© 2013 Sola Scriptura. All rights reserved. It is not allowed to download or copy this article.
St. Francis’ Love of Nature The Secret which Cannot be Understood by Modern Atheistic Ecoists
Immanuel Chih-Ming Ke 柯志明
St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) was a man of mystery. He was a fanatical follower of Jesus Christ, so he couldn’t be easily understood by modern ecoists. Perhaps, modern people can slightly conjecture what the spiritual intentions of St. Francis might have been only by humming the song, “The prayer of St. Francis”1. It was written by later generations, but this is quite insufficient to achieve an understanding of Francis’ fanatical enthusiasm, which is beyond our simple understanding, of his will to follow Jesus Christ. Many modern ecoists choose to like him and then to praise him highly. They also choose to separate him from the Christian faith (or orthodox Christian faith); on the one hand, he is exalted to be the patron saint of the environment and of animals, and on the other hand, through him, Christian faith may be criticized because it turns out to be an extremely anthropocentric religion that tramples on nature. However, and unfortunately, Francis would inversely criticize these modern ecoists for their misunderstanding of him, and for their whole misunderstanding of the tenets of Christian faith; most likely, he would declare that they are actually extreme anthropocentricists on their own account and that the root of ecological crisis is hidden in these atheistic modernists’ way of thought and deed. 1
See William Ng ofm’s (伍維烈) “The Peace Prayer which is not Attributed to ‘Francis’” 〈不是「方 濟 各 的 」 和 平 禱 詞 〉 See: http://www.ofm.org.hk/200-Sprituality/ 222- Articles/ 2221Franciscan _Spirituality/wn-peaceprayer.htm
Ke 2
Who is Francis? Why did he have such a profound love of nature? I completely believe that those questions can only be answered through Jesus Christ.
1 Since its publication in the Middle Ages, The Life of St. Francis by St. Bonaventure (1221-1274), the great master theologian of the Franciscan Order, tradition has it that when Francis had begun his novitiate as a young friar, he opened the Holy Gospel three times, randomly but genuinely, and in doing so, found threefold testimony which pointed out his future path: firstly, “‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor,” (Matt. 19.21); secondly, “‘Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even an extra tunic.” (Luke. 9.3); finally, “‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” (Matt.16.24). Perhaps this happened when Francis, Bernard of Quintavalle, and Peter Catani went to the church of St. Nicolas in April 16, 1209. Francis declared joyfully that these are the Life and Rules of those who shall wish to join the Order, and thus the Order of the Franciscan was born2. No matter whether this was true or not, Francis’ life certainly lived up to these three passages of order. In order to fully understand Francis, one must understand these three verses in their entirety and how they guided his life so deeply. In order to enter the world of Francis’ life, one must believe in these three commands which were first delivered by Jesus Christ. However, the way that Francis flipped through the Gospels and sought out God’s divine instructions alone is often despised by modern people—they must upbraid it for its mere irrationality—, not to mention that they will 2
See St. Bonaventure. 1978. The Life of Ft. Francis. New Jersey: Paulist Press, pp.200-201. And Ugolino di Monte Santa Maria. 1998. The Little Flowers of St. Francis of Assisi. New York: Random House, Inc. p. xxxv.
Ke 3
believe that the Bible is God’s word. This is the threshold which is difficult to crossover for those contemporary individuals who truly want to understand Francis’ life. But, there is something that is surprising. Many modern atheists, and even antichrists, claim that they are willing to advocate the ecological spirit of Francis’ love for all things. How do they advocate it in such a regard? What exactly are they going to advocate? Do they know what this man Francis indicates? Francis is not merely a person, but a way of life, a kind of lifestyle; that is, the life style which was transpired from that of Jesus Christ; no, actually he was a man of another world, and he didn’t belong to this world. Therefore, even if modern ecoists have chosen to put in a good word for Francis, Francis is still a mystery to them. He remains a far-off and inscrutable mystery yet to be fathomed. It is impossible. Yes, it is impossible for them to understand Francis for whom and what he is, even though they often utilize Francis for their own nefarious ends to criticize the Christianity that they profess to dislike and even to loathe. As a matter of fact, unless you believe in Jesus Christ and thus to understand the Christian faith, you cannot otherwise believe and then to understand Francis, and his unusual behavior regarding the natural world—that is, his inconceivable love of nature and all therein, though these were not all the words and deeds that he puts into his practice of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
2 Jesus Christ did not show an openly apparent love of nature because this is not the emphasis of the Gospels. However, obviously, Francis’ love of nature was a natural extension of the love of self-renunciation evidenced in Jesus Christ. Francis did not exceed Jesus Christ in word or in deed, and he never thought to exceed him
Ke 4
in such ways; and still yet, it is impossible to exceed Jesus Christ. No, Francis is the follower of Jesus Christ, and a follower with all his heart; he followed closely behind Jesus Christ that he did not exceed or fall behind Jesus Christ’s footsteps. It is precisely that Francis followed Jesus Christ that he clearly manifested a love for the kind of self-renunciation practiced by Jesus Christ; that is exactly why his words and deeds are so hard to understand, especially for those modern people. This is why Francis was so “mystical.” Since the Gospels recording the words and deeds of Jesus Christ are so often regarded as a myth by modern people, it is rather unavoidable to think that the words and deeds of Francis who being “a knight of Christ”3 would have anything more than mythical signification. Therefore,
the
incomprehensibility
incomprehensibility of
Christian
of
faith—that
Francis is,
it
originates
from
the
originates
from
the
incomprehensibility of Jesus Christ in the first place. You think. Is it harder to believe there is a God in heaven, or is it harder to believe there was Francis on earth? Is it harder to believe God created all things, or is it harder to believe Francis preached to the fish and birds? Is it harder to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the incarnated God, or to believe that Francis abandoned wealth in order to become a lowly friar? Is it harder to believe Christ calmed the storm upon the seas, or is it harder to believe that Francis tamed the ferocious wolf of Gubbio and then asked him to repent? Is it harder to believe that Jesus Christ cured the scabrous lepers, or to believe that Francis embraced the lepers with his own body? Francis’ inconceivability, mystery, unnaturality, counter-human nature and offensiveness cannot be more than Jesus Christ and the Christian faith which is founded upon him. In fact, modern people might choose to like Francis more than Jesus Christ, thus it is clear that Jesus Christ is far more inscrutable and offensive than Francis.
3
St. Bonaventure. The Life of St. Francis, p. 188, 189.
Ke 5
Jesus Christ is a stumbling-stone that all the offensiveness of this world gathers upon him. Thus, unless you can possibly surmount the notion of a crucified Jesus Christ, you cannot accept Francis’ love of nature, not to mention to understand it to any significant extent. We can conclude that if one cannot understand the Christian faith which is centered upon Jesus Christ, one cannot understand Francis’ selfless enthusiasm; if one cannot understand that God created all things, one cannot understand Francis’ love of nature; if one cannot understand the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, one cannot understand why Francis was able to convert a ferocious wolf, preach to fish and birds, and call the sun, the moon, and the stars by such names as brother and sister. However, on the contrary, even if you do understand Francis to some extent, you may still not completely understand Jesus Christ and why he himself is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14.6). In contrast with Jesus Christ, Francis was known to be finite and sinful. In front of God, he was just a poor and sinful man who needed redemption like anyone else. The inscrutable words and deeds attributed to him were just a small portion of the abundant life of Jesus Christ, but this portion is sufficient enough to still astonish modern ecoists, and to make them rush on to follow the example Francis had set in his own lifetime.
3 We often hear the story of the close relationship that exists between humans and animals, or nature in general; especially, there are some extraordinary stories that record how animals do good things with humans, assist humans, and then outdo millions of humans in every possible way. What surprises us most in these tales is that these animals are actually full of spirit and love; they are more obedient to humans than humans are to others of their own kind, and they care for humans more compassionately than humans do for themselves. When compared to these
Ke 6
“spiritual” animals, humans seem more like the uninspired animals lacking in spirituality; indeed, it may be said that, humans are “inferior to beasts” (i.e. beasts have no fault, but to be inferior to beasts is considered to be a human failing). These stories remind us that we should not look down on animals, and should not treat them with random cruelty, injury and slaughter; on the contrary, we should respect them. As for those who regard animals and plants or mountains, waters, and peculiar stones as animistic totems of faith, and for those who think the entire natural world is filled with spirits, they worship them as their gods. Worshipers of idolatrous spirits, gods and ghosts are ubiquitous. However, if “Francis” could become “St. Francis”, as well as to become the patron saint of ecology, it would absolutely not be because of how he miraculously dominated nature, but how he loved nature, or, how he loved God through his love of nature. Therefore, what we read about Francis in biographies and in legends are not about the above-mentioned miraculous events involving animals that are attributed to his sainthood. Instead, it is quite the opposite. It is about the miraculous events of Francis’ life that must be celebrated; animals in the biography of Francis are ordinary creatures, but Francis is no ordinary person. Hence, to say that Francis is so clearly heretical or full of heretical spirit4 is a superficial fallacy drawn from a basic misunderstanding. These words manifest that the speaker does not understand Francis fully, nor does he understand the Christian faith. No, Francis embodies the spirit of Jesus Christ, the teaching of the Gospels—that is, to regard all things as the creation of God, the Father; this world is the home where God places all things at His command. It is true that only Christian faith gives birth to the likes of Francis; only the love of Christ’s emptied-self give birth to Francis’ whole love of nature. I completely agree with G.K. Chesterton
4
Lynn White, Jr.. 2000. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” in The Care of Creation: Focusing Concern and Action. ed. by R. J. Berry. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, p. 42, 42.
Ke 7
(1874-1936), a genius of Christian apologetics; in his Saint Francis of Assisi (1923), when he says, “The flowers and stars have recovered their first innocence. Fire and water are felt to be worthy to be the brother and sister of a saint. The purge of paganism is complete at last.” For him, until Francis, “Man has stripped from his soul the last rag of nature-worship, and can return to nature.”5 Therefore, it is exactly because Francis knew well that nature isn’t ghosts and gods, nature is not worth the worshipful attentions, and nature is not the origin of life; in sum, nature is not God, so he could love nature with such innocence and enthusiasm, and turned sun, moon, and stars, wind, rain, water, and fire, flowers, herbs, and trees, worms, fish, birds, and beasts into his brothers and sisters. For Francis knew well that nature has the same origin as humans have: both of them are created by God and loved by God, so Francis loved them and requested them to praise God in communion with him. Yes, the creation must praise God and extol their Creator because nature originates directly from God. This is precisely the standpoint of Biblical teachings. What Francis revealed is a biblical doctrine which is often ignored, or neglected at best. Let us listen to Francis’ “Canticle of Brother Sun” (II Cantico di frate Sole). Francis praised God aloud:
Most High, all-powerful, all-good Lord, All praise is Yours, all glory, all honour and all blessings. To you alone, Most High, do they belong, 5
G. K. Chesterton. 2002. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis of Assisi, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, p. 214. Chesterton’s judgment is completely opposite to Lynn White’s. He considers the purest love of nature is possible only when the heretical worship of nature is destroyed. For Chesterton, the heretical ghosts and gods that hide behind nature cannot themselves protect nature, but the “devils” which veil the human mind and thus cause humans not to see the purest aspects of nature. He states, “The early Church called the gods of paganism devils; and the Early Church was perfectly right.” See the previous reference, p. 209.
Ke 8 Â
And no mortal lips are worthy to pronounce Your Name.
Praised be You my Lord with all Your creatures, Especially Sir Brother Sun, Who is the day through whom You give us light. And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendour, Of You Most High, he bears the likeness.
Praised be You, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars, In the heavens you have made them bright, precious and fair.
Praised be You, my Lord, through Brothers Wind and Air, And fair and stormy, all weather’s moods, By which You cherish all that You have made.
Praised be You my Lord through Sister Water, So useful, humble, precious, and pure.
Praised be You my Lord through Brother Fire, Through whom You light the night And he is beautiful and playful and robust and strong.
Praised be You my Lord through our Sister, Mother Earth Who sustains and governs us, Producing varied fruits with coloured flowers and herbs.
Ke 9
Praise be You my Lord through those who grant pardon For love of You and bear sickness and trial.
Blessed are those who endure in peace, By You Most High, they will be crowned.
Praised be You, my Lord through Sister Death, From whom no-one living can escape. Woe to those who die in mortal sin! Blessed are they She finds doing Your Will. No second death can do them harm.
Praise and bless my Lord and give Him thanks, And serve Him with great humility.
Neither do I think that modern ecoists who are antichrists can really understand Francis’s “Canticle of the Creatures” (Laudes Creaturarum); nor do I believe that they can discern the real ecological thought of Francis through a careful reading of it. The reason for this is very simple. This canticle is a Christian’s praise to God, who was revealed in the Bible as a loving God, whom he believes in and loves with humble devotion. Thus, those who cannot identify with Francis’s brand of faith cannot possibly understand the meaning of his praise. Let us see the real meaning taken from this canticle. First of all, there is a Creator who is the Most High, all-powerful, and omni-benevolent. He is so transcendental and holy that no mortal is worthy of even
Ke 10
calling His name, and thus all the praise, glory, and prestige should be ascribed to Him alone. Do the modern ecoists believe in such a God’s very existence? They don’t find this God in the universe they inhabit, but Francis recognizes this God from the words found in Biblical scripture. Are those modern ecoists who have come to praise Francis willing to praise the same God who is praised by Francis? Are the ecoists willing to listen to the words of the Bible in silent humility and with an open heart? Secondly, God should be praised with His creatures. Yes. Humans are supposed to praise God because He creates all things, and also He makes humans exist and makes us benefit from His creatures. Thus, anyone who loves life and existence are supposed to praise God. To praise God signifies that they have received grace, signifies that their very existence cannot be taken for granted, signifies that all things created by God are good, and signifies that humans should ascribe unto God all the glory He deserves. Therefore, on the contrary, those who do not choose to praise God are ungrateful and show marked ingratitude. The question remains, are those modern ecoists willing to praise God? Do they know that it is considered to be conceited, arrogant, and ungrateful if they don’t praise their Creator? Thirdly, all creatures belong to God. God has the ultimate sovereignty and ownership of all the existence because He is the Creator. Certainly, humans also belong to God, and thus anthropocentrism and egocentrism must be wrong as a result of this recognition. It is a sin to offend God’s ultimate sovereignty. Are those modern ecoists who may possibly criticize anthropocentrism of their own accord willing to admit, and then to submit, to the ultimate sovereignty of God? Fourthly, this canticle praises God through the praise of His creatures; in other words, we know God deserves praising because His creatures deserve praising in their turn. So, who will praise the creatures? Those who love them. We are very sure
Ke 11
that a person who doesn’t love God’s creatures will not praise them and thus will not praise God. Therefore, it is clear that only those who love the creatures God has made with one’s whole heart have remotest the possibility of praising God. For modern people who have eco-awareness, the most precious thing Francis provides is that he loved the creatures which would not be noticed and cared for by the general populace, and that he would recognize their inherent goodness. Fifthly, what is most astonishing is that Francis calls those creatures that he praises by the name of brother and sister. This implies that Francis regards this world as his home (oikos) which is created by God, and thus he recognizes the relationship between him and the creatures as his very own brothers and sisters. Humans and these creatures have a very close relationship. The key factor of their close relationship is not only due to the inter-relationship or mutual dependency they share in terms of ecology and existence, but it is more because they are created by the same God; that is, they share the same heavenly Father. This is the key point to understand the canticle. In my view, to understand the fraternal and sororital relationship
only
through
the
limited
ecological
conceptionalization
of
“connectivity,” “mutuality,” or “interdependence” is a superficial view that fails to grasp the main point of what Francis has to offer. Sixthly, in this canticle, what is praised by Francis includes: Sun, moon, stars, wind, air, cloud, storm, weather, water, fire, earth, and those who grant pardon, and those who endure sickness, trial, and who endure in peace, and finally the death of body. The rank order of praise started from heaven to the earth, and then to some people, and finally to the death of humanity itself. What is interesting is that Francis does not praise organisms which includes animals and plants, but praises inorganic substances, that is, the material environment that sustains organic life; Francis doesn’t praise everyone, but praises those who are willing to grant pardon and
Ke 12
endure sickness and trials due to God’s love; Francis doesn’t praise human life directly, instead he praises human death. Why doesn’t Francis praise the organism or human life? That which is not praised by Francis does not mean that they are unworthy of praise, and it does not indicate that he does not know they are worthy of praise either. In my estimation, Francis does not praise the living because they are often praised and there is no need to repeat others’ acts of praise. Instead, he wants to praise those we often neglect, and even those we would not choose to praise, for instance, the storm or those who endure the suffering of sickness, especially unto death. Francis’s praise seems to remind us just one thing, that is, the things that we often deem as ordinary or bad in our lives are actually meaningful to us. They are given to us from God, and have some profound meaning intrinsic to them. Therefore, Francis’s canticle is to criticize those who take their own existence for granted and those who maintain an egocentric attitude about themselves. He wants to tell us that nothing should ever be taken for granted, and even the thing which is deemed to be bad by humans can be seen to have value in God’s eyes. It is such that, even though death is repulsive to people, we should still value its importance. This praise does not stem from, nor does it blindly follow, token customs. The fact that it does not repeat what other people say is the genuine expression of non-anthropocentrism. Seventhly, there is no such word as “nature,” and there is no thought about “nature” in Francis’s praise because all deserves to be praised that is created by God, and they are not natural. Obviously, in the view of Francis, nothing that is worthy of praising is to be considered as natural. Everything is created by God. Greece was unknown to Francis. There is hardly any Greek thought in his mind so he doesn’t know what it is to exist naturally and to grow and change naturally. This is a warning to anyone who wants to identify with Francis’s way of thinking and to praise him, but does not identify with his faith. Francis could not exist without God; no, he could
Ke 13
not exist without the Father God of Jesus Christ. Eighthly, in the end, Francis does not praise death as it exists in the natural world, but instead he praises human death without any implication of ecology in it. The attempt of approving and then interpreting Francis’ praise of death through ecology is to be done in vain, and it would also signify a great misunderstanding. Francis does not have the slightest implication to urge us to regard death as having an inseparable link with our lives; no, he does not talk about the occurrence of death in nature, but of human death. In such an appraisal, Francis tells us that death holds sway over the human body, for no living person is able to escape from its embrace. However, why is it worth praising? It is because death brings disaster to the wicked, and brings blessings to whomsoever does the will of God. It also makes them break away from the real death (the second death). Certainly, death is good because it terminates the life of the wicked and their evil deeds, but it also terminates the lifetime of the righteous’ tribulation and makes them enter into the eternal life in the hereafter. As such, death is imbued with the implication of eternal judgment. It claims the position of distinguishing the sinful from the righteous and the very nature of their possible end. I don’t think this is the same sort of praise that is meant to be uttered by modern ecoists. Likewise, I do not believe this is the same understanding of death found by modern atheistic naturalists. To wish to approve the value of death in nature through Francis’s praise of death is a great misunderstanding as to the meaning of Francis’s meaning in praise of death.
4 Francis is a true Christian which explains why he could have such consistent and plentiful love for all things. He loves humans, and in the meantime, he loves nature. Or, he loves nature with his love given to humans, especially to the poor and
Ke 14
the weak. This is why Francis is not to be considered a heretic, and it is why Francis is “un-modern” in so many ways. Those ecoists who talk glibly about man’s conservation of nature are often the haters of humanity (or at least they deprecate humans). They often nourish their love of nature through their hatred and disdainfulness of humans. It seems they must devaluate humans just so they can cherish and elevate nature. Or, their cherishing of nature implies their devaluation and hatred of humanity itself. Truly, if such ecoists were to have to choose between humans and nature, it is possible that they will abandon humans. But Francis is not so. He loves nature, and he also humans. Most importantly, he always loves in the most appropriate way: he loves humans as they are humans and loves nature as it is nature, and his love is always pure and good. Thus, he does not identify with the whole of nature as in the way he does not identify solely on the side of humanity. It is patent that he does not deny that there are sin and ugliness to be found in nature as it is easy to observe that humans have sins and ugliness on their own account. Therefore, no matter whether his love is directed to humans or to nature, Francis always stands by the weak, the easily-injured, and the kindhearted. He does not identify with sins, bullying, and harmful acts to others; so, that is exactly why he wants the ferocious wolf to repent himself of his ways, and curses the sow which bit a lamb to death. The story in which Francis converts the fierce wolf of Gubbio has a profound meaning.6 For modern ecoists and animal rights activists, it is only natural that the wolf must act out by hurting humans and humans’ domestic animals for its sustenance. There is nothing of right or wrong in it, and there is nothing to do with morality in its telling.7 But Francis sees the sin of the wolf and he clearly tells it its 6
The story that Francis converts the fierce wolf of Gubbio, see footnote 2, Ugolino di Monte Santa Maria. The Little Flowers of St. Francis of Assisi, pp.47-50. 7 Rolston says, an alligator that eats humans is not being unfair or unjust because this is the behavior
Ke 15
sin. Of course, perhaps the sin of the wolf is a reaction to humans; the wolf has no recourse but to hurt the humans because the humans had hurt it first. But no matter what the reason, for Francis, the wolf should not harm humans and their domestic animals. The wolf commits a crime of bestial violence, and there is hatred between the wolf and humans. The wolf and humans have the greatest enmity for one another. This is Francis’s point of view. Therefore, he wants the wolf to repent of its sins, and he requires the humans, on their part, to accept the repentant wolf. Without sin, why is there a need for repentance? Without hatred, why is there a need of reconciliation? Francis requires the wolf and the human inhabitants of Gubbio to accept one another in Christ’s name and promise not to hurt each other in the future; thus and henceforth, they are to live in peace with each other until the wolf died at an advanced age in the city of Gubbio. Francis’s work of the reconciliation between the wolf and the humans shows that there was hatred between the wolf and the humans prior to his intercession. They needed reconciliation, and most importantly, they had the ability to reconcile and reason to reconcile with each among each other. Some people say that Francis domesticated the wolf by converting it into a dog in order to cohabit with human society. It was not done with the intention of transforming the wolf into a form humans will like or need, but to make humans reconcile with the wolf, and to make them break away with their own sins and the hostility of a relationship. What is more astonishing is that Francis also cursed a sow which bit a lamb that follows its very nature. See Homles Rolston III. 1988. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, P. 81. In other words, it has nothing to do with a moral problem. Since it is so, it is inappropriate to make a moral judgment or to impose on it moral actions to the detriment of nature. Tom Regan also considers that animal behaviors have nothing to do with morality, he says, “since animals, because they are not moral agents, cannot be guilty” (p.290); also, “Because they are not moral agents, they can neither do what is right nor what is wrong; like human moral patients, therefore, animals can do anything that merits treatment that is prima facie violative of their rights” (p.295). See Tom Regan. 2004. The Case for Animal Rights, California University Press. According to their point of view, they criticize that Francis’s behavior is inappropriate, but Francis will not agree with their viewpoints. For Francis, the stronger hurts the weaker or the innocent should not exist and must be changed.
Ke 16
unto death.8 Modern ecoists will accuse Francis of anthropocentrism, to project the interpersonal relationship on to the supposed relationship between the sow and the lamb. Then, what an innocent lamb! However, Francis recognized the inherent nature of Jesus Christ in the weakness of the lamb, and recognized the evilness in the powerful sow which bit the lamb unto death. He couldn’t stand that this “impious beast” killed that innocent lamb which resulted in his cursing it in a way that no humans or beasts would ever eat of her, so that she died without purpose or favor. Obviously, nature is not innocent and guiltless from the viewpoint of Francis, no, there is sin in nature, and animals have committed evil deeds, so that they need to change and repent of their ways. Francis will not place doubt on the edict of God—from every animal and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life (Genesis 9.5)—as modern ecoists are wont to do. It is thus clear that Francis’ love of nature reflects God’s love, that is, the pure love which does not allow for sin. This cannot be understood by modern, materialistic ecoists who approve all things in nature completely. Francis loves God, humans, and nature, but he loves God most, who loves the world in Jesus Christ, so that he could love humans and nature to such an extent. Indeed, his love comes from God which makes him an enemy of all modern natural atheists and materialists who claim to care so much for and about nature. Aha, just as with Jesus Christ who went before, Francis is their stumbling block. These atheistic naturalists are often found utilizing Francis to taunt, to ridicule, and to deride the Christian faith; but, as a matter of fact, Francis is the greatest challenge and threat to them. They eagerly look forward to a day without Francis because Francis, no matter what they may think, is classified as a “heretic” who is close to them in nature. But, Francis after all is a Christian, and undoubtedly a Christian who loves God foremost
8
See St. Bonaventure. The Life of St. Francis, p.255.
Ke 17
as the most faithful and enthusiastic of followers of Jesus Christ. It is impossible for Francis to accept “nature” without an unconditional acceptance of a Creator.
5 Francis’s avowed poverty is perhaps the most significant criticism on modern people, and perhaps this is the point which signifies the most ecological meaning. In fact, the ecological crisis did not originate from Christian faith, but from the ego-centrism of humans, who want to have possession of everything and control everything, which is behavior denounced by Christian faith. If modern people do not intend to control everything, in that case the world will not suffer from the sort of unlimited devastation wrought by humans; if modern people do not have an avaricious heart, in that case the Earth will not be reckoned as mere repository of “resources” and suffer from heartless degradation and pillage; if modern people are not greedy for material wealth in the way they are, nature would not be completely devastated and denuded by the capitalists; in sum, if humans were to be content with the state of poverty that Francis was so accustomed to, in that case the Earth would be emancipated from the tyranny of human oppression. The modern ecological crisis is indeed the result of anthropocentrism, but anthropocentricism is in turn the result of human egocentricity. Egocentricity is the root of all sins. As long as egocentricity exists, anthropocentricism must exist. As long as egocentricity exists, the disappearance of anthropocentricism is impossible. But being a self, a self who bears the root of original sin, it is impossible for humans to be anything other than self-centered except for how it pertains to self substitutes. The self is not self-centered, or to be more precise, to be resolutely possible only after one throws oneself into another larger self—the self that surpasses all of one’s own self. Therefore, the teaching of the Bible is, unless humans center themselves on
Ke 18
God, it will be hitherto impossible for humans not to be egocentric. Humans must lose their self by virtue of Jesus Christ, and then it will be possible for humans not to be egocentric. All those who claim to have freed themselves of egocentricity without the assistance of Jesus Christ are liars who deceive themselves as well as deceive others. Their “non-self” is, in fact, more deceitful and more resolutely egocentric than without the practice of dissimilitude. It is precisely for this reason that the Bible repeatedly reminds us to humble ourselves because humility indicates non-egocentricity, and that is, to center ourselves upon God’s teachings and to live according to God’s will. A humble person does not have self and will before God and submits to God’s will completely. However, if a person does not face the crucified Jesus Christ, one cannot really face God, and thus one cannot be truly humbled as a result. One is not humble in the face of other people, or even in contact with other creatures; one is humble only in the face of God; true humility only exits in the face of God. For Christian faith, the first consciousness of humbleness is to have a profound understanding that we are sinful people who betray God. Thus, to have a consciousness of humbleness is to have a consciousness of sin. On one occasion, a friar asked Francis what he thought of himself. Francis replied, “I see myself as the greatest of sinners.”9 It is exactly because of the consciousness of his sin, Francis is willing to renounce his self and submit to God so “selflessly.” This is the humility that is portrayed of Francis, the humility in the face of God, but it is not the humility for which he thinks he is equal to all things in Creation. There is another occasion, when Francis was asked what it is to be considered as “truly obedient”, he says:
9
St. Bonaventure. The Life of St. Francis, p. 234.
Ke 19
Take a corpse . . . and put it where you will! You will see that it does not resist being moved, nor murmur about its position, nor protest when it is cast aside. If it is placed on a throne, it will not raise its eyes up, but cast them down. If it is clothed in purple, it will look twice as pale. This . . . is a truly obedient man. He does not judge why he is moved; he does not care where he is placed; he does not insist on being transferred. If he is raised to an office, he retains his customary humility. The more he is honored, the more unworthy he considers himself.10
Yes, a submissive person is like a corpse without self-consciousness. Indeed, a person without self is a “dead person,” a “dead person” in the face of God; for humans, he is alive, but he dies for Jesus Christ. If humans do not die in such manner, the disappearance of anthropocentricism is therefore impossible.
6 Francis does not possess self, thus he is most content with his poverty. However, the man of poverty is not a man who does not own a thing in the world, but a man of “non-self.” Poverty is not to own a thing in the world by appearance, but instead it is the inherent state of self-abandonment. Only those who are willing to abandon everything can become poor, and can be truly poor. Thousands upon thousands of people in this world do not own a thing in this world, as a result of societal forces and imposed fate. It is not because they are willing to be so. Thus they want to take possession of any material thing whenever they get the chance to do so. Such a person would not love the poor, and would not sympathize with the poor. On the contrary, they despise the poor and look down upon the weak. Once they become the
10
St. Bonaventure. The Life of St. Francis, p. 232.
Ke 20
rich, they will inversely oppress the poor in their own right. Most of the poor in the world belong to this category. No, they are not the real poor, though they seem to be because they do not own a thing in the world by appearance. We should love these people. We have to assist those people, to help out those people with our donations of money or food, but we must remember they are not the real poor. The real poor are those who are “poor in spirit; (Matt. 5.3) as Jesus Christ says, so the real poor think they own nothing in the world, and that they are totally devoid of any merit, that is, sinful people who need to gain God’s pardon and salvation. Such people are, at the same time, mournful, meek, hungry and thirsty for righteousness, merciful, pure-in-heart, peaceful, persecuted for their righteousness, and even reviled and persecuted. They have had false witness brought against them with all kinds of evil utterances on account of their association with Jesus Christ (Matt. 5.4-11); that is, they are the disciples who believe in Jesus Christ and follow him. Yes, only those who follow Jesus Christ are the real poor because only those who really follow Jesus Christ will deny themselves so completely, and only those who deny themselves in such a way are the poor. Francis’s purity and kindhearted demeanor were not determined by his love of the poor, for he himself was the poor; his real commitment was not to assist the poor, but to let himself become the poor—a poor man who needed to beg from God all the time. All those who choose to imitate Francis and purposely let themselves become the ones who have no possessions in this world by appearance, and even set up a system according to this end by making this become a rule and forcing people to become the same “poor” by appearance, misunderstand Francis’s innate sense of poverty. As long as one is egocentric, has a little self-righteousness and self-complacency, and has a little self-consciousness, one is not able to commit to Jesus Christ, one is not poor no
Ke 21
matter how one is in want of everything by appearance. No, poverty is not to own nothing in this world by appearance. Poverty is not self-complacent, not self-righteous, and not self-centered; poverty is a willingness to deny self, take up one’s own cross, and be crucified along with Christ. What the modern world lacks is such kind of poor people who do not appear to become empty-handed through depredation, oppression, and exploitation. Indeed, the modern world needs more people of poverty in spirit, but not less in terms of wealth. Therefore, it is often that those who like to extol Francis’s virtues do not have the spirit of Francis even though the Franciscan Order does not. They are conceited and arrogant, narrow-minded, short-sighted and mean-spirited; their hearts stay closely to the ground without transcendental spirit, and they cannot flee from this material world because they despise the Jesus Christ of the New Testament and despise the God told of in the Bible. It is impossible for them to understand Francis, and it is even more improbable for them to love Francis because they do not know the real Francis. They judge Francis by appearance, but without knowing his inherent nature. In fact, anyone who loves this world and devotes oneself zealous to the affairs of this world without knowing of the existence of God, does not love God, is not the real poor, and thus it is not the real Franciscan who understands and follows Francis.
7 St. Bonaventure’s The Life of St. Francis connects the inconceivable events that Francis does with nature with his “piety” (pietas). Obviously, for Bonaventure, Francis was able to love nature because of his piety11. Piety is the sum of all love, 11
Lynn White considers the key to an understanding of Francis is in his belief in the virtue of humility. He states, Francis intended to depose humans from monarchy over creation and to set up a democracy of all God’s creatures because of his virtue of humility. See, Lynn White, Jr.. 2000. “The Historical
Ke 22
commitment, obedience, loyalty, belief, and reverence to God. Briefly, a pious person loves God with all one’s heart. Because of complete love, one is able to have a complete commitment, obedience, loyalty, belief, and reverence; thus, through everything, one sees God and recognizes the boundless love which He reveals in Jesus Christ. On account of the piety, Francis deeply loved all things God created. Therefore, as Bonaventure stated, “Through his virtue he was attached to all things in spiritual love, especially to souls redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ”12; and further said, “When he considered the primordial source of all things, he was filled with even more abundant piety, calling creatures, no matter how small, by the name of brother or sister, because he knew they had the same source as himself.”13 Francis knew well that “nature” is not natural, but as God’s creation, thus, he could love any creation because of his piety to God, for nature reflected God’s greatness, mystery, and love. His piety made him get across the limitations set between humanity and nature, and made him able to connect with non-human lives, and even made him able to change the ferocious beast. It is not because Francis had supernatural power, but because of his piety to God that he could commune with nature. It is as the uncorrupted Adam, that he could call the birds and beasts to come before him. But, it was because of his piety he cursed the sow that bit a lamb unto death for when he saw the poor lamb, he thought immediately of God’s own Lamb, Jesus Christ. I agree with what St. Bonaventure said, “Truly this is the virtue that unites all Roots of our Ecological Crisis,” in The Care of Creation, pp.41-42. Obviously, for Lynn White, Francis loved nature or respected nature because of the spirit of humility so that he regarded humans and all things to be equal. However, this understanding of humility is imprecise. The humility of Christian faith is not determined by the relationship between humans and all things, and does not lie in whether humans can dominate all things, but depends on whether humans can deem themselves as nothing before God, and realize that they are sinful people who truly need the redemption of Jesus Christ. Humble people seek for redemption, but not the ecological democracy which implies that all things are equal in earthly status. 12 St. Bonaventure. The Life of St. Francis, p. 250. 13 St. Bonaventure. The Life of St. Francis, pp. 254-255.
Ke 23
creatures in brotherhood and is helpful for all things since it had the promise of the present life and of the life to come.”14 How can modern people who do not have such piety towards God understand Francis’s boundless love of nature? How is it possible for them to bring benefit to nature of their own accord? How is it possible for them to give any promise to nature? Francis’s piety to Jesus Christ and his Father God is the entire secret of Francis’ love of nature.
8 Look, a man who did not care about material needs to such an extent, to one’s surprise, loved this material world fervently! A man who was short of animalism to such an extent, to one’s surprise, cared for animals to such an extent! A man who was so unnatural, to one’s surprise, loved nature to such an extent! But this is the entire secret of Francis’s love of nature. Paradoxically, if Francis did not make light of his own life, he could not have loved all lives to such an extent; if Francis did not make light of his own need, he would not have made much of other people’s needs to such an extent; if Francis did not dislike the world, he could not have loved the world to such an extent; if Francis did not negate nature to such an extent, he could not have approved of nature in such a way. It is precisely because he was not an animal, so he could love animals; it is because he was not a creature in terms of biological or ecological function, so he could love all creatures; it is because he was unnatural, so he could love nature. He was so special and dialectical, so that he was so poor that he was able to love all the poor, and so wealthy that he disdained all the wealth in its turn. This is the dialecticism of Francis; that is, the dialecticism of Jesus Christ. This dialectic is precisely the manifestation of the enigmatic love originated from Jesus Christ. 14
St. Bonaventure. The Life of St. Francis, p. 261.
Ke 24
Notice that Francis’s love of nature is not based on ecology or any modern precepts of science because he knew nothing about them; but, this is precisely the simplest and most solid point of Francis’ love of nature to be had. Francis loved nature because of the eternal love, that is, God loves the world, to be more precisely, it should be God’s love to the world in Jesus Christ. The unquestionable love which flows out of the cross of Jesus Christ is the primordial source and bedrock of Francis’ ceaseless love towards the created nature. This love is so firm and solid, so powerful and thorough, that it completely prevails over a natural science founded upon statistics and induction. What the sciences can be sure of remains as induced inference, which by itself is indefinite. Francis, on the other hand, directly received certainty from his simple faith in the truth and power to love the world. The “Canticle of the Creatures,” as a matter of fact, surpasses thousands and thousands of miscellaneous theses and scientific tomes produced by modern ecoists in defense of nature. For me, Francis’s simple belief in nature and his profound love of nature is in fact the secret that is incomprehensible to the modern aesthetic ecoists, isn’t it?