I. Discouragement
These are several discouragements we commonly face towards the ecological mandate:
1. Eschatological Discontinuity
Lutheran eschatology emphasizes on eschatological discontinuity, unlike Reformed eschatology, though we see both aspects in the Scripture. But we would like to emphasize on our responsibility towards the ecology, because what we sow here on earth—which we believe also as the kingdom of God—will God cultivate and He will reckon our participation if we do all things according to His Word.
2. Platonic Soteriology
The Platonic Soteriology states that we should not care of anything material. The opposite, Theo-Platonic states otherwise, that what matter are the things invisible, spiritual, and not even the physical self. We believe both thoughts are heretical, for we claim to believe in the resurrection of the body in the Apostle's Creed.
3. Individual Redemption (instead of cosmic)
We believe that God’s redemption works towards mankind. However, the idea of an individual redemption is against the notion that the whole creation is being “redeemed” as well. The Scripture says that “[…] the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now” (Romans 8:22), yearning for His redemption. We read in Paul’s epistle that he talked of the cosmic redemption, and not mere individual redemption. The human soul, body, as well as the whole creation must be redeemed. This is why we might be familiar with the terms redeemed music, redeemed art, and so on.
4. False Reception of Humankind as the Crown of Creation
Lynn Townsend White Jr. proposed a thesis that one of the ideologies that causes ecological crisis is the Christian belief, because Christianity teaches that we are the crown of creation, hence having the power to destroy nature.
But we know that this is a wrong interpretation of the Christian theology. We must be careful not to twist Christianity to destroy ecology.
5. Modern Cartesian Objectification of Nature
According to René Descartes, we are subjects that think and the things outside the subjects that think are called objects. Men have consciousness to think of the things we thought of. Descartes are not even talking about mere nature, he also meant our physical bodies being objects.
This subject and object relationship is problematic in Christianity. In the Christian theology, we always view everything in relation to each other: the relationship between the mind and the body, the relationship between men and the relationship between men and lower creations.
Descartes objectification seemed as if he was creating a distance that leads us to assess matters objectively. This idea can affect how we treat nature. If you consider your body as mere object, you would us your body the same “way” with the way you use your pen. This is a highly utilitarian thought.
6. Enlightenment: Mechanical View of the World
Descartes lived in the Baroque era, when rationalism and mechanical view of things raised to popularism. The opposite of mechanical view is organic view. For example, in the movie ‘Avatar’, there are men in trees, and trees in men. This idea opposes the mechanical view, but it is also an un-Biblical thought.
II. Encouragement
1. Nature as General Revelation of God
1. Nature as General Revelation of God
We believe in general revelation and special revelation. What crosses our minds when we discuss of the general revelation is God’ s provision of nature. Then why do we feel terrible tearing off the pages of the Bible, which we believe to be a special revelation, and not feel bad tearing off trees for no good reason?
2. Presence of God (context-sensitive!)
God is present everywhere, even in the most distorted places and false churches. Berkoff stated that because God is omnipresent, He is present in men as well as animals, though His presence are different in men than animals. Alike, God is present in both rightful churches and false churches.
Therefore, we must protect and preserve wherever God may be present! We cannot pay attention to places where we believe God to be most certainly present, like the church, and not care of the wild forest where God seems to be less present.
However, we should not fall into the opposite extreme of pantheism, a popular New Age thought. Pantheism claims that if we break nature, we then break God, because God exists in nature. We cannot debate against pantheism with a qualitative difference argument. You cannot explain the qualitative difference of a Creator and His creation to a pantheist and expect them to withdraw their heretical argument. Because wouldn’t you be implying that there is an uncrossable border between the Creator and His creation, that He could never be with the creation at all.
Christians rarely emphasize on sacredness. We tend to consider all days of the week are equal, all hours are equal, all parts of the Sanctuary are equal. Sadly, Christians are more prone to secularism than sacralization. Take the sanctuary at church as an instance. We often see children running around the pulpit and congregants taking pictures in the pulpit, as if we lack the sense of God’s presence. Our objective is to avoid this secularism without tipping towards over-sacralization. In this way, I believe we would be capable to fulfill the ecological mandate. For if you fail to sacralize the pulpit, there is no way you could sacralize plants and animals.
God is present everywhere, even in the most distorted places and false churches. Berkoff stated that because God is omnipresent, He is present in men as well as animals, though His presence are different in men than animals. Alike, God is present in both rightful churches and false churches.
Therefore, we must protect and preserve wherever God may be present! We cannot pay attention to places where we believe God to be most certainly present, like the church, and not care of the wild forest where God seems to be less present.
However, we should not fall into the opposite extreme of pantheism, a popular New Age thought. Pantheism claims that if we break nature, we then break God, because God exists in nature. We cannot debate against pantheism with a qualitative difference argument. You cannot explain the qualitative difference of a Creator and His creation to a pantheist and expect them to withdraw their heretical argument. Because wouldn’t you be implying that there is an uncrossable border between the Creator and His creation, that He could never be with the creation at all.
Christians rarely emphasize on sacredness. We tend to consider all days of the week are equal, all hours are equal, all parts of the Sanctuary are equal. Sadly, Christians are more prone to secularism than sacralization. Take the sanctuary at church as an instance. We often see children running around the pulpit and congregants taking pictures in the pulpit, as if we lack the sense of God’s presence. Our objective is to avoid this secularism without tipping towards over-sacralization. In this way, I believe we would be capable to fulfill the ecological mandate. For if you fail to sacralize the pulpit, there is no way you could sacralize plants and animals.
3. Creational Mandate: to Work and to Keep
Genesis 2 states that men must cultivate and keep the land. We cannot keep without cultivating, and vice versa. Ultra-environmentalists emphasize on keeping, that we should not touch nature at all. This is a form of idolatry towards nature. We must for sure cultivate, which entails the process of cutting down trees as well.
4. Shepherding Relation to Nature (against Lynn White Jr.)
Brueggeman proposed that the relationship between men and nature should mirror that of a shepherd who loves his sheep according to the language of the book of Genesis. Men, being the crown of creation must be a shepherd over nature. So, nature abuse would not make any sense in this relationship.
Brueggeman proposed that the relationship between men and nature should mirror that of a shepherd who loves his sheep according to the language of the book of Genesis. Men, being the crown of creation must be a shepherd over nature. So, nature abuse would not make any sense in this relationship.
5. Perichoretic Relation to Nature? (in question mark; still debatable)
This idea is debatable in the Christian theology. The relationships mentioned in the Bible are often perichoretic, which means to be hospitable, to give oneself for others instead of utilizing each other. The Father is in the Son as the Son is in the Father (Trinitarian). So must we be in Christ as Christ is in us. Nobody is utilizing somebody else opportunistically for their respective advantage. Anthropologically speaking, we could apply this concept to our relationship with each other. I can go into your life and not be opportunistically utilitarian.
Alike, our relationship with nature or lower creation can also be perichoretic. In a way, I too am a part of this universe. Now, this is the idea that could perhaps compete with pantheism and New Age. In the debate of qualitative difference, we could not answer those who cry for the need to be closely related to nature. Yet, we could still be closely related to nature in the perichoretic relation. But again, this idea is still debatable, and I’ll leave it as a question mark.
This idea is debatable in the Christian theology. The relationships mentioned in the Bible are often perichoretic, which means to be hospitable, to give oneself for others instead of utilizing each other. The Father is in the Son as the Son is in the Father (Trinitarian). So must we be in Christ as Christ is in us. Nobody is utilizing somebody else opportunistically for their respective advantage. Anthropologically speaking, we could apply this concept to our relationship with each other. I can go into your life and not be opportunistically utilitarian.
Alike, our relationship with nature or lower creation can also be perichoretic. In a way, I too am a part of this universe. Now, this is the idea that could perhaps compete with pantheism and New Age. In the debate of qualitative difference, we could not answer those who cry for the need to be closely related to nature. Yet, we could still be closely related to nature in the perichoretic relation. But again, this idea is still debatable, and I’ll leave it as a question mark.
6. Romantic Aspect of Nature
There is a romantic aspect of nature that people of the enlightenment often miss. We tend to objectify nature too much.
“Nature is not simply to be investigated and understood as the ’other’ by detached observers; it is to be encountered and it is to evoke wonder at its sheer beauty by a humanity that is aware that it is an active participant of the whole great scheme of things rather than a detached and uninvolved observer” (McGrath on “The Dream of Romanticism” in the Re-enchantment of Nature, 133); yet “the nature whose beauty is admired by the Romantics can be argued to be a nature that has been tamed and transformed… by human agency and activity” (McGrath, 134).
Notice how McGrath warned us not to investigate nature (recall the subject and object relationship proposed by Descartes), but to encounter it ourselves. However, in the last sentence in the above block citation, we see that Romanticism may also fall into ultra-environmentalism. So, McGrath also reminded us that nature that has been touched by the human hands could also be beautiful (like the beautiful man-made Padi field terraces).
###
Session 2 - Pak Sonny Sutanto
1. Gaia Theory
1. Gaia Theory
Gaia Theory is not a
very biblical theory that emerged from the Greek philosophy. The theory
suggests that everything is connected within a circle, that all that grow will
wither and all that wither will grow. The problem is in the uneven rates of
growth and mortality. The world seems to wither in a greater rate than it
grows. To aid, we need supplement, such as the 3R’s (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle).
- Presupposition
- All things in the universe are interconnected with each other
- The theory of chaos (emerged in the 80s), which leads to the famous butterfly effect theory. There is not a single thing that happens without being connected to other events. - The Ecological Theory
- The whole component of the universe exists in oneness, interacting and hooking up with each other.
2. Our Earth
Our Earth consists of:
- Atmosphere
Gas that covers the planets (one of them being our Earth).
Important to take into consideration: the ozone. - Biosphere
The outer layer of planet Earth that sustains life. Consisting of air, land, water and other life-sustaining components (our Earth being the only planet with a biosphere). - Cryosphere
The surface of the earth in a form of solid water (ice)
Currently melting rapidly into water that might flood other far places. - Hydrosphere
Blanket of water that covers the Earth. - Lithosphere
Outer most skin of the Earth. Consisting of upper lithosphere / Earth’s mantle (35% rocks) and lower lithosphere (65% water).
It is important to study the movement of rocks, especially as an architect who build houses. Indonesia is located in the ring of fire, which increases the possibility of earth movements. Once a volcano erupts, earthquakes will follow as a domino effect. Some consider it as a natural phenomena that men are not responsible for. In fact, excessive mineral digging could be a culprit as well.
3. Development Goals
MDGs 2000-2015 (Millenium Development Goals / Tujuan Pembangunan
Milenium)
However, the MDGs do not
emphasize on nature. Then, a new development goal is introduced, called SDG
(Sustainable Development Goals). Unlike MDGs, SDG is an environment-based
development goal
4. Jakarta
Jakarta’s KDH (Koefisien Daerah Hijau) is an important parameter in the city’s landscape. It shows the amount of green needs to be planted throughout the city. Jakarta’s KDH is at 13% only, and our governor aspires to raise the number to 30%, which would be very difficult.
I have calculated the area of Boulevard Raya in Kelapa Gading. If we are to plant greens on top of the LRT concrete and the streets of Boulevard, we would get 5 hectares of greens.
Jakarta’s KDH (Koefisien Daerah Hijau) is an important parameter in the city’s landscape. It shows the amount of green needs to be planted throughout the city. Jakarta’s KDH is at 13% only, and our governor aspires to raise the number to 30%, which would be very difficult.
I have calculated the area of Boulevard Raya in Kelapa Gading. If we are to plant greens on top of the LRT concrete and the streets of Boulevard, we would get 5 hectares of greens.
Cities around the world
are minimizing the building of road. In Seoul, tolls are closed down to be
transformed into gardens. Jakarta has done this too, but in the wrong timing. A
road with three lanes were narrowed into one, so they could plant gardens. As a
result, the traffic jam accumulates, releasing more CO into the air.
SDGs vs. Ecological Suicide = Greed
Global Environmental Monitoring:
- Ecological footprint
- Carbon footprint
- Water footprint
Jakarta's Cases:
- Receding land surface
- Clean water supply
- Sea water intrusion
- Temperature increase
- Pollution
5. Case Study
Here are some projects I am currently working on alongside the
governor.
There are 5 water sites in Sunter which we plan on revitalizing. One of them is moving the pedestrian walk along the Sunter Lake so that is closer to the water than it is to the asphalt. In between the pedestrian walk and the asphalt, we will plant trees that hinder the asphalt heat from reaching the pedestrians.
There are 5 water sites in Sunter which we plan on revitalizing. One of them is moving the pedestrian walk along the Sunter Lake so that is closer to the water than it is to the asphalt. In between the pedestrian walk and the asphalt, we will plant trees that hinder the asphalt heat from reaching the pedestrians.
###
Alice
This note has not been checked by the speakers
No comments:
Post a Comment