“You shall not Steal”

“You shall not Steal”:

Theological Reflections on the Ownership of Nature

(A Brief Response to “Who shall be Praised? An Offensive Response to

the Documentary Film, Home” by Dr. Immanuel Chih-Ming Ke)

Prisca Ya-Chi Chiu

You shall not steal. (Exodus 20.15)

What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift? Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Quite apart from us you have become kings! Indeed, I wish that you had become kings, so that we might be kings with you! (Corinthians 4.7-8)

W

e have experienced the wonderment of Earth and watched the Earth’s most amazing landscapes through the stunning visual portrayal of Earth, Home; however, “who shall be praised?” Dr. Immanuel Chih-Ming Ke asked. Dr. Ke paid attention to the subtitle of the book, Home: “a hymn to planet and humanity,” which seems to lay emphasis on an optimistic belief in human ability to change environmental crisis of present time; that is, according to Dr. Ke, human “wisdom and virtue to solve environmental problems brought by humans.”

Is it true that humans are capable of solving the problems? Is it true that humans shall be praised?

1

First of all, let us just ask several questions: How did the world come into existence out of nothing? What are the reasons for such a creation? Why are there full of living creatures? Why are there tress bearing plentiful fruits? How do we understand the fertile land which grows varieties of fruits? How do we understand rich and colorful creatures in the ocean? Everything exists in this world does seem to us a profoundest awe.

Is it possible that these miraculous creations created themselves out of nothing? Or is it true that they belong to nobody? According to Dr. Holmes Rolston III, “Maybe a scientist will say it is a given, but a gift must have a giver” (51). If we come into aware of the fact that things must belong to somebody, as gift must have a giver, we will not say these created beings belong to us; if we come into aware of the fact that we don’t really know how they were formed and created, we must restrict ourselves and respect those things which we do not know who they belong to; and of course, we shall not steal. As a matter of fact, humans do not understand themselves. If humans, being part of Nature, do not understand themselves, how do they have complete knowledge of “the other” (“Suffering and the Meaning of Nature” 239), Nature? As a matter of fact, we don’t have the faintest idea why Nature was made like this. Hence, one is led to face the problem of Nature, and must admit that humans are quite ignorant of Nature. If humans do not understand the origin of Nature, how can they say they have the ownership of Nature? These questions are dragging us into a collision with the human occupation and ownership of Nature.

2

Here, there is a very significant theological meaning when confronting Nature, that is: most of the time, humans are self-centered by means of their knowledge. Modern people think that Nature is fathomable to humans because they take it as merely something that they can see with their own eyes and know by their reason; Nature is regarded as something that anyone can understand through scientific methods, experiences, or observation. Nature is simply the Nature that I see, I know, and I experience; that is, Nature is an anthropocentric Nature.[1] Any honest person will deny the conviction that he/she understands Nature for the mystery of Nature has revealed to us that humans can never exhaust the entire meaning of Nature. Let it be sufficient for us to briefly mention some questions:

‘Where were you when I [God] laid the foundation of the 

  earth? . . . .

Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? . . . .
What is the way to the place where the light is distributed,
or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth? (Job 38. 1, 12 & 24)

Were we to attempt to go over the whole subject and list the things we don’t understand about Nature we should never come to an end. According to Dr. Ke, Nature is “the other”: in terms of understanding, humans cannot really understand Nature; with regard to capability, humans are not capable of dominating Nature (“Suffering and the Meaning of Nature” 230); furthermore, concerning existence, the existence of humans is later than the existence of Nature (“Suffering and the Meaning of Nature” 230). Consequently, how is it possible for humans to claim their sovereignty over Nature?

3

Whatever existence exists has an origin, a cause of its existence, an owner. People might ask: if you say we shall not steal things from the owner of Nature, who, then, is the owner? That is, who are we stealing from?

First all of, here we need to reaffirm that, according to Dr. Ke, even though you don’t know who possesses the things, you shall have known that the things belong to someone, as things always belong to someone[2]; that is to say, we can say we don’t know who has the ownership of Nature, but we can’t unscrupulously say that we owns Nature and we can do whatever we want to Nature.

Secondly, obviously Nature cannot belong to humans. In examining our conscience, we must admit that nothing in this world belongs to us. Everything we have is borrowed from the Creator. According to the Bible, “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep” (Genesis 1.1-2). This statement explicitly states that God created the world out of nothing. The world was indeed well created, and the order of it was well arranged; thus anyone who tries to deny the fact of this statement can’t deny the fact that the world must be created by an all-powerful Being; and one must admit that only through an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, this world can be created. The Bible does not vaguely tell us that God created the world, but explains the details of God’s creation. God continues His creation, thus the “earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it” (Genesis 1.12). Furthermore, “God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind” (Genesis 1.12); besides, “God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind” (Genesis 1.25). Eventually, God made humankind in His image, according to His likeness” (Genesis 1.26).

The point here is rather, “Nature originated from God”: “Nature is unnatural; Nature must be sustained”; Nature is given; Nature was created by God (“Ecology is a Science of Home” 292; “The Meaning of Suffering and Nature” 231, 234). If humans deny the existence of God as the Creator, humans will necessarily think they are the highest being in Nature. But, the reality tells us, humans are weak and transient beings. Neither can we humans understand the origin of Nature, nor can we understand the meaning of Nature. Neither can humans comprehend the world beyond the present life, nor can we understand how life began.

As a matter of fact, there is nothing we should feel proud of: even humankind was created by God, how can we say we have the ownership of world? If humans are a created being, how does one exhaust the meaning of one’s own existence? If one can’t exhaust the meaning of one’s own existence, how does one fathom the meaning of Nature, since humans are part of Nature? Since we can’t estimate the mystery of God’s creation, how can we claim those miraculous creation belongs to humans? And how can a created being occupy things of the Creator and steal natural resources from God? Through the reaffirmation of God’s sovereignty over the world, we, consequently, can be more certain than ever that the knowledge we have of Nature is not comprehensive enough to exhaust the inner meaning of it, and we can be more certain than ever that Nature isn’t our own possession.

God is the creator of the world, but humans think arrogantly that the world has been made for the purpose of their use and they are the center of the universe. If God is the creator of the universe, then everything must come from God. To make the point explicit, for instance, God brings rain to “a land where no one lives” and to a “desert, which is empty of human life” (Job 38.25-7). What is the purpose of God bringing rain to such places? Of what benefit is it to “satisfy the waste and desolate land?” It seems that this contributes nothing of value, but God still provides the wasteland with rain. People might wonder what God’s purpose is to supply a barren land. Does this serve any meaning? It might be said that if the rain falls on a barren landscape, it is not because of any necessity but because it pleases God; the essential point this example seeks to illustrate is: utility is not the primary reason for God’s creation. As Gutiérrez declares, “God’s speeches are a forceful rejection of a purely anthropocentric view of creation” (74).

Everything comes from God; as Paul makes clear, “For all things come from you [God], and of your own have we given you. For we are aliens and transients before you, as were all our ancestors; our days on the earth are like a shadow, and there is no hope” (1 Chron. 29:14-15). Thus, it is undeniable that God’s sovereignty is paramount. Dr. Ke quoted a passage from I Corinthians:

What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift? Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Quite apart from us you have become kings! Indeed, I wish that you had become kings, so that we might be kings with you! (4.7-8)

What do we have that we did not receive? Why do we boast as if we have created it? If everything we have is received, who shall be praised?

“Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded and they were created” (Psalm 148.5).

4

Unfortunately, we can’t avoid using the word stealing[3] to describe human exploitation of Nature.  

In Genesis, God said,

I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. ³⁰And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so. (1.29-30)

Some people might say: Isn’t it that God has given us everything he created? The verse itself has offered us an answer: God says we shall have the things “for food”; that is, God is so generous that he is willing to provide everything we need; namely,   the food we have, we enjoy, is a grace of God. Some people might continue to argue that, isn’t it that God bestowed humans the authority to do whatever things to Nature, for God says, we “have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Genesis 1.28)? It is distinct that God wants us to “dominate,” but not to “possess,” “occupy,” or “exploit” His creations; that is to say, God has entrusted His creation to humans, but it doesn’t mean we can take possession of it. God wanted us to dominate animals, and take things we need for food, but he did not allow us to change the countenance of Earth, to move the mountains and fill the seas.

 “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good” (Genesis 1.31); however, humans saw that it is good for personal interests. The first half of the film, Home, shows a variety of magnificent scenes of Nature; however, the other half of the film shows how the world is exploited and unfairly used by humans. Most of the people exploit Nature for profits, to be more accurate, for earning money; this is already a well established fact. The film, The End of the Line, we have watched shows the devastating effect of overfishing, and it wants us to imagine an ocean without fish, and meals without seafood, as well as the global consequences. It examines the imminent extinction of tuna, caused by increasing demand for sushi; the impact on marine life; the profound warning of a future world without fish. These assertions might be true; but it is not only that the more we exploit Nature, the more profits are reduced; to take close look at the major environmental crisis, it is that: Nature is stolen by humans; it is severely devastated and exploited. To be more accurate, the root of the crisis is that: we don’t respect God at all, how is it possible for us to respect Nature? 

5

People might question, is it possible that we don’t steal anything from this world? Since we live in this world, and we must live on the resources of this world, which belong to the Creator, how is it possible to avoid stealing the things belong to the Creator?

“To steal” means to take without the permission of the owner; however, we have the permission from God, as we have read in Genesis, to take food we need. Unfortunately, the depraved humans are sinful beings; they are self-centered, greedy, avaricious, and dishonest. We demand for more than we need, and we take away things more than we suppose to take by force in order to satisfy our endless lust for more. The film, The End of the Line, shows us that the world’s long lining industry sets 1.4 billion hooks ever year; these are estimated to set on enough line to circle the globe more than 550 times. Not a single animal has chance to escape, which causes a large transformation of the landscape of the environment. Such destruction, according to the film, would make an angel weep. The film has provided three solutions to the problem of overfishing: 1) Ask before you eat, only eat sustainable seafood; 2) tell politicians, respect the science, cut the fishing fleet; 3) join the campaign for marine protested areas and responsible fishing. However, the fact has already revealed that the impact of the solutions is quite limited for there is no reason provided to convince and urge people to cut their practical benefits and to sacrifice for the benefits of creatures or the next generation. Especially in Taiwan, the solutions don’t seem to work out here.

6

    We are fighting a war against Nature, and it seems we win; that is how we precede our interaction with Nature: it is a fight! To solve the problems of Nature, to bring the catastrophe halt, we must trace back to the origin and foundation of Nature. As we have discussed, God is the origin and foundation of Nature; and “God is love” (1 John 4.8). Thus, we can say, the origin and foundation of Nature is love. God’s gratuitous love is the ground of all existence; that is, Love, is the primary reason for God’s creation; likewise, it is the foundation of the creation; added to that, the world began with the gratuitousness of divine love; the source of the creation is the free and gratuitous love of God.

In sum, love, is not something to be added on to the work of creation; it is the very hinge which makes the creation work. If the love is the very hinge which makes the creation work, then, we must fill up the gap between humans and Nature with love. Thus, to conclude in Dr. Ke’s words, “love is the solution of environmental crisis” (“Ecology is a Science of Home” 285). Human sacrifice and self-renunciation are expressions of love, which are the only solution to the problems of environmental crisis. However, how is it possible for humans to sacrifice themselves for Nature without any convincing reason? And how is it possible for humans to bring real advantages to Nature without self-renunciation? That is, how is it possible for humans to love Nature by abandoning their own benefits?

The most essential point is that, one must make sure who the owner is. According to the previous discussion, God is the Creator of world; that is, God has the complete sovereignty over Nature. Thus, when taking natural resources from God, we must make sure those what we take from Nature are actually the grace of God. If we are aware of the fact that what we get from Nature belong to God, definitely, we will respect the natural resources we take from Nature; if we love God, who loves us, we will also love the things He created and loved.

Should we still persist in looking at the world through self-centered eyes? Are we going to claim the right to possess Nature? Or, even to replace God and proclaim ourselves the rulers of Nature? Those who claim to have a complete ownership of any natural resources are thieves; to take forcible possession of natural resources is to disdain the Creator; and the things they occupy are stolen from God. Consequently, it is undeniable that those who do not respect God will not respect Nature; and those who do not love Nature do not love God. As long as humans are self-centered, the catastrophe of Nature will never be halted.  

* The main idea of this article is to be attributed to Dr. Immanuel C-Ming Ke.

2011.04.27 First Draft

2011.05.18 Revised Version

References

Bertrand, Yann Arthus. Home. France, 2009.

Bible: New Revised Standard Version. United States: Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ, 1989.

Gutiérrez, Gustavo. On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent. Trans. Matthew J. O’Connell. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1987.

Ke, Immanuel Chih-Ming.（柯志明）“Affliction and the Alterations of God’s Image: By means of the Reflection by Ricoeur” (〈苦難與上帝形像之更迭：取道呂格爾的反思〉)，Theology and Church. （《神學與教會》）Tainan: Tainan Theological College & Seminary. 25.1 (1999), 231-49.

---. “This is My Father’s World.” (〈這是天父世界〉) Solitudo: A Meditative Journal of Taiwanese Christian Thought. (《獨者：台灣基督徒思想論刊》) Immanuel C.-Ming Ke ed. Taipei: Taiwan Christian Institute. Issue 16 (2008), 61-74.

---. “Ecology is a Science of Home.” (〈Ecology是家學〉) Solitudo: A Meditative Journal of Taiwanese Christian Thought. (《獨者：台灣基督徒思想論刊》) Immanuel C.-Ming Ke ed. Taipei: Taiwan Christian Institute. Issue 16 (2008), 263-302.

---. “Love, the Value of Nature and Environmental Ethics.” (〈愛、自然的價值與環境倫理〉) Applied Ethics Review. (《應用倫理評論》) Taoyuan: National Central University Graduate Institute of Philosophy Center for Applied Ethics. Vol. 47 (2009), 137-160.

---. “The Teaching of Love.” (〈愛的教訓〉) Solitudo: A Meditative Journal of Taiwanese Christian Thought. (《獨者：台灣基督徒思想論刊》) Immanuel C.-Ming Ke ed. Taipei: Taiwan Christian Institute. Issue 20 (2010), 29-93.

---. “Suffering and the Meaning of Nature.” (〈苦難與自然的意義〉) Solitudo: A Meditative Journal of Taiwanese Christian Thought. (《獨者：台灣基督徒思想論刊》) Immanuel C.-Ming Ke ed. Taipei: Taiwan Christian Institute. Issue 16 (2010), 217-263.

Murray, Rupert. The End of the Line. Uk, 2009.

Rolston III, Holmes. “God’s Providence and Ecocentrism.” Solitudo: A Meditative Journal of Taiwanese Christian Thought. (《獨者：台灣基督徒思想論刊》) Immanuel C.-Ming Ke ed. Taipei: Taiwan Christian Institute. Issue 16 (2008), 35-59.

---

[1] The idea is to be attributed to Dr. Ke; he stated this idea at a meeting of graduate students at the Research Office of Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics, Providence University on July 19, 2010.

[2] This idea is inspired by Dr. Ke’s article, “The Teaching of Love.” (〈愛的教訓〉) Solitudo: A Meditative Journal of Taiwanese Christian Thought. (《獨者：台灣基督徒思想論刊》)  Immanuel C.-Ming Ke ed. Taipei: Taiwan Christian Institute. Issue 20 (2010), 88.

[3] Human exploitation of Nature is a behavior of stealing; this can be easily understood through plagiarism. A created being boasts as if he/she has created the world; it is like a plagiarist boasts as if he/she invents the ideas; they resemble each other because both of them steal things and glory from the creator.