Revisiting hermeneutics — transforming lives: The chaos and the drought in the origin: poiesis
Paulo Ueti, philosopher, Bible Scholar, member of the Ecumenical Centre for Bible Studies in Brazil, founding member of the Brazilian Association of Biblical Research — ABIB, member of SBL — Society of Biblical Literature, working for Anglican Communion Office, Anglican Alliance and USPG as Theological Advisor and liason person for Latin America and the Caribbean.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. (Romans 8:22–23)
Introduction
The theme of the Bible everywhere and in everyday life highlights the significance and influence of the Scriptures in our daily existence. The reading and interpretation of the Bible organises life in so many aspects that must not be overlooked. It needs attention. Even for those who does not share the faith in that collection of books nor the religions that hold them with care and sanctity. The Bible, as a sacred text, holds great spiritual, ethical and moral value for millions of people around the world. Its teachings, stories, and principles have been cherished for centuries and continue to guide individuals in various aspects of their lives.
One aspect of the Bible’s pervasive presence is its accessibility. With the advent of technology and the widespread availability of digital platforms, the Bible is now accessible to individuals across the globe. Mobile applications, websites, and e-books have made it possible to carry the Bible in our pockets and access it at any time. This ease of access allows people to engage with the Scriptures regularly, incorporating them into their daily routines.
In everyday life, the Bible can provide a moral compass and a source of guidance. Its teachings offer wisdom and principles that can be applied to various situations and decision-making processes. Whether it’s seeking solace during difficult times, finding inspiration for personal growth, or seeking answers to life’s big questions, the Bible offers a wealth of insights and lessons.
The Bible’s influence extends beyond personal spirituality. Its teachings have shaped societies, cultures, and legal systems throughout history. The principles of justice, compassion, and love for one’s neighbour, rooted in the Bible, have influenced the development of ethical frameworks that continue to impact our modern world. The Bible’s teachings have played a significant role in shaping art, literature, music, and even political ideologies.
Moreover, the Bible’s influence can be observed in interpersonal relationships. Families gather for devotional readings, discussing the Scriptures and deriving moral lessons to pass on to younger generations. Many communities and religious institutions organize study groups, prayer circles, and services centred around the Bible, fostering a sense of unity and shared faith.
The Bible also serves as a source of comfort and hope for individuals facing challenges and adversity. Its stories of resilience, faith, and redemption provide solace and encouragement. The Psalms, in particular, offer solace in times of sorrow and express joy and gratitude in times of celebration.
There is also a negative aspect of the widespread reaching of the Bible expressed by the raising of fundamentalistic readings and interpretation of the biblical texts, taking them out of context (literary, historical and current) and applying them to reinforce ideo-theologies of imperialism, colonialism and violence. As a raising phenomenon present in the general society and within churches and faith groups, this must not be overlooked and needs to be addressed properly.
For the purpose of this gathering, I would like to share an hermeneutical exercise to showcase possibilities of interpretation as tools for transformation and influence onto general society and scholarship.
I will take the conversation, hoping this leads to a conversion into a welcoming of possibilities of interpretation and acknowledging that interpretation is a political action, with an agenda and influenced, if not shaped, by our own contexts, not only the biblical context.
Listening to the context and walking with it
As a Latin American theologian and Bible Scholar, although with my feet in Germany, I acknowledge that the reading and interpretation of the Bible have an impact in matters of life and death, colonisation or insurgence, disturbance and most of all wholiness. I will share an experience to navigate this paper through the method of See, Judge and Act, taken from the amazing and andragogical account of the disciples of Emmaus: Cleophas and his wife Mary from Luke 25:13–35.
From one of our Glocal Network for Contextual Bible Studies Study Seminar (2015) we establish some core values that guide us in our journey. These values reflect both our academic journey and our activist practices on the way forward. “As we talked together we discerned that our various core value categories could be consolidated in the form of five “C”s’ (for pedagogical purposes): Community, Criticality, Collaboration, Change, and Context. We also agreed, among those present, that there was a sixth “C”, that is Contestation.” (West, 2015)
As environmental injustices are the ones most urgent at the moment I invite you to a journey to this conversation, using the Bible.
Creation is groaning, as if it was experiencing the delivery pains. As a male specimen of the animal realm, I have no idea of the meaning of this metaphor in my body. I can only imagine what our female sisters feel when they go through that experience. This reminder, written by Paul, the apostle, about life, is very generous and helps us recognize the connection we have with the entire creation (bond of love and responsibility) and to understand that the screams and the pain are part of a process that will create life and happiness. This understanding is called hesed, difficult to translate but in some cases it is translated as mercy, unconditional love and gift.
Then the Lord said, “I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry on account of their taskmasters. Indeed, I know their sufferings, 8 and I have come down to deliver them from the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey (Exodus 3:7–8)
Even though I am a man, I still hear the screams and groans of the people. I scream and groan too. I am sympathetic to my farmer sisters and brothers who no longer have the time to predict/study the weather in order to organise their work with the land. They are caught off guard by floods or droughts. The nature cycle is no longer the same, it has changed. The glaciers are melting, the oceans’ levels are rising, and the temperature is changing, life is at risk. There are entire islands that have already vanished, coastal cities that are threatened by the sea advancement. The winters and the summers are more extreme. The contamination of everything increases every day. The forests are harmed and threatened by the voracity of the national and international corporations that only seek capital increase. The indigenous population and the traditional communities are losing their lands, their basic rights and their identities to mining companies and agrobusiness. The economic and social inequalities are painful and threaten the human existence itself.
The increasing impact of climate change, the unpredictable political situation and political polarisation in many countries and the power held by elites and multinational companies across the globe all make structural change to reduce inequality a challenge. However, we believe there are opportunities. Inequality is on the development agenda, violence against women and gender inequality are being publicly discussed more than in recent decades, and climate change and the urgent need to find alternative low-carbon development models must remain at the forefront of the global political agenda regardless of the shift in geopolitics. (Richmond, Drinkwater, Fulcher, & McCarthy, 2017, p. 7)
The current regional and global context presents a bottom-up path to deal with the reduction of inequality. The growing effects of the climate change, the bigger polarization and the uncertainty of the political situation of many countries, the power in the hands of the elites and multinational companies of the entire world, along with a reduced space of Latin America and the Caribbean where the civil society may raise its voice are factors that make the structural change become a true challenge. (Richmond, Drinkwater, Fulcher, & McCarthy, 2017, p. 10)
Hear the word of the Lord, O people of Israel; for the Lord has an indictment against the inhabitants of the land. There is no faithfulness or loyalty, and no knowledge of God in the land. Swearing, lying, and murder, and stealing and adultery break out; bloodshed follows bloodshed. Therefore the land mourns, and all who live in it languish; together with the wild animals and the birds of the air, even the fish of the sea are perishing. Hosea 4:1–3
This crisis that has been carried out for decades calls us to rethink our lifestyle, our ways and intentions (political agenda — for the common good) of using the Bible and interpreting the sacred scriptures, of living our spiritualities and our identities as disciples of Jesus Christ in this world, our common home. We must be sure we are not misusing the Bible.
Theology as ministry/work and language
The Christian spirituality is characterized by the way we express our faith in Jesus Christ during the current daily life. It is well known that faith implies action, always having Jesus Christ as a role model.
Our Faith is praxis. Thus, we have learnt from the Tradition this way to worship God (liturgy):
“… learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.” (Isaiah 1:17) “… but let those who boast, boast in this, that they understand and know me, that I am the Lord; I act with steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight, says the Lord.” (Jeremiah 9:24)
The worship to God, who have chosen to be revealed in the struggle for justice (according to Exodus, the entire prophetic tradition and Jesus) and as the unconditional mercy (Hosea 1–3; 11), is the sacred work (sacrifice — sacro-oficio) for people’s fundamental rights and for the planet. This is the worship that pleases God. Thus, the theme of justice (tsedeq — הַצֶּ֔דֶק) is a recurring one throughout the entire biblical memory and structuring of the faith of the Christians. “Justice only succeeds when everything lies where God wants; when everything is like it is “supposed to be”. Prophets fight so that the life of the people and of the land (Jubilee) are organized again according to the Covenant’s project…” (CRB, 1994, pp. 21–22). The worship to God requires contemplation and action (the theological/missionary labour) from us:
“To God, first of all, you contemplate when you put his will, his kingdom, into practice; and only after you do that, you think about Him. In categories that are known by us, contemplating and practicing is a set which we call first act; and making theology is the second act. First of all, it is necessary to place yourself in the land of the mystical and of the practice, and only then you can make an authentic and respectful speech/discourse about God. To make theology without the mediation of the contemplation and of the practice would mean to be uncompliant with the requirements of the God from the Bible. The mystery of God lies in the contemplation and lives in the practice of his intent over the human history, and only on second instance this life may animate an appropriate reasoning, a pertinent talk. In fact, theology is — taking the double meaning of the Greek terminology Λόγος: reason and word דבר — reasoned word, reasoning put into words. We may say with all that, that the beginning moment is the silence, the following stage is the talk.
Contemplation and practice mutually feed one another; they both constitute the moment of silence before God. During the prayer, one remains mute, simply placing ourselves before the Lord. And, during the practice, in a way, one also remains silent; because during the commitment, the daily labour, we are talking to God the entire time; the fact is that we live from him, but not discoursing about him. As it is said in the Ecclesiastes, there is ‘a time to be silent and a time to speak’ (Ecclesiastes 2:6). The silence, time to be silent, is the first act and the necessary mediation for the time to speak about the Lord, to make theo-logy, second act. (Gutierrez, 1986, pp. 17–18)
Religion and the religious discourses (theo-logies) are powerful instruments that impact the private and public life, especially in the power relationships within the ambit of the daily life, generating behaviours, values and, sometimes, defining the legal and cultural framework at a determined coexistence space. The divinity, regardless of what it may be, is always an aspect that gets imposed over the social coexistence because it somehow determines which values we will apply and develop, which behaviours may be justified and, most importantly, which ones are not allowed because they are “against nature and against God”. During the last years, we have seen an exacerbated growth and development of the fundamentalist religious and political speeches that are extremely dangerous to the “public well-being”, because it privileges certain groups at the expense of others.
Therefore, it is very important to learn about Jesus, being clear about the audience he addressed (who the “subject” of theology is) and the place (locus theologicus) of the revelation and of the missionary action that transforms life. I think it is right to say that the subject of the revelation is our common house and the humanity. And our relationship with God and with his project is of being His contributors and being with Him. This contribution is always mediated by our materiality, by our humanity/corporeity, by our common house. God is the origin of the world (Genesis 1–2) and decided to incarnate and has assumed it entirely (John 1).
Reading as political act — transforms the common wellness
I seek to divest myself of what I have learned,
I seek to forget the way of learning I was taught
And scrape off the paint that covers my senses,
Unpack my true emotions,
Unwrap myself and be me, not Alberto Caieiro,
But a human animal, produced by nature.
But this (sad are we whose souls are clothed!)
This requires a profound study,
An education in unlearning…
(Pessoa, 1946, p. 48)
This poem by Alberto Caieiro, one of Fernando Pessoa’s many personas, explains the process we call reading. To read does not only imply an act of decoding signs, but a relational act that changes everything when it gets started.
Eliana Yunes, a literature thinker affirms that:
“…the act of reading does not only mean understanding the world of the text, written or otherwise. Reading requires the mobilisation of the knowledge of the other — the reader — in order to actualise the universe of the text, and to make meaning in life, where the text is located. To learn to read is to become acquainted with various texts, produced in various social spheres (journalistic, artistic, legal, scientific, didactic and pedagogical, every day, media/mediatic/mediagenic, literary, advertising et al.) in order to develop a critical attitude — one of discernment — which brings the reader to perceive the voices present in the text and to see him- or herself as capable of speaking to them…”
(Yunes, 2009, p. 9)
When we read, we are in a relationship with a wide and complex universe, and not only with a unique reality. We never get to the text or reality being completely innocent and neutral. These qualities do not exist among us when it comes to getting into a relationship with the tissues that we are part of (life and written text). And this order is important: first, life, then, reality (what we understand of life) and then the written text. I belong to a group of scholars that affirms that reality is not the same as what is real. Reality is what we are able to understand from what is supposed to be real. What we can assimilate or perceive. To always have our perspective and understanding from what we experience, see or read (here I call it the “real”).
That’s why it is important to realise that we are always undergoing interpretation processes, and every interpretation is mediated, never objective or neutral. Elizabeth Fiorenza recalls that any theology (a language about God and his revelation) is “implied, from the start” in multiple speeches and diverse struggles. An aspect of this implication is that “what you see depends on where you stand”, which means, theologies are made from a particular perspective and can’t pretend to be any other way. Theologies produce knowledge that is also situated within context and perspectives. (Thomson, 2015, p. 36)
Therefore, we always ask ourselves: Why do we make theology? To whom we make theology (certainly not to God)? And, what is our political agenda (of influence and of world structure/framework)? How to approach the narratives of the creation and its interpretations in a way it produces life and justice?
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
(Matthew 28:19–20)
“… God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
(1Timothy 2:4)
Our calling to the mission, which belongs to God and not to us or any church/religion in particular, is formed in the attentive listening to the word of God and the orthodox articulation of his desire to the world. At the Anglican Communion, and this may be of assistance for other people of our Christian family, we organised our mission and our reading and interpretation of the scriptures with the following intentions:
1. To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
2. To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
3. To respond to human needs by loving service
4. To transform unjust social structures, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation
5. To strive to safeguard and integrity of creation and for the sustainability and renewal of the life on earth.
We understand our labour as a “word-action”, very rooted into the Benedictine tradition of ora et labora. The process of reading and interpreting the scriptures and our speeches about God are processes of popular education. Our approach to the biblical texts is marked by God’s desire for every person to get saved/healed and for the planet to be redeemed from its suffering, because “God’s Kingdom is among you all” (Mark 1:15; Luke 17:21). Our fundamental task is to contribute so that more people can understand and experience, here and now, the loving revolution that God’s Kingdom is.
We know that, historically, religion has been one of the most powerful agents to facilitate the transformation of people’s conducts and attitudes. We know that religious actors have a strategic role in the influence and establishment of values, behaviours and norms at any society. We know that the religious speech and theologies are instruments of creation of life and also of oppression and death.
How do we respond to these affirmations? We are called to build bridges and to honour our origins from clay and water, from the word and the blow (spirit) that comes from the inner core of God himself.
“In the beginning, God… The stars, the oceans, the trees, the animals, the humans… all have the same mysterious divine blow. Everything is “creating word” the same and unique word expressed in different ways. At the same time, everything is the Divine Blow! (Gebara, 1995, p. 38)
However, for this “wordaction”, it is relevant to review the anthropocentric and androcentric interpretation (for instance, an ‘interpretative election’) of the accounts the creation in the Hebrew Bible. Because,
Nevertheless, our dividing and dominating spirit started to split us apart from the principle, it started to make a privileged moment from it, fruit of a privileged action, of a privileged being within… A being that dominates everything and is his own image, we the humans begin to dominate everything that seems to be under God’s control. We imagined that God gave us the power of dominating!
We believed that we had more divine blow than any other created being, and thus we “built” a hierarchical and mechanical scale of beings that predominates until today. We built a hierarchical vision of the world and of the humanity that supports our injustices and inequalities.” (Gebara, 1995, p. 38)
Rosemary Radford Ruether points out that the problem with the “Christian ideas about God” is the “tendency to the androcentrism, anthropocentrism, ethnocentrism, militarism and ascetic dualism” (Ruether, 2009, pp. 11–12). These “tendencies” caused and are largely responsible for the rape of land (deforestation, unsustainable extraction, destruction of entire ecosystems) and systemic violence against humanity in situations of vulnerability (genocide of traditional populations, femicide, racism, violence against the LGBTQI+, hunger, disease, human trafficking, especially women, girls, modern slavery, forced and insecure migration).
For more ecotheologies and intentional eco-spiritualities
“One of the great challenges at the present days, for us bible scholars,
is to offer elements that enable a biblical reading with focus on the climate changes that threaten the planet. That reading must be able to nurture a spirituality committed to life, the universe, mainly the lives of impoverished people” (Lopes, 2019, pp. 16–17)
As already mentioned before, the crisis experienced and that victimises most of the world population and the environment as a whole, calls us to do theologies, hermeneutics and to live a holistic spirituality committed to the mission of God (Misio Dei).
In that sense, I would like to approach the two creation stories in Genesis, to offer a method and an agenda for us to look at the other texts of Sacred Scripture through all the new things.
We find in our Bible two distinct accounts of the creation: Genesis 1:1–2:4a and 2:4b-3:25. They are, as said before, very distinct, no complementary and with different background, origin and objectives.
“The texts of Genesis 1–3 do not form a unified whole. Genesis 1:1–2:4a was written by a different male/ female author, belongs to another period and shows a taste for theological problems that is more recent than those old ones related in Genesis 2:4b-3:25. That is well known and widely accepted within the academic community. We should, therefore, always keep in mind that a naive interpretation of the Bible, that which takes the texts in a literal way and confuses the chronological order of the events related to the historical order, remains (however, hidden) until the present days.” (Straumann, 2000, p. 60)
In this approach I do not want, and it is not the intention of this reflection, to scrutiny all the narratological, historical-critical, semiotic and text-reception aspects. I’m just going to do an exercise to recognise some differences and their hermeneutical consequences, to finally offer the suggestion that “You have to choose texts, agendas, vocabulary, language” to interpret so that we can proper influence for justice, equity and harmony to happen.
In general terms it is good to remember that the reception and use of the creation accounts (the two) were read (interpreted) and used by the economic empires and by the privileged men (by the patriarchal system) to rape the earth, transforming the common house of source of life into a simple resource of consumption, rape/violate the most vulnerable, establishing a hierarchy of the genders, making women inferior human beings. Our effort now is to take up the texts to try to revisit those interpretations that in no way align with Jesus Christ, our model of faith and mission.
I believe that the texts of creation are texts of hope, resilience and also of criticism of systems of oppression and death. Consequently, faith is the adherence to the call to be collaborators in the care of creation, is a call to transforming action. It is also a call to look again, with new lenses, our place, as people, in the middle of creation, over it. Surely, for this issue it will be necessary to make a choice, make a decision. “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19)
In both texts of creation, it is clear that God is a creator, not a destroyer or devourer, nor does he own a special club of privileged people to make what pops in mind for its own benefit. And the image of God that the narrative expresses, is full of meanings.
In the first text, there was a lot of water and from within God, from his “nefesh/ soul / throat” the world comes out. “The ‘ruah’ of God is presented as a giant bird-mother, whose “wings moved on the surface of the waters”, as Martin Buber explained to the Christians of his time” (Schottrof, 2000, pp. 25–26). The author uses the verb “create” (in Hebrew בָּרָ֣א — bara’). In Ugarit, for example, that term is used for artistic creation. God is an artist.
In the second story, the land is deserted because “ when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up — for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground (וְאָדָ֣ם adam — humankind to cultivate it “(Genesis 2: 5). And God “created”, literally “modelled”, the “adam / the being-of-the-earth “, like a potter (Isaiah 29:16; Jeremiah 18:2–4; Job 33:6).
In both accounts it seems sure that humanity (וְאָדָ֣ם adam — the human being from the fertile land /הָֽאֲדָמָֽה adamah) comes from God’s hands, or from his word (dabar) or the work of his hands that handle dust and water, like a potter, and is part of creation and not superior to it. But nevertheless,
“… human beings are a part of the whole that we call ourselves Universe, a small region in time and space. They (human beings) consider themselves, their ideas and their feelings as separate from all the rest. That is an illusion of optics in their consciences. That illusion is a kind of prison. It restricts us to our personal aspirations and limits our affective life to a few people very close to us. Our task is to free ourselves from that prison, to make our circle of compassion accessible, to embrace all creatures and all of nature in its beauty. (Reimer, 2006, p. 35)
This recognition that humanity is an integral part and maintains a relationship of interdependence with creation as a whole is fundamental to structurally change the traditional view that nature is there to “serve us”. Even more, we must make a choice (I think) in relation to what we take from the text and how we use it. Well, the place of the human being is still in debate. What is the “commandment” of God for the human being?
When we look at the two texts, we have two different answers. Gen 1:26.28 we have the use of two verbs that are difficult to hear without some negative reaction: “that exercises dominance” (רָדָה radah) and “to submit” (כָּבַשׁ kabash). For some scholars, in some way, that sounds positive. But the problem is that to get into that conclusion a lot of external information is necessary, normally not available to ordinary people. For the scholar Helen Straumann what
“the priestly account (P) makes the situation and task of humanity that has as its background the ancient oriental concepts of the world and humanity (in them, humanity is created as an object to further facilitate the work of the gods.) In Genesis, however, humanity has its own value). The text itself explains what is meant by the image of God: the last phrase of verse 26 speaks of dominating, which is repeated in verse 28. P depends on the ancient Eastern ideology of the monarchy, found very frequently in Egypt, where the king or queen represented the deity. There are recent investigations that confirm this issue. In the Israelite environment, only very important people had the right to that; however, P considers all human beings as representatives of God. The dominion of humanity over creation — as a good shepherd who guides and protects his people — means acceptance of responsibility. (Straumann, 2000, p. 84)
I think this is a generous reading of the text. And it is acceptable. In any case, it is important to take into account another possibility where we read that:
“The verb kadash has in itself the meaning of ‘treading on the land’, or of dominating, in the sense of subduing, to take a possession, to make the land somewhat profitable. The predominant action of the verb is ‘to place the feet’, to subjugate. It is similar with the verb radah. From its use in the royal texts and related, the Hebrew verbs kadash and radah denote domain actions, which can be (and were) interpreted in the sense of one unrestricted dominium terraes.”(Reimer, 2006, p. 39)
The other account of creation presents a very different task to the ears and establishes a different behaviour and relationship with creation. In Genesis 2:15 the verbs “cultivate” are used (עָבַד abad) and “to take care of” (שָׁמַר shamar). They bring different images and propositions from the first story. Whereas we have two texts from two different times and geographies, we must manage the literary, political, ideo-theological and social contexts of the two ones. The language expresses intention and place of where it is spoken.
“In the account of the creation, in Genesis 2:4b-3:25, the binomial ‘subject and dominate’ is replaced by ‘to cultivate and to keep’ (Gen 2:15). The Hebrew verb abad (to cultivate) has the dimension of work here to guarantee subsistence. The verb shamar (to keep) designates the fundamental task of caring, handling, managing. Just as a psalm affirms that the God Yahweh is the ‘guardian’ of Israel, full of mercy and care, humans must care for and keep all creation “ (Reimer, 2006, p. 41)
This story, probably originated from the peasants who fought strongly against the monarchy (the “original sin” — not hearing God and replacing Him for a human King), they prefer to understand their role in God’s creation in relation to the image of the farmer and the shepherd, avoiding words and, of course, behaviours of dominating/lording OVER someone. The rejection of the image of the one who dominates, who is King and who submits is a requirement for the Kingdom of God and for the discipleship of Jesus Christ:
“A dispute also arose among them as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest. But he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. “You are those who have stood by me in my trials” (Luke 22:24–28)
What paths to follow in the interpretative journey?
All reading (the way we approach the text and get out from the text), all proclamation (the way we give voice to the text when we read it out loud) and all interpretation (what we say from the text and from our place of reading) is a political act, that is, it influences and “moulds” thoughts, images, behaviours, values.
That’s why I want to suggest that we have in our hermeneutical agenda:
• Community — Connection
o To read the sacred texts to connect people, to strengthen the journey and deepen bonds of sisterhood and fraternity. The Church was given the power to unite, not only to get lose, to exclude people (Matthew 18:18). Let’s read in community, create hermeneutical circles so that we can listen more clearly to what God wants for the world and how we can collaborate to it. Avoid dualistic and positivist approaches. The community is our place of healing, salvation, redemption.
• Resilience — resistance
o To read the sacred texts to develop more resilient communities to face environmental crises that have a devastating effect on the life of the planet. To do theologies WITH (not for) the communities making them discover their own capacities, abilities and dreams to follow.
• Mission — marked by the path of prophecy
o To read the sacred texts to act, assume the Mission of God in an intentionally transforming and loving way, modelled by Jesus Christ and his project of a world where all people and where life on the planet can be transformed into a new creation.
• Integration — with ourselves = with God
o To read the sacred texts to face the fragmentation and deceptive dichotomies that had been taught us in the past, in order to seek unity, to be ONE as God is ONE, to be interdependent as the Trinity is.
• Influencing to change the social norms that harm and the structures that dominate
o To read the sacred texts to awaken people about their connection with mother earth, sacrament of God, violated and screaming for help. To return to our first call to be like Jesus who faced, in community, the political and legal systems, the social norms of exclusion and privileges and the meritocratic and imperialist religion that corrupted God’s plan
Challenges for our theological work — ora et labora (to pray and to work)
• To revisit the biblical texts with new eyes (perspectives and perceptions) that express life and relationship of equality and harmony.
• Intentionally approaching the violated environment and the peoples still colonised, exploited and forced to support less than 10% of the world’s population and their way of life — these voices help to approach the biblical texts and to draw life-giving theologies.
• To have the understanding of Jesus about the sacred scriptures (his past history too): to know how to choose, to know how to question the “letters” that kill because there are things in the sacred scriptures that are written there, not to be done again. Because God “has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2Corinthians 3:6) We are compelled not to reproduce contents or violent, colonising, eugenicist and imperialist theologies.
• To organize communities and to work so that there are more people for the mission
• To have the eyes of the Gospel (Jesus) to do theologies
• To train the ears to listen and to deal with the cries of the most suffering people and regarding the land systematically and structurally violated
• To develop, in our personal and community life, a spirituality of creation — to pray and to work for climate justice — to change structures, to advocate and challenge the lifestyles with which we are accustomed, which damage the planet and the people.
It is very important that we are humble to be enlightened by the theories of network, of ontological interconnection (from the essence of the human being) of the human being with nature, of our interdependence. It is also important to read the articles of people as Fritjof Kapra, Eduardo Mooran, Ivone Gebara, Elza Tamez, Marcelo Barros, Gustavo Gutierrez, Nancy Cardoso, Maria Soave Buscemi, Karolina Moro, Paulo Freire, Teillard de Chardin. Certainly, my colleagues are going to put other people in the circle to share it.
How beautiful and infinite are Your names, O Lord God.
You are called by the name
Of our deepest desires.
If plants could pray
They would invoke the images of their most beautiful flowers
And would say that you have the sweetest perfume.
To the butterflies You would be a butterfly,
The most beautiful of all, the most brilliant colors,
And your universe a garden…
Those who are cold call you Sun…
Those dying in the desert
Say that your name is the Fountain of the Waters.
Orphans say you have a Mother’s face…
The poor invoke you as Bread and Hope.
God, name of our desires…
As many names as we have hopes and desires…
Poem. Dream. Mystery
(Rubem Alves (org), 1999, p. 17)
Paulo Ueti
Email: paulo.ueti@anglicancommunion.org or paulou@uspg.org.uk
Some resources:
Bible Studies on Sustainable Development Objectives and Mission
Bibliography
CRB, C. d. (1994). A Leitura Profética da História. Coleção Tua Palavra é Vida. (Vol. 3). São Paulo, SP, Brasil: Edições Loyola.
Gebara, I. (1995). El gemido de la creación y nuestros gemidos. In V. R. 21, Toda la creación gime. San José da Costa Rica: DEI.
Gutierrez, G. (1986). Hablar de Dios desde el sufrimiento del inocente. Salamanca, España: Ediciones Sigueme.
Lopes, M. (2019, Março 21). O que entendemos por “ecoespiritualidade”. Espiritualidade Bíblica em perspectiva ecológica RIBLA 65.
Pessoa, F. (1946). O Guardador de Rebanhos, In Poemas de Alberto Caeiro. Lisboa, Portugal: Ática.
Reimer, H. (2006). Toda a criação. Bíblia e Ecologia. São Leopoldo: OIKOS.
Richmond, S., Drinkwater, G., Fulcher, L., & McCarthy, C. (2017). The Scandal of Inequality 2: The multiple faces of inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean. Context Report, Christian Aid, International Department, London.
Rubem Alves (org). (1999). CultoArte, Celebrando a vida. Advento/Natal/Epifania. Petrópolis: Vozes; CEBEP.
Ruether, R. R. (2009). The Politics of God in the Christian Tradition. In A. Monro, Public Theology and The Challenge of Feminist (Gender, Theology and Spirituality). London and New York: Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
Schottrof, L. (2000). A narrativa da criação: Gênesis 1:1–2:4a. In A. B. (org), Gênesis a partir de uma leitura de gênero. São Paulo: Paulinas.
Straumann, H. (2000). Sobre a criação do homem e da mulher em Gênesis 1–3: reconsiderando a história e a recepção dos textos. In A. B. (org), Gênesis a partir de uma leitura de gênero. São Paulo: Paulinas.
Thomson, H. (2015). Public Theology and the Politics of Interpretation. A feminist reading. In A. Monro, Public Theology and the Challenge of Feminism (Gender, Theology and Spirituality). London and New York: Routledge. Taylor&Francis Group. Kindle Edition.
West, G. (2015). Reading the Bible with the marginalised: The value/s of contextual Bible reading. Stellenbosch Theological Journal, 235–161.
Yunes, E. (2009). Tecendo um leitor: uma rede de fios cruzados. Curitiba: Aymará.
