On the RH-Bill: Why the Church reacts so?

We say that when a man and a woman get married, they will share lives in full confidence to each other…each will say: “I give myself to you”. It is a “mutual self-giving”…for all life…”’til death do us part”. Contraception is a path of not sharing a part of oneself. What is this part? My fertility. I share all that I am to you—all except my fertility. Our mutual self-giving has limits. We will mutually self-give up to a certain point which is our fertility. We are willing to have full confidence with each other, except in terms of fertility. So a reservation is made. 

This opens the door to many other reservations. If fertility can be reserved, the why not… We can imagine many things. We can reserve resources—“oh now I can keep some for myself and not share”. We can reserve certain information—“oh now I do not have to tell you what happened to me during the day”. We can reserve friends—“Oh I do not have to tell you I have friendship with that person…and I do not have to tell you what we do together”. Etc. Next thing we know, we ask for a separation and divorce.

We reserve more…we share less. The unconditional love professed during marriage slowly falls apart. When contraception fails—and the wife becomes pregnant—the door to abortion is next opened. See what contraceptive mentality is. It is a cultural behavior that opens many doors.

Of course there is, maybe, an exaggeration here. Surely there are married people who have successful married lives even while practicing contraception. But we try to appreciate the stand of the Church.

What about the “natural methods”?  These involve watching closely the ways of the wife’s body…So the intimate "physiology" of the wife must be closely observed by the couple. This implies a dialogue between the husband and the wife. The dialogue will tell both of them “when to do it”, that is, the conjugal act.  

Can this be done in an adult way?  This is what the Church would like to say. Self-regulation and matured treatment of the body and sexuality are part of the “culture” of marriage. Today we seem to be so “free” with “sex”… How about a serious, not hedonistic, approach to sex?

And what about Onan? (See Gen 38/8-10). Well, it was about cheating…Onan was not true to his word. The Church would not go for this style. It is not just a lack of fidelity to what one says it is also about putting that to action. The “pulling out” is cheating. He promised descendants…he was not true to his word…and he pulled out. Many still doubt if this is wrong…. So the debate continues.

What this essay presents is a “very conservative” discussion, we admit. In the world today where “sex” is “more liberal”, the stand of the Church may, indeed, look so conservative. We try to appreciate what the Church says. She talks about sex—and fertility. It is a “power” we have—something given to us in creation. It is a power of the “male-female” that becomes “man-woman”. This power puts a child in the world. It is not a power to be joked with.

The Church invites married couples to lead a married life. There are ways of leading this life. “You may…but”, as Genesis (Gen. 2/16-17) would put it. Not all means of birth control are good, as the Church would say. Contraception is a method that relies on lack of confidence and mutual self-giving of the married couple. It is a way of refusing to “master your mastery”, again as Genesis (Chapter 1) would say.

Yes, the Church would go for “natural regulation” of birth. This requires maturity and adulthood in marriage.

It is understandable that priests and bishops react so strongly against the RH Bill. They have their manuals for confessions… “handbooks”...references. Look at what the handbook for married people will say about marriage and procreation:

“The virtue of conjugal chastity ‘involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift’, and through it sexuality ‘becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman’. This virtue, in so far as it refers to the intimate relations of the spouses, requires that ‘the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love’ be maintained. Therefore, among the fundamental moral principles of conjugal life, it is necessary to keep in mind ‘the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life. (Vademecum for confessors concerning some aspects of the morality of conjugal life Intro 2 and 2/4).

So it is in the tradition of the Church, held by priests, of course, to refuse the sexual act that is oriented to contraception. Contraception is, so the handbook says, an intrinsic evil. Conjugal love is always related with procreation. So even married people stay chaste—this is conjugal chastity. Contraception is opposed to this chastity. It is opposed to the transmission of life—and transmission is in the will of God. It harms conjugal love. Note what the handbook says: contraception is irreformable.(So now we see why priests in the Philippines are so firm in their stand…this is what their handbook says!

If we think back to Genesis, this handbook seems to be saying that the human being is a “steward” of creation. The human being is not the owner of the world. Procreation is part of stewardship. God creates, the human pro-creates.

Ok, so we try to understand our priests and bishops. More than less, we see the "maturity" in Church thinking. The Church has a high regard for the human person--that the human person is really capable of discerning and self-regulating. We make a final word. 

We have seen what the Church has done during the hot debate. We have seen Church people…including Bishops and Religious people…go to congress and be visible in their lobby against the RH Bill.

But there is also a limit to lobbying for and to rallying against…. “You may, but” (Genesis 2/16-17)…this rule applies even to Church people. Certain manifestations of Church people need to be questioned. When a big storm hit Mindanao and killed innocent people and destroyed so much properties, we cannot say that it was due God’s refusal of the RH Bill. When individuals wear pro-RH shirts and go to mass, must they be castigated in front of the crowd…and must the communion be preferential against them?

What has the Church done to educate the parishioners regarding the debate? To simplify the issue and say that there are only two types of people—the “pro” and the “anti”—is to over simply the issue and to treat people naively. If the Church is the assembly of all members—not just of priests and religious—then the ordained ministry is duty bound to educate the faithful. The maintenance of faith is part of the ordained priest’s job anyway.

Finally, to make a political stand on the RH issue and tell people who to vote and not vote….Well, does this not make the Catholic Church a “political party”? Banners and tarpaulins are set up inside parish church compounds. Written are persons not to vote for and persons to vote for. This is a political campaign done by the parish! This is not the way of the Church. Already the Philippine Church said this a long time ago: "The Church's competence in passing moral judgments even in matters political has been traditionally interpreted as pertaining to the clergy. Negatively put, the clergy can teach moral doctrines covering politics but cannot actively involve themselves in partisan politics. Religious men and women are also included in this prohibition" (PCP-II, 340). But lay people have competence in active and direct partisan politics. (PCP-II, 341). The laity may do partisan politics…but cannot use the parishes for their advocacy.    

Some Thoughts on Christian Social Action

Some Thoughts on Christian Social Action: Part 1

How do we see Church Social Action today in our country? Here are some points for reflection.

Social Action is a way of bringing life. We live and act according to the love of God—we respond to the love of God. Christian life is a response to this love of God. Christian social action also is a response. It responds by bringing life. God reveals himself as source of life in the heart of human action. Life is set out of confusion and darkness.

We can take cue from St. Paul: “Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life” (Rm 6/3-4). There is a “new life”. We discover this new life as we move on and encounter others—the poor. Our baptism is a call to engage in the world and there bring out new life. As we engage socially we discover the truth about this. Social action becomes the moment when faith takes on a new life and we sense, in a clearer way, God who, himself gives life.

Discovering God who gives life makes us give life too. We give life. In our social action we see how we collaborate in God’s active life. Jesus has taught this to us: “My Father is at work until now, so I am at work” (Jn.5/17).

Social engagement gives the sense of life, so we say. This means, in more concrete sense, the sense of the future. There is a future in society. There is a future in a world where injustice reigns. No, injustice is not the fate of people. Social engagement is an emphasis on this sense of future.

This “sense of the future” can be a model or reference for Christian social action.  In social action we tell society that our God is a God of the future. Our God pulls us out of contradictions and pulls us out of the hold of darkness. Remember, be of good cheer, Jesus has overcome the world. So there is no victory for darkness, never in the future. Social action invites society to look at its suffering in the light of the resurrection.

Social Action is solidarity. We have a different kind of God—not of power but of weakness and fragility. In terms of representing God in social action we present a God who is himself poor. Jesus himself said it: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me… whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me” (Mt.25/ 35 and 40). Jesus revealed himself as one poor man also hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, ill, in prison. Our engagement with the poor is our engagement with Christ.

To be engaged socially with the poor is itself a way of encountering Christ. God loved the world he sent his son—incarnated into human life and human conditions. This is the incarnation of God’s love for all, especially the poor, the marginalized, the little ones who suffer so much. This is the solidarity of God with humanity. It is God’s participating concretely in our human lives.

Christian social action, therefore, is not exempted from tensions, difficulties and contradictions. Jesus is among the little ones, not among the powerful ones. So Christian action enters into that world of the poor—a world of tensions and contradictions. It is never easy, we know. Engagement is not running away from tension and contradiction. In fact, it is in engaging with the poor where the credibility of the faith is made more manifest.

Social action is a way of saying God is present in real time. Christian social engagement is a witnessing to the fact that God is actually engaged in the concrete history of society. God is concrete. God is true and really is involved. God is someone who accompanies the poor in the search for truth, justice, peace, etc. God’s poverty is marked by retaining nothing for himself. His nature is “giving totally”—the giving of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

In fact, in social engagement, the strongest image of God is that of a mysterious presence each time people take seriously their struggle for justice—when people assume their responsibility to let their society live properly. Suddenly God is revealed!

Remember the prophets. They denounced the hypocrisy of religious practices that went together with the practice of injustice. Amos, for example, even went to say that religious practices were used to justify injustice. Powerful people used religious practices to exploit the poor. The prophets, already during their time, tried to weave together justice and faith.

Now we come to Jesus. In his words and actions, showed something different. Jesus showed the message of the unity between social life and life with God. God is made more present in the life of justice—or in the life of the search for justice. Miracles, as read in the Gospels, were signs of the Kingdom. Christian life, we said, can be miracle whenever it is lived in view of liberating—in view of showing the Kingdom. Christian life—and Christian social action—is a clear expression of the faith in the God who is present in real time. Christian social action is a way of manifesting God in society.

Christian social action is a combat with others, notably with the poor. It is a combat that wishes to make the Kingdom emerge. The way is, again, not easy. But we say it is a combat with. It is a community work—a solidarity with the poor. Together we perceive the truth of the Kingdom. Together we manifest and announce the love of the Father. Together we do our best to live in justice and peace. It is a true combat—not of violence, of course. It is a combat that reflects the Beatitudes of mourning and of peacemaking. We mourn against the darkness of society. We opt to work in terms of peace. 

Some Thoughts on Christian Social Action: Part 2

Think of the poor and think of God. When we say “social doctrine” we might think of documents and statements—mostly from Popes. This time, let us consider a deeper aspect—that of encountering the poor and God. Doctrine is also action—Christian social action. Some central points can be made.

Social engagement, a result of faith

1.       Social engagement is a result of faith. God entered into covenant with humanity, manifesting his concern for us. Because of this we respond. In the heart of our faith we put into concrete ways our attitudes, behaviour, values and actions. We put to concrete expressions our faith. This is how we can appreciate what Pope Benedict entitled his encyclical: “Love in Truth” (Caritas in veritate). The Pope saw how Jesus incarnated and was witness to the love of God in his earthly life…and in his death and resurrection. Love is a great force that makes us move with courage. Let us read the Pope: “Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity. Love — caritas — is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace” (Caritas in veritate 1).

2.       Adhere in Christ, stick it out with Christ. This has a social impact. It means searching for justice and truth. It means searching for the common good. Again we read the Pope: “‘Caritas in veritate’” is the principle around which the Church's social doctrine turns, a principle that takes on practical form in the criteria that govern moral action. I would like to consider two of these in particular, of special relevance to the commitment to development in an increasingly globalized society: justice and the common good” (Caritas in veritate 6). Life is oriented morally in love. Life is pushed to act in justice. Remember what Jesus said: “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Mt.7/21). It is not enough to shout Jesus, Lord, or whatever else. What matters is living correctly.

3.       One way to express this “living correctly” is by showing the light of the Gospel in society. Is my social life coherent? Is it in line with values of the Gospel? Is the social world around me marked by Gospel values? Remember the Gospel is for life—it is for the good and happiness of life. The Gospel has social implications. It inspires attitudes and norms of living. It denounces injustice. The Gospel marks Christian life.

4.       No, the Gospel is not just a story…not just a nice story. It is not just something we hear about separately from concrete life. The Gospel is about the link we have with God—the love of God telling us how to live with true attitudes and values in life.

Social Action as a way of bringing life

5.       Ok, so we live and act according to the love of God. Life is a response to this love of God. There is something more. As we engage socially, we also bring life. God reveals himself as source of life in the heart of human action. Life is set out of confusion and darkness.

6.       God is before us, calling us to action. We can take cue from St. Paul: “Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life” (Rm 6/3-4). There is a “new life”. We discover this new life as we move on and encounter others—the poor. Our baptism is a call to engage in the world and there bring out new life. As we engage socially we discover the truth about this. Social action becomes the moment when faith takes on a new life and we sense, in a clearer way, God who, himself gives life.

7.       Discovering God who gives life makes us give life too. We give life. In our social action we see how we collaborate—or “participate” (in the Thomistic sense)—in God’s active life. Jesus has taught this to us: “My Father is at work until now, so I am at work” (Jn.5/17).

8.       Social engagement gives the sense of life, so we say. This means, in more concrete sense, the sense of the future. There is a future in society. There is a future in a world where injustice reigns. No, injustice is not the fate of people. Social engagement is an emphasis on this sense of future.

9.       This “sense of the future” can be a model or reference for Christian social action.  In social action we tell society that our God is a God of the future. Our God pulls us out of contradictions and pulls us out of the hold of darkness. Remember, be of good cheer, Jesus has overcome the world. So there is no victory for darkness, never in the future. Social action invites society to look at its suffering in the light of the resurrection.

Social Action is the action of a poor God: Solidarity

10.   Now, we speak of the resurrection. Remember that Christ passed through the cross before the resurrection. We have a different kind of God—not of power but of weakness and fragility. In terms of representing God in social action we present a God who is himself poor. Jesus himself said it: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me… whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me” (Mt.25/ 35 and 40). Jesus revealed himself as one poor man also hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, ill, in prison. Our engagement with the poor is our engagement with Christ.

11.   To be engaged socially with the poor is itself a way of encountering Christ. God loved the world he sent his son—incarnated into human life and human conditions. This is the incarnation of God’s love for all, especially the poor, the marginalized, the little ones who suffer so much. This is the solidarity of God with humanity. It is God’s participating concretely in our human lives.

12.   Christian social action, therefore, is not exempted from tensions, difficulties and contradictions. Jesus is among the little ones, not among the powerful ones. So Christian action enters into that world of the poor—a world of tensions and contradictions. It is never easy, we know. Engagement is not running away from tension and contradiction. In fact, it is in engaging with the poor where the credibility of the faith is made more manifest.

Social action as a way of saying God is present in real time

13.   Christian social engagement is a witnessing to the fact that God is actually engaged in the concrete history of society. God is concrete. God is true and really is involved. God is someone who accompanies the poor in the search for truth, justice, peace, etc. God is “pverty”—God retains nothing for himself. His nature is “giving totally”—the giving of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

14.   In fact, in social engagement, the strongest image of God is that of a mysterious presence each time people take seriously their struggle for justice—when people assume their responsibility to let their society live properly. Suddenly God is revealed!

15.   Remember the prophets. They denounced the hypocrisy of religious practices that went together with the practice of injustice. Amos, for example, even went to say that religious practices were used to justify injustice. Powerful people used religious practices to exploit the poor. The prophets, already during their time, tried to weave together justice and faith.

16.   Now we come to Jesus. In his words and actions, showed something different. Jesus showed the message of the unity between social life and life with God. God is made more present in the life of justice—or in the life of the search for justice. We hinted on this during our class in Christology. Miracles, we said, were signs of the Kingdom. Christian life, we said, can be miracle whenever it is lived in view of liberating—in view of showing the Kingdom. Christian life—and Christian social action—is a clear expression of the faith in the God who is present in real time. Christian social action is a way of manifesting God in society.

17.   Christian social action is a combat with others, notably he poor. It is a combat that wishes to make the Kingdom emerge. The way is, again, not easy. But we say it is a combat with. It is a community work—a solidarity with the poor. Together we perceive the truth of the Kingdom. Together we manifest and announce the love of the Father. Together we do our best to live in justice and peace. It is a true combat—not of violence, of course.

Social Action is ecclesiological

1.       Social action—our Christian social action—is a work of the Church for society. Christian social action is part of Church fidelity to Christ. Let us look at what Pope Benedict XVI would say: “For the Church, charity is not a kind of welfare activity which could equally well be left to others, but is a part of her nature, an indispensable expression of her very being” (Deus Caritas Est 25). It is a Church in communion not just within but with all humanity. The Church suffers with and struggles with all. In this way the image we have of the Church deepens. We are not just a “churchy” Church, but an engaged Church—engaged for the poor. The Church is an assembly—an ekklesia—on the move where each is responsible for others. The Church is a manifestation of our being brothers and sisters to all. We join in fraternity, in solidarity with others, knowing that the presence of Christ is here.

2.       The Church is God’s way of being present in the World. We adhere to Christ in the Church. We are in Christ in the Church. The revelation about Christ is transmitted by the witnessing of the Church. So the Church is with Christ too…passionate for life. So in a way, social action is Church action. It is the Church’s way of responding in faith to the love of Christ and admitting the presence of Christ in the world.

A theological reflection on the ecological issue

In the old times—when our country were still outside the influence of Christianity and Islam—our ancient peoples believed in spirits and other divinities dwelling in rocks and streams and trees. The divinities were part of the world. Our ancient descendants had myths of origins that explained the reasons why there were trees, why there were humans, why there were the things around them. Gods and divinities and nature formed a whole picture of reality. Do not disturb nature—the spirits will be disturbed too. So our very ancient peoples tried to live in parallel with the divinities surrounding them.

But then things have changed especially with the coming of Christianity here. We know that Christianity is marked by Judaism. For this Judea-Christian tradition, God is outside the world. God is beyond the created world—God is the creator. God placed the “domination” of the created world in the hands of the human being. The human can therefore “interfere” in nature. No divinity is disturbed. There is no sacrilege. In fact, by “intervening”—by “mastering over”—the world, the human is fulfilling the mandate given by God. Be master over the created world.

Ok, we know the Genesis creation stories. The human is made in the image and likeness of God. The human is given the charge to be master over the world. Multiply and fill the earth. At one point in Genesis, the human gives names to the beasts—a very “high” status!

Because the human can intervene in the world, something new is presented. It opens the doors to science and technology. As we know science and technology see themselves as having the right to explore the world and even transform it.

Since modernity rose, science and technology have been successful in exploring and transforming the world. For many centuries this never raised a major question as to the validity of the existence of science and technology. But slowly, we begin to feel that “something is wrong” too.

For one, humanity started to see in science the “answer to all problems”. Any problem can be resolved by “scientific approaches”. Yet, science and technology have been very instrumental in massive wars. All we have to do is look back at the atomic bomb in Japan…or the sophisticated wars in Iraq and Kuwait. In other words, science and technology have opened the doors to our self-destruction.

Just look at how we treat nature today. We pollute her. We destroy her. We spend non-renewable resources…we throw them up in waste. Now we say that we need to change our view of the world and our dependency on science and technology.

Let us admit it. In our Christianity we have been so focused on social issues. The place of “nature”  and the issues of “ecology and the environment” have not been so central in our discussions. In fact the Social Doctrine of the Church seems to have looked at the ecology issue only recently. Our reading of Genesis may have even led us to do some extreme activities unfavorable to nature. Multiply, fill the earth, dominate (see Gn 1/28).

In fact we can be criticized for having promoted the ruin of nature. The ecological issue might appear to be more of an “anti-Christian” movement too.

Maybe we, Christians, have been quite distant from the ecological issues. But we too are hit. We might also want to ask if our Genesis reading are favorable to ecology. How well do we understand the Genesis stories of creation?

Let us try some Biblical understanding. The Jews believed in the Lord God as beyond creation and as creator. For them it was ok to intervene in nature without trouble with any divinities. God gave the human the role of “mastering over”. Nature would be “brute nature” without spirits and divinities. So the view of nature was hostile—it was brute nature that had to be tamed.

So “dominate”. Let nature “submit under”. But wait, remember that the Jewish people had faith in the Lord God. So their understanding of “dominating” and putting nature “under” had to put God in the picture too. God had a plan—and so the responsibility of the human was to see to it that the plan was respected. So to dominate and to submit nature did not stop with the human domination. It meant putting nature under the plan of God. Submit it to God’s plan. And what was that plan? It was the plan of happiness—the plan of letting all creation participate in the joy and life of the Lord God. Domination was not brute domination—it had to include respect.

In Genesis we see that the human was given the charge to "dominate" or “be master”….but the human had to “master mastery”. The human was given the charge of being in the likeness of God who took a "Sabbath distance" from creation. There is a limit—the limit of respect—in mastering over nature. The human is, like God, to also take a "Sabbath distance" from domination and mastery over the created world. The human being would then be “steward” of the nature. Nature is not human property. It was simply confided. Genesis 2-3 tell us what happens when the human being becomes auto-god….a god unto oneself. You may eat of all the trees, but there is a limit. The human being has the tendency to go beyond. The human tends to live in the imagination of becoming absolute. But no! God is creator. God is absolute. The human remains creature.

The ecological issue tells us what Genesis 2-3 have already been telling us. We have created a culture that dis-respects nature. We have been trying to be “auto-gods”. The ecological issue really forces us to look at ourselves and how auto-gods we have been trying to be. How can we refuse to listen to the problem when our very own reading of Genesis alerts us to our capacity to destroy?

Ok, so Christianity is so focused on “social issues”. Love one another. Live in justice. But we recognize that ecological respect is also a way of loving one another. We love not just ourselves at this time but also future generations. By ecological respect we show love to the future people.

Anthropologist have an interesting finding about human-cultural evolution. The human started with “hunting-foraging” then moved to horticulture and agriculture…etc. Well, we see how it has also been very human to master over nature. The Bible confirms this. The Bible has confirmed that mastery-domination is human. This mastery does not necessarily put in danger the environment. Never, however, has the Bible said that nature and the environment have become human property. Never has the Bible put us “on top” of the world “looking down on creation”—as that song goes. In fact, just look closely. The Bible affirms how much we are part of the created world—that in us are the minerals and the cellular-animal-biological. We are still part of nature.

We are, let us admit, reflecting and learning. Before the idea of human rights was not so prevalent. Slavery was an accepted practice for many Christians. But slowly we learned. So today we can say we too are learning with the ecological issues.

The ecological issue obliges us to re-read our “foundation” texts—namely the creation stories in Genesis. We may need to be a lot more humble with our stand in the world of nature. The ecological issue may even ask us to re-think what God really wants in the created world.

It is a crisis—this ecological situation. Really, nature is hurting. But as Christians we can look at this with the perspective of Christ. Christ has taught us to live—to really live. Christ has told us that from death life arises—there is the resurrection. The uncertainties of what we face may open up doors of hope.

We can try our best to “die” to harming nature—and be more ecological. We may have to recognize the uncertainty of ecological respect—implying a change in our life styles, like with consumerism, the use of plastic, the use of paper, the “farm mile”, etc. We might need to conform to Christ, die to things that ruin nature—in order to give life again for our contemporaries and our future generations.

To follow Jesus is not just to follow certain doctrines and principles. It is to have a life too. Discipleship is life.

One note that we might need to take seriously. Do we really believe that the resurrection has overcome darkness, death and sin? Do we really accept the fact that there is the fulfillment of all time when God will gather all—not just humanity but the environment? Ever since Christ has “won”, nothing else can win—no death, no darkness, no sin, and no absolute destruction of nature. In Christ we know that human history is not vain. Maybe we need to be clear with this. Maybe the reason why we disrespect nature is because we are not so convinced that Christ has won. We still feel the need to “appropriate” nature and make her our property. We throw plastics in the street. We destroy our corals. We pollute our esteros. We waste our waters. We really need to look at these and many more.

As Christians we can dialogue with those who are ecologically interested in nature. No, we are not “dominators”. Our faith does not promote the wild domination and mastery over nature. We too love nature and we see nature in the light of God’s plan and in the light of the redemption offered by Christ.