to have clearer understanding of the present context as it is, then digging out the problems until we find the cause of it, through the proper social analysis. At the heart of the problem, we will find the ultimate cause which is the fallenness of humanity rather than systemic or natural cause. We need the help of social science to see the context clearly, and then need sound theology for interpretation of the analysis, reading “the signs of time.” The sound theology for interpretation requires the hermeneutic keys as “the option for the poor” and “solidarity with the poor.” If we are going to say the task of theology as “improvement of situation,” the prescription must also be based on these hermeneutic keys.

We are able to vision the “rebirth of hope” in and through the whole process of analysis and interpretation of it. In this reflection, I wish to see the clearer context of the present world with ecological crisis as a result of globalization, through the analyses of David Korten, Ian Robinson and Jeremy Brecher, and with Jim Willis’ reflection. I am going to have a brief reflection on theological problem which misguided the human relationship with nature to seek the biblical foundation that speaks for the resolution of ecological crisis.

As Korten points out, the current efforts of policy makers to deal with sustainability through the examination of existing policies and institutions are inadequate and inappropriate since the fundamental change in the relationship between economic activity and the ecological evolution made the conventional economics and many of the policies obsolete. Proper analysis is a crucial factor in interpreting the signs of times, through which we are able to create an adequate prescription for the resolution of the global socio-economic and environmental crisis.

It is appropriate to say, as UNCED defined, that the global crisis as the ecological crisis and the gap between rich and poor. The ecological problem is an urgent but not a self created problem which is caused by autonomous process of natural development, but rather a problem which is created by human degradation and devastation. I agree with Korten’s analysis that the ecological crisis and the development crisis are closely linked each other, and these can be solved only through a revolutionary change in our understanding of the relationship between human economic activity and the ecosystem and our perception of the nature of human progress.

Sustained economic growth is both possible and is a crucial factor in human progress for the resolution: through integration of the global economy, we can have growth which is beneficial to all; and by international assistance and foreign investment we can help alleviate poverty and protect the environment. Ian Robinson states that the protection of worker rights and labour standards is essential to create sustainable forms of economic growth and suggest to create an enforceable international social dimension. His critique on Bhgwati’s claim which says that “international worker rights and labour standards on LDCs will prolong the time to improve the material standards of the poor” is quite appropriate since we are confronting global underconsumption crisis and evaporating of global middle class as we learn from Jeremy Brecher’s analysis. Brecher is correct by pointing out that the true nature of NAFTA is not primarily about trade, but rather about the capital mobility which caused the evacuation of job from north and move down to south. This brought migration of low-wage and environmentally destructive industries to poor countries with low protection standard for controlling the pollution. We therefore need to seek the way to reshape the global economy, which is in disaster, by focusing on the problems which are caused by international economic systems such as NAFTA and GATT.

Korten points out, from William Chandler’s report, that international assistance, technology and free market forces can largely resolve the environmental problems by increasing the efficiency of resource use; the United State is perhaps one of the worst offenders when it comes to pollution. It is not only the United States, I would argue, who are responsible for the ecological crisis, but all the leading developed countries in the world even though their environmental standard is much higher than the one in the third world low waged countries where the majority of the industrial pollution is created, since those high-tech-industrialized countries already move away the polluting industries to the third world underdeveloped countries.

In his discussion on the structural fund, Robinson suggests a surtax which is practically paid by the principal beneficiaries of trade liberalization without any trade-distorting impact, and supports Bacus’ and Gephardt’s proposition to impose goods and service tax, which is practically a tariff at the US-Mexico border, to promote environmental clean-up. It would help the resolution of environmental problem, however, it appears to be a superficial and temporal strategy. The other fundamental problem of this proposition is the question of “who caused the problem, who is paying for the clean-up and who is getting the benefit from the whole process.”

The high levels of economic out put are not neither necessary nor sufficient to resolve the human poverty and ecological crisis, and rising national income is no guarantee of human well-being by seeing that the illiteracy rate in Saudi Arabia and child’s mortality rate in Brazil. UNCED’s conclusion on its report reveals the reality of the vicious cycle of development. The report’s key recommendations lead the development only for the benefit of the rich by calling the world’s economic growth to rise to a level five to ten times the current output to stimulate demand for the products of poor countries, and it fundamentally contradicts its own analysis which says that growth and over consumption are root causes of the problem. Where ecological reality conflicted with perceived political feasibility, the latter prevailed, thus the solution suggests only the benefit of the rich. Growth centred development is itself inherently unsustainable.

For the resolution of global problems, there might be two choices, either centralizing political power in a global government or decentralizing the economy so as to be more accountable to local and national concerns. However both strategies are undesirable or complex and difficult to achieve, and furthermore, its future direction of development is unpredictable. It is true that we have little time to reverse the present development before the damage becomes irreparable, and we are well aware of the reality of globalization in which the process never goes backwards. However rewriting the global strategy and reconstruction of the global system through revisioning of the reality is still necessary and urgent. The first step which is necessary prior to the prescription for any resolution is that we must build the powerful social forces for transformation of the whole society into a global village where koinonia is to be realized. To fulfill the transformation of the whole world in crisis, we need to re-examine the traditional theology’s teaching of the human being’s relationship with other human beings and with nature.

The cause of environmental problems is not merely the product of globalization. Behind this process, as modern critics of the Jewish-Christian tradition point out, the traditional misinterpretation of the biblical charge given at creation, “be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth” (Gen. 1:28), lays the intellectual foundations for toady’s ecological crisis, hence Moltmann argues, a charge “to rule” found in Gen. 1:26 must be based on humankind’s being created by

God’s image.[1] Humankind’s domination must originate from God’s image and likeness thus we are called to stop objectification of nature, and renewal of relationship into intersubjective relationship with mutual respect.

As I examined above, the world’s socio-economical and ecological crises are not separate issue, but rather the same issue which is interrelated each other. The core of this issue is objectifying others: exploitation of human beings by human beings; exploitation of nature by human beings. This exploitation is prevalent all over the world regardless their “isms” or “systems.” What then is the resolution of this crisis? The true, practical resolution of global crisis, in my view, is through koinonia: koinonia of human beings with human beings; and human beings with nature.

As Jim Willis insists, the biggest task of contemporary world is to build up the networks for support and action. It is a structure which is based on the grassroots that leads the people into koinonia. For koinonia, faith communities must strive to reconstruct the relationship from “subject-object” relationship into “inter-subjective” relationship to build the household of God’s whole creation. It is how the church answers to the signs of times and to its further renewal by rebuilding relationship of intra- and interfaith community in order to form a network by crossing ecumenical, racial and regional lines, which enables us to knit ourselves together for mutual collaboration through respecting other believers and non-believers. In this process we are able to envision the rebirth of hope.

Globalization causes us not only the gap between rich and poor, but also the environmental problems. The widening gap between rich and poor could have been the problem of the poor only, however, the ecological crisis becomes the problem of both rich and poor. Now is the time both rich and poor should work together for the rebirth of hope. However the place of the rebirth of hope must be the reality of the poor and the marginalized and can be realized through the partnership of the middle class with the poor and with the rich with their repentance. Interpretation of the signs of times is a crucial factor for the resolution. The proper interpretation is possible only through the hermeneutic key, “the option for the poor.” For koinonia, we need to have intersubjective relationship with mutual respect. This intersubjective relationship is possible by transformation of human nature through God’s grace. However, in human side where the rebirth of hope locates, prior to any prescription for the resolution by transformation of the system, building the power of social force through forming the network is a crucial and necessary step.

[1] Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation, trans. by Margaret Kohl, (London: SCM Press, 1985), p. 29.