Page 4 of 9Original Research
Romans 8 highlights a groaning that is common to creation, humans and the Spirit in creation: here we have an alternative to the popular notion that God, in Christ, now rules above and is no longer suffering deep in creation below. (p. 112)
Habel (2009:118) conspicuously chooses the ‘story’ of Jesus
(idealised or divinised) or what he calls the ‘Gospel principle’[1]
and not ‘history’ (historical Jesus), and he therefore accepts
all its thaumaturgical elements. His book is intended for
the church and therefore Habel does not (deliberately)
‘demythologise’ this rendering of faith[2] but stays true to
the master-narrative of Christianity. However, when he
emphasises a specific version or nuance of the Jesus story
that may have been overlooked or neglected or ignored in the
past, namely a strong emphasis on the immanent Jesus instead
of a transcendent Jesus, some sort of demythologisation is
taking place. The immanent, earth-bound Jesus is a ‘greener’
Jesus than the one distancing himself from earth. Although
to converse meaningfully on matters ecological with inter
alia secular science does not seem to be his primary aim (at
least with this book), his deliberate new emphasis of the Jesus
story allows some direction in this regard. When he says
that ‘heavenism’ and unnatural ecosystems are out (Habel
2009:34, 100–104), being part of ancient idealised versions
of a new world to come, science should agree. Furthermore,
the Jesus story of ‘serving’ the earth, taking responsibility for
her as she does for us (mutual custodianship), should also
provide common ground for an ethics of care into which
even science might finally translate (although the ethical is
not necessarily up front in the scientific discourse). If the
Jesus story relates that ‘earth is God’s body’, this metaphor
confers (ultimate) intrinsic value, the highest we can confer,
onto our planet and again adds an ethical dimension to our
ecological awareness. Furthermore, whether understood as
faith by some or just a mythical story by others, the story of
Jesus’ redemption and suffering along with all of creation
emphasises the interconnected bond with all, the web of life,
that we are all in the same ship so to speak, hopefully on our
way to a better, healthier and, in terms of this contribution, a
‘greener’ future. Theology can provide the ethics and science
the agenda for such a better world. The thaumaturgical or
miraculous (but unnatural) ‘lamb and wolf’ lying together
will, other than in pre-modern times, not be attentiongrabbing in our scientifically informed age but rather a
natural Eden as it has evolved over millions of years where
lamb and wolf and human have sustainable living habitats
(‘heavens’) where they can thrive and die as nature intended
it to be.
The Second Christ, Saint Francis of Assisi and ecological consciousness
Who was Francis?
The life story of Francis is richly documented (see e.g. Habig 1973), and his two well-known biographers, Thomas of Celano and Bonaventura, commenced with it shortly after his death. It is a rather formidable task to reconstruct or retrieve Francis from history, as with Jesus, with many of the early sources being hagiography. The latter, the writing of the lives of saints, are more than often presented as larger than life (Warner 2011:116).
Francis was born in 1181 AD in the city of Assisi, part of the
Umbrian province of Italy. He came from a wealthy house
– his father, Pietro Bernardone, was a well-to-do textile
merchant who often visited France for his business, which
most probably inspired the name Francis. As a typical young
and rich libertine from the bourgeois class, Francis lived a
worldly life of gambling, banquets, singing and dancing,
the life of a typical, carefree troubadour (Boff 1997:206).
Interestingly, his gaiety and sensuousness also characterised
his later life after his conversion (Armstrong 1973:19–23;
Warner 1994:228). As a typical young man, Francis
considered many options as a career – merchandise (as his
father), becoming a feudal nobleman, the military and so on
– but none really spoke to his heart. In about 1210 or 1213,
he became ill and often retracted to the caves and forests,
the beautiful natural surroundings of Assisi, to contemplate
and ponder on his life’s direction. During these retreats, he
became convinced that he should follow Christ, the Poor
Man par excellence (Boff 1997:207) who emptied himself
completely for others in obedience to his Father. His option
for the lifestyle of the poor, pledging to marry ‘Lady Poverty’
(Boff 1997:207) and becoming a fool in the eyes of his former
rich fellows and family, was immediately set into action.[3]
The Poverello (the little poor man), as his admirers fondly
referred to him, began to repair small and poor churches and
chapels on the margins of Assisi, promoting and embodying
his new commitment to poverty. He even left the luxury of
the city and his class to go and live in a leprosorium outside
of the city, associating closely with the cast-out lepers. One
can understand the dismay his father had for all of this. In
the presence of the bishop of Assisi, he and his father had a
irreparable fall-out, so much so that Francis stripped naked
(for which Voltaire later on scorned him) and gave his clothes
back to his father, and he determined that the habit of the
church would be sufficient for his needs (Hooper & Palmer
1992:78). Francis was not and did not become a clergyman,
but as a layman, he fulfilled his mission as a kind of gospel
pilgrimage (like Jesus), visiting the squares, villages and
fields and not striving for the stability of the established
church monasteries (Boff 1997:207). Although he followed
an alternative way of ‘being church’ in the world, he was
not opposed to the mainstream church. In 1209 or 1210, he
requested approval from the Pope for his new way (rule) of
poverty, chastity and obedience and was granted this in 1223.
This ‘new way’ was also the First Order of Franciscans, later
followed by his close woman friend and confidant, Clare’s
Second Order of Franciscans, the Poor Clares. A third order
http://www.ve.org.zadoi:10.4102/ve.v35i1.1310
- ↑ Habel admits that he is writing from his Lutheran background.
- ↑ Although Habel (2009:118) discredits the flat-Earth cosmology of the Old Testament as belonging to history, he uncritically ignores the fact that Jesus is part of precisely this cosmology.
- ↑ Wolf (2003) criticises Francis’ voluntary poverty compared to the involuntary poverty of the real poor ones of his time. He argues that Francis and his wellto-do followers had nothing to lose with this decision of endangering their lives, compared to the involuntary poor whose lives were at stake. The real poor ones could also not gain anything (e.g. status) with their poverty, whilst the voluntary poor could obtain a ‘new’ status. However, in the context of bringing his message to the rich (his audience), voluntary poverty became an effective, persuasive tool.
