Why there is a need for an environmental spirituality (part 2)

 Understanding Environmental Spirituality

At this time, I would like to devote some space to discussing the relationship between ethics and spirituality, to elucidate why my aim is to approach the issue of the environmental crisis from the perspective of spirituality rather than ethics. In reality, spirituality and ethics are so closely connected that a person cannot be considered fully developed if these two facets are not well integrated into his or her life.[1] Ethics is also closely related to morality, which is the demonstration of actions and virtues that promote human flourishing and harmony with nature.[2] Thus morality is about our actions and behaviour that reflect our understanding of our duty and obligation. Ethics, on the other hand, commonly refers to the way we think about what constitutes a good person, and whether a person’s action should be considered as right or wrong.[3] In environmental ethics, for example, one of the questions raised might be: Is it ethically acceptable for humans to cause change to nature by engaging in acts of oil exploration and extraction? Thus, ethics is a study of morality, which refers to our lived experience of our understanding of the standards and norms in a particular social context.[4] Defined thus, we see that morality and ethics need not have a religious dimension. It only acquires a religious dimension when a transcendental power, for example Allah, is incorporated into the discourse and serves as a point of reference.

Spirituality can be delineated into two aspects—lived spirituality and reflective spirituality. According to William C. Spohn, lived spirituality "refers to the practice of transformative, affective, practical, and holistic disciplines that seek to connect the person with reality's deepest meanings.”[5] In modern day contexts, lived spirituality may represent various meditation courses, New Age movements, a variety of popular religious practices and traditions, and even some perceived as more “sophisticated” ones.[6] Sufism in Islam and Kabala in Judaism are some of the examples of the more unconventional lived spirituality. However, nowadays, lived spirituality may also be non-religious, and many people claim that they have a spiritual life without adhering to any particular religious tradition. Reflective spirituality “stands for the second-order interpretation and communication of this dimension of experience as experience. It employs theological, historical-contextual, artistic, anthropological, and hermeneutical methods to analyze the lived experience.”[7] Thus, in this way, the relationship between reflective spirituality and lived spirituality is analogous to the relationship between ethics and morality, where morality and lived spirituality represent the first order descriptive accounts while ethics and reflective spirituality represent the second-order reflective interpretations of the lived experience. Although a variety of spiritualities exist, there are three aspects that are common to the different types of spiritualities. First, it involves a recognition that beyond what is immediately or externally obvious, there is something deeper to our human life which may involve a deeper experience or self, or a deeper reality of transcendence. Second, there is an attempt to grasp or touch this deeper reality by using various ways. Finally, there are concrete actions that are aimed at fulfilling these goals.[8]

These three aspects of spirituality tell us that there are points of generic overlapping between spirituality and morality, but also differences. First, we see that spirituality and morality are both lived experiences of a certain belief, a practical reaction to what one perceives as holding the highest value in one’s life. However, while spirituality emphasizes the transformative experience and holistic integration of human life, morality has as its priority actions and behaviours that correspond to normative values. According to Spohn, they overlap in as much as “devotional practices often seek to inculcate virtues and pursue moral values to their ultimate depths.”[9] The actions or activities that we engage in reflect the human endeavour towards self-transformation on the journey towards ultimate reality. This transformation is expressed in our relational lives and our responses to the various situations that we encounter in life. Thus, our moral life is a visible manifestation of our inner transformation. In this way, morality and spirituality intersects when authentic inner transformation (the subject of lived spirituality) leads to achieving a way of life that takes goodness and rightness as priority (the subject of morality).[10]

Although there is overlapping between morality and spirituality, these two cannot be identified because spirituality is often seen to address areas of life that seem beyond the bounds of ordinary morality. We can reasonably say that spirituality generally has a more pedagogical nature than common morality in its aim to develop a life and way of living characterized by personal transformation, authenticity, and integrity, usually by connecting the human person with a deeper and more radical reality. While morality may also promote holistic integration, most versions of spirituality attempt to do so to greater degrees. However, this is not meant to say that morality is not essential to an authentic and integrated life. Moral skills and spiritual skills are different and one acquires them through different trainings. Thus, a person with great spiritual skills needs to also have the necessary skills in order to make moral decisions in concrete situations. Spirituality does not offer the degree of precision that morality does.[11] According to Vincent Macnamara, morality is a “demand of the human spirit” and an indication of a developed spirituality.[12] To “want to be moral” is a characteristic of a person who has undergone a spiritual conversion. However, in addition to having a desire to be moral, one must also learn the proper expressions of morality in everyday life. Richard Gula emphasizes the integral connection between spirituality and morality as follows:

Spirituality can never be separated from morality as some external aid that helps us be good. Spirituality, with its array of practices, nourishes the moral life at its very roots…Spirituality is the wellspring of the moral life. That is to say that morality arises from, rather than generates, spirituality…In this way, morality reveals one’s spirituality. In other words, how we live reveals who we are, what we genuinely value, and how we are integrating life experiences around what we give as ultimate value.[13]  

Morality needs spirituality because without it, it becomes legalistic and may be perceived as some code imposed upon by social or religious institutions or by an espoused Creator. The fear of punishment for transgressing these moral codes then becomes the dominant motivation for exercising moral behavior. In addition, morality without spirituality risks having a too narrow of a scope because certain profound moral truths do not have a chance to be considered. On the other hand, morality connects spirituality with concrete everyday life situations with all its problems and social concerns. Morality becomes the manifestation of how one applies one’s spirituality to address life issues with the aim of promoting well-being for oneself and others, including the environment. The life issues that we must confront in our moral choices can in turn enrich our spirituality by forcing us to make further reflections upon our spirituality. In addition, ethics can have a positive impact on reflective spirituality by forcing us to consider our spiritual experiences in a more disciplined and normative way. It helps us realize that a healthy spirituality is not just about feeling at peace and feeling good in a selfish way, but that it must contribute to the promotion of the moral good. Thus, we can see that in no way is reflective spirituality and ethics antagonistic to one another. Although each has its own scope and focus, both take the human person as their subject, and in a cooperative relationship, they can bring about a fully developed person that is able to enter into healthy and harmonious relationships with other people and with the environment.

Based on the above discussion, we can see why I have decided to frame the discussion on the environment as a matter of spirituality, rather than religion, ethics, or morality. Undeniably, all these aspects are integrated, and in the course of delving into various topics, one may get the feeling that there is a blurring of the lines, for example between faith and spirituality. When this happens, it is not because we have failed to separate religion from spirituality or that we are unable to distinguish between the two. This reality, I believe, speaks to the fact that as much as we would like to make distinction between religion/faith and spirituality, especially in an academic sense, in real life, religious faith often informs spiritual practice, and spiritual practice can deepen one’s faith in a never-ending cycle. In the same manner, spirituality and ethics go hand in hand in a cooperative relationship in our everyday life. Ultimately, how humans view and interact with nature as shown in our ethical actions reflects our spirituality, which for many of us, can be deeply informed and inspired by our religious faith. Spirituality can indeed by discussed and developed independent of religion. However, for people of religion, it is unproductive and artificial to negate religious faith as a valuable resource for reflection and inspiration. It is within this outlook that I believe we should approach the topic of environmentalism emanating from religious sources.

---

[1] Anna Abram, “Ethics and Spirituality: Self-Sufficiency or Symbiosis?” StBob 4 (2009): 69.

[2] Richard M. Gula, The Call to Holiness: Embracing a Fully Christian Life (New York: Paulist Press, 2003), 24.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Abram, 70.

[5] William C. Spohn, “Spirituality and Ethics: Exploring the Connections,” Theological Studies 58 (1997): 112.

[6] Abram, 72.

[7] Spohn, 112.

[8] Abram, 73.

[9] Spohn, 112.

[10] Abram, 75.

[11] Abram, 75.

[12] Vincent Macnamara, “The Moral Journey,” http://www.theway.org.uk/back/s088Macnamara.pdf, 7.

[13] Gula, 37

Why There is a Need for an Environmental Spirituality (Part 1 of 2)

 

Environment and Religion 

“Humanity is waging war on nature. And we need to rebuild our relationship with it.” These were the opening words of a speech given by United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres at the UN’s first ever summit on the biodiversity crisis at the 75^th General Assembly on 30 September 2020.[1] In the course of his remarks, Guterres exhorted, “We have to change course and transform our relationship with the natural world. By living in harmony with nature, we can avert the worst impacts of climate change and recharge biodiversity for the benefit of people and the planet.” Guterres’ call for humans to reform our behavior and transform our relationship with nature took place in the context of a global coronavirus pandemic that had by then infected over 30 million and killed over one million people, and amid an alarming environmental crisis that showed little signs of subsiding. One million species are endangered or under the threat of extinction, and the Earth’s web of life is being severely impacted by climate change, deforestation, and other ways of depleting nonrenewable natural resources.

The issue raised by the UN Chief, however, cannot be addressed from a purely scientific, economic or sociological perspective, weighing benefits and losses in terms of sustainability development goals based on anthropocentric needs and wants. Indeed, the language of relationship between human and nature by Guterres is juxtaposed with more immediate human concerns as indicated in other parts of the remarks:

One consequence of our imbalance with nature is the emergence of deadly diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Ebola and now COVID-19, against which we have little or no defence. Sixty per cent of all known diseases and 75 per cent of new infectious diseases are zoonotic, passing from animals to humans, demonstrating the intimate interconnection between the health of our planet and our own.

Biodiversity and ecosystems are essential for human progress and prosperity. They are central to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and implementing the Paris Agreement on climate change. Yet, despite repeated commitments, our efforts have not been sufficient to meet any of the global biodiversity targets set for 2020. Much greater ambition is needed — not just from Governments, but from all actors in society.

Let me be clear: degradation of nature is not purely an environmental issue. It spans economics, health, social justice and human rights. Neglecting our precious resources can exacerbate geopolitical tensions and conflicts. Yet, too often, environmental health is overlooked or downplayed by other Government sectors.

No doubt, matters of practical human concerns are important, and they are usually what motivates and forces us to confront a dilemma even if we would rather turn a blind eye in hope that it would eventually somehow “miraculously disappear,” to paraphrase a certain world leader’s response to the coronavirus pandemic that caused global devastation in 2020.   Beside the practical approaches to addressing the environmental crisis, the more philosophically minded have tended to raise philosophical and ethical questions about what rights ought to be accorded to nature and what limitations should be placed on humans based on recognition of these rights. Such considerations over the last five decades have become an essential part of the discourse in environmental ethics, and cannot be ignored even when one confronts the dilemma from fields outside of secular ethics.  However, it is also important to approach this dilemma from the perspective of spirituality – one informed and inspired by religious faith. In the new era full of scientific and technological development, religion continues to have an important role in all aspects of modern life, and people of faith are not only stakeholders in the project of life, but are called to live out their human vocation and destiny in noble ways beyond economic calculations, social negotiations and political compromises. This does not mean that we do not give importance to practical considerations such as those expressed by the UN Chief or philosophical questions raised by environmental ethicists. I believe all these matters must be given due attention as part of the overall global discourse on resolving the environmental crisis. However, I believe that in this respect, religion and the environmental spirituality that it inspires can infuse purely mechanical calculations or purely theoretical propositions with directions for praxis that makes real contributions to achieving human-nature flourishing and well-being.

 

The Buddhist scholar monk Bhikkhu Bodhi asserts:

 

If any great religion is to acquire a new relevance it must negotiate some very delicate, very difficult balances. It must strike a happy balance between remaining faithful to the seminal insights of its Founder and ancient masters and acquiring the skill and flexibility to formulate these insights in ways that directly link up with the pressing existential demands of old-age. It is only too easy to veer towards one of these extremes at the expense of the other: either to adhere tenaciously to ancient formulas at the expense of present relevance, or to bend fundamental principles so freely that one drains them of their deep spiritual vitality. Above all, I think any religion today must bear in mind an important lesson impressed on us so painfully by past history: the task of religion is to liberate, not to enslave. Its purpose should be to enable its adherents to move towards the realization of the Ultimate Good and to bring the power of this realization to bear upon life in the world. (Bikkhu Bodhi, 1994)

 

The sentiment of Bhikkhu Bodhi which I quoted above serves as directions which religious traditions can contribute to contemporary issues plaguing society, especially that of the environmental crisis. Although there been countless books, academic articles, conferences and symposiums addressing the topic of religion and the environment, there is still a need for ongoing voices for multiple reasons. First, as long as the environmental crisis continues to be a reality in the world, there can never be silence even if what is now said has already been said before. The environmental crisis did not develop overnight, and it would not be resolved in a short time. Persistence on the part of those who recognize the problem and tirelessly address it is essential to its mitigation and hopefully eventual remedy. In addition, old voices can be renewed, reinvigorated, and re-presented in new social contexts where both the speaker and the listener approach the issue with different understanding and sensibilities. Thus, even if the content of the message is not new, how and in what circumstances it is presented may make all the difference. As religion and the environment can impact each other, at the same time be impacted by technological and social developments, ongoing engagement in the discourse in an interdisciplinary and interreligious manner promises to be beneficial to the ultimate goal of achieving flourishing and well-being for both nature and humanity.  Therefore, ongoing work in environmental spirituality must explore the following questions: 

· How can a person who adheres to a religion develop a spirituality that is conducive to promoting environmental well-being?

· What elements of one’s religious tradition are able to inform such an environmental spirituality?

· How can particular religious traditions motivate and sustain an environmental spirituality that does not derail from its tradition, yet at the same time, is able to respond to the present situation?

· How does a religious environmental spirituality manifest itself in ethical actions and activities relating to the environment?

· How can religious systems make a unique contribution to the overall global discourse on environmentalism itself?

· How can a religious environmental spirituality enrich and inform purely secular environmental ethics?

Scientific surveys and empirical experience confirm that religion continues to play a prominent role in the life of people in the world, which makes it wise to encourage an environmental spirituality founded upon scientific facts and positively informed and motivated by their faith. In this context, the term “spirituality” is applied to all religious systems, including nontheistic traditions like Buddhism and Confucianism. One might find term “spirituality” applied to Buddhism to be an oxymoron because Buddhism denies the existence of a “spirit” or a “self.” However, “spirituality” in its modern academic usage does not necessarily connote the presence of a “spirit” or a “soul” as understood in Western Christianity, but can also refer to a more general state or experience of inner well-being and transformation. Because of this, spirituality as a discipline can be applied to a variety of religious systems as well as non-religious contexts. The Dalai Lama says that spirituality goes beyond religion, which is “concerned with faith in the claims to salvation of one faith tradition or another, an aspect of which is acceptance of some form of metaphysical or supernatural reality, including perhaps an idea of heaven or nirvana.”[2] On the other and, spirituality is “concerned with those qualities of the human spirit – such as love and compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, a sense of responsibility, a sense of harmony – which brings happiness to both self and others.”[3] Therefore, the Dalai Lama asserts that what is needed is not a “religious revolution,” but a “spiritual revolution” where “there is a “radical reorientation away from our habitual preoccupation with self” and a turning “toward the wider community of beings with whom we are connected, and for conduct which recognizes other’s interests alongside our own.”[4] Having said that, the Dalai Lama does not deny that spiritual “qualities, or virtues, are fruits of genuine religious endeavour and that religion therefore has everything to do with developing them and with what may be called spiritual practice.”[5] 

Therefore, environmentalism emanating from religious traditions is not just a series of theological propositions or dogmas to be adhered to in order to resolve the environmental crisis, but a foundation that inspires and impels individuals toward building more harmonious relationship with others, including nature. Indeed, founders of what we refer to as religious traditions are not just religious leaders, but are also models of spiritual perfection.  Thus, it is not surprising that Bhikkhu Bodhi refers to the Buddha as a “spiritual leader” (Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2006) and the five Buddhist qualities of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom as “spiritual qualities” (Bhikkhu Bodhi, 1998, Five). In a similar manner, the prominent Confucian scholar Tu Weiming refers to Confucian practices as a “spiritual humanism” that holds import and meaning in terms of our relationship with others, from self to the cosmos.[6] In highlighting the spiritual dimension of the religious traditions in promoting environmental well-being, we ground the discussions more deeply in the inner experience and understanding of ultimate reality that affects our relational lives with other people and the environment.

---

[1] Antonio Guterres, “Remarks to the United Nations Biodiversity Summit,” United Nations (30 September 2020), https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/sgsm20298.doc.htm.

[2] Dalai Lama, Ethics for the New Millenium (New York: Putnam, 1999), epub edition.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Tu Weiming, “Ecological Implications of Confucian Humanism,” http://msihyd.org/pdf/19manuscript_tu.pdf, 78.