“TT eae

—EONGING san
RUNNING
=~ WATER.
Pea ers

IWONE GEBARAT =
—

oe

a
 The Library
of the

CLAREMONT
SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

1325 North College Avenue

Claremont, CA 91711-3199
1/800-626-7820
LQ ZS. S

, G42
eas
LONGING for
RUNNING
WATER
—_~_—
ee
a

Ecofemintsm ano Liberation

IVONE GEBARA

FORTRESS PRESS
Minneapolis
 LIBRARY
CLAREMONT SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
1325 N. COLLEGE AVE.
CLAREMONT, CA 91711-3199
a! f

LONGING FOR RUNNING WATER

Ecofeminism and Liberation
Translated from the Portuguese by David Molineaux

Copyright © 1999 Augsburg Fortress. All rights reserved. Except for brief
quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be repro-
duced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher.
Write to: Permissions, Augsburg Fortress, Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN
55440.
Scripture quotations from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible
are copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the Nation-
al Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America and are
used by permission.

“The Nobodies” by Eduardo Galeano from The Book of Embraces. Copy-

right © 1991 W. W. Norton & Company. Used by permission.
“Eleccion” by Julia Esquivel from Floresceras Guatemala. Copyright ©
1989 Ediciones CUSPA. Used by permission.
“Cantiga 5: Stars and Fireflies” by Ernesto Cardenal from Cosmic Canticle.
Copyright © 1993 Curbstone Press. Used by permission.
Excerpt from O suspiro dos oprimidos by Rubem Alves. Copyright © 1984
Pia Sociedade de Sao Paulo. Used by permission.

Cover design: Mike Mihelich

Cover image: Light Patterns on Water by Alex L. Fradkin. Copyright ©
1999 PhotoDisc. Used by permission.
Author photo: © 1990 Mev Puleo. Used by permission.
Interior design: Judy Gilats

ISBN 0-8006-3 183-8

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements for American
National Standard for Information Services—Permanence of Paper for Printed
Library Materials, ANSI Z329.48-1984. eS ty

Manufactured in the U.S.A. AF1-3183

03 bie Ao S67 “See ie
 CONTENTS

PrOtsOe ee... Asihe rar Sat tur eR ois ak iy +s V

Re eer ge a tes hk Khe OG, eee ek ws eG I

Tak WINGS OUR RNG WINGS, 5.02) ster eueke adfnettindy + 19

THE ISSUE OF EPISTEMOLOGY
Epistemology in Search of Meaning ..i<G...0s0'- cos a 19
Knowledge-and Pthics.acle-.ucan. & Garten ie eee 23
The Hierarchical, Anthropocentric, and
Androcentric Bias of Patriarchal Epistemology ... .25
Patriarchal Epistemology in Theology .......... 30
Ecoteminist Epistemology: di uaud ia aot toatl: 48

2. THE HUMAN PERSON FROM

AN ECOFEMINIST PERSPECTIVE ............. 67
Beginning to Talk about the Human Person ....... 69
Questioning the Autonomy of the Human Person .. . .71
The Patriarchal Perspective:
ies: Value-and dantations te, Sa Pk A. Gee 76
“Person” in an Ecofeminist Perspective:
A. Tentatwve: Construction sng). 2. Ae NP 82

3. GOD: AN ECOFEMINIST APPROACH

TO: THE-GREATEST- OF MYSTERIES usin . Yo Pa IOI
Relatedness as a Language and an
Experienceot the Divifie mr wr, wT Pe. ees 102
Issues Raised about Ecofeminist
Dibesureli Codi re, GASP CML Bees: GOS LE ge IIo
GodsModelsandiMystery “4. 2 hse. ee A 132
CadeMyHopes, 29-46 Hen WEP EwesPFO , £53
4. ECOFEMINISM AND THE TRINITY ......-... 137
Feelings and Associations Related to the Trinity ... . 137
What Human Experience Is Described by
lfinitarianapeuagereees cae rie cs ieee onriet 139
Religious Language and Its Crystallization
ir TNStitntiGns nae. anes ek ss eee aes Vs r§i
Reconstructing Trinitarian Meanings aad
Celebrating Eifemeng co. eters ters ae esos, eae 155

5. JESUS FROM AN ECOFEMINIST PERSPECTIVE ... .173

The Road I Have Walked with Jesus... ........% ies
Ecofeminist Challenges to Our Relationship
with Jesus of Nazareti. 2. --sotecaee fete 182

6. THAT ALL MAY HAVE LIFE: THE WAY TO

A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION ....... 193
Thelssue That Concertis!Usi)_ aan wae Gee 193
The Destruction of Green Things,
of Diversity,and of Our symbols’ 1... - sus ene 197
Religion and Community tem. eet ae ae 199
A-Religion.Uhat.Isn’t imfarisis 2 727. -aab aan eee 202
Religious Biodiversity:
A Path in Need of Rediscovery ............ 205

Epilogue: As the Deer Longs for Running Waters ...... 214

NOLS piu.) 5+. 3 OS EERE ene ac ace ZL.
RDU OST ADV ey nok. os een teen te) 223
LNAC Oe WR, SS Se, ae eS. Se ee 229
 BROS) GEE
———
>=

As the deer longs for running waters...

My personal experience is totally urban. I was born in the very

large city of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and have always lived in cities,
although for the last twenty years I have lived in their poor, outly-
ing areas. I like cities because I know how to get along in them:
They have always been my living space, and it is in the urban con-
text that many great legacies have been passed on to me. I like the
city because it is a visible space for human creativity, a place of
great artistic expression, of many ethnic groups and varied customs.
I like the city because it is a place of challenge and of manifold
questions, even if the answers almost always remain tentative.
My experience of jungles, rivers, and seas—and of animals, even
pets—is very limited. I know the names of very few plants, flowers,
and birds, even though I appreciate, respectively, their fragrance and
their songs. I confess that I have always been sheltered from the
cold, the wind, and the rain; and that my feet have always been well
shod to protect me from insect bites and cold. In fact, I was brought
up with some fear of animals, birds, and insects. I was afraid of
small mishaps like soiling my feet or injuring myself on some dis-
carded object, and big things like drowning in the sea.
I have, however, always appreciated big trees, above all fruit
trees, as well as gardens, flowers, nicely cut grass, and the fragrance
of the earth, especially after the rain. But these were invariably
encountered “from afar,” as if they were exceptional phenomena,
like paintings, to be examined once in a while; they were “objects,”
things, occurrences outside myself. Even though I enjoyed the sen-
v
vi Longing
for Running Water

sations they offered me, they seemed to have a life totally distinct
and independent from my own. To sum up, then, I acknowledge the
poverty of my experience with the world of nature and of animals!
The fact that I am writing a book about ecology, environment,
or the earth from an ecofeminist perspective does not mean, as some
would expect, that there has been some great turnabout in my life—
particularly with regard to my daily habits. I haven’t gone out to
live in the country or bought a farm or planted a garden—or even
begun to raise domestic animals. I remain an urban woman, but I
now have a different perception of things—a bodily perception of
the unity and interdependence of all living things and a growing
awareness that we are one body with the whole universe.
In adopting an ecofeminist perspective, which is a combination
of social feminism and holistic ecology, what I have changed is my
point of view: my way of looking at the world, at people, and at
events.! I have abandoned my exclusively anthropocentric (human-
centered) and androcentric (male-centered) view of the world. I
have begun, then, to feel the life within me in a different way.
Through ecofeminism, I have begun to see more clearly how much
our bodies—my body, and the bodies of my neighbors—are affect-
ed, not just by unemployment and economic hardship, but also by
the harmful effects the system of industrial exploitation imposes on
them. I have begun to see more clearly how the exclusion of the
poor is linked to the destruction of their lands, to the forces that
leave them no choice but to move from place to place in a ceaseless
exile, to racism, and to the growing militarization of their countries.
To defend the unjust monopoly of a minority, the poor countries
have become more intensely militarized: They arm themselves to kill
their own poor. I have come to see how much all this fits in with the
inherent logic of the patriarchal system—especially in its current
form, which can be called “economic globalization,” and is a glob-
al order, or rather a global disorder.
According to this system’s well-worn logic, nature is entirely
separate from the human and is dependent on the human will.
Women, too, are identified with nature, both in their reproductive
functions and in their role as “nurturers” in the broadest sense of
the word; the work of providing for children is primarily, although
not exclusively, a feminine one.
 Prologue vii
All this has led me to seek, reflect on, and to some extent even
live out the spirit of a different kind of culture, different forms of
relationship, and a different theology—one that goes beyond the
antitheses and hierarchies to which we’re accustomed, beyond a
sort of divorce between life’s material and its spiritual grounding.
I also recognize how slow this process is, and that it does not
always move along with linear continuity. I feel myself to be in a
reeducation process, a process that is beginning to affect many
aspects of my life and that invites me to relate to all living things in
a way that is very different from the way I learned in my own cul-
tural tradition.
And so I am creating an urban ecofeminism, one that has little
contact with the world of the forests, with the mysteries of the jun-
gle, with the power of rivers and waterfalls, and with the eruptions
of volcanoes. I am creating an ecofeminism based on the experience
of those who have diminishing access to green things and clean
water; of those who breathe an ever greater amount of the air pol-
lution that has spread everywhere. My ecofeminism is pregnant
with health: not health as we understood it in the past, but the
health of a future that promises deeper communion between human
beings and all other living things. My ecofeminism is shot through
with the staunch conviction that beauty is important in healing peo-
ple. It might be the beauty of sounds, of colors, of words, of faces,
of food and drink, or of embraces. Like my friend Rubem Alves, I
too can vouch for “salvation through beauty.”
Before closing this prologue, I would like to acknowledge a debt
of gratitude to many authors. Most of them are from the North, the
North that has engaged in so many campaigns of domination and
destruction, the North that keeps on subjecting people and regions
to its greedy and exploitative projects. But in the very midst of that
empire of profit, prophetic voices have composed an alternative
song, one that is being heard also in the South. I feel myself to be in
a communion of thought, and of sisterhood and brotherhood, with
Rosemary Radford Ruether, Delores Williams, Dorothee Soelle, Sal-
lie McFague, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme, Maria Mies, Mary
Hunt, Alice Walker, Edgar Morin, Eugen Drewermann, and so
many others. They have opened new horizons for me. They have
helped me, from within my own context, to think through the issues
viii Longing for Running Water

they have raised there, in the North, within that context. But these
topics belong not only to the North. They are key issues for all of
humanity and for all women who agree that there must be new
forms of relationship among them, among all men and women, and
with the entire earth. Their questions are contextual, but they take
on planetary significance in the light of the process of raising our
voices against the globalization of the economy, of politics, and of
the culture in which we live.
Many authors from the South are also present. They will appear
here and there in my reflections. Out of modesty, I won’t be forever
quoting these figures, whose work is daily bread for all of us here
but whose contribution has been invaluable; without it, Icould have
done nothing. As readers, they will see that they are cited through-
out these reflections.
There is much of them in me, but the composition and rhythm
of this text are often my own. Each of us has his or her own specif-
ic way of speaking and feeling. In my daily life I inhabit a world far
from that of philosophical and theological scholarship. From that
world arise many questions in addition to the often unanswerable
ones of my companions in the North and the South. In the final
analysis, the notes used in playing the one great symphony of the
universe are the same, even if it can be performed in a great multi-
tude of ways.
I am also grateful for the courage of the many feminists and the
few ecofeminists of Latin America. Women in struggle: tireless, pas-
sionate ... “conspiring,” inspiring, raising their voices in search of
new alternatives and ways of living with dignity. They, too, are pre-
sent in these pages, along with the members of the many women’s
groups I have been blessed to meet in my Latin American travels. To
all of them I express my gratitude and my warm affection.
Finally, Iam extremely grateful for the lives of the great number
of anonymous women who cross my path daily. With some I stop
and exchange greetings, impressions, and comments on the many
events of daily life. With others my encounters are longer and more
frequent. Most of them pass me by, however, rushing to work or
walking slowly with heavy loads of laundry on their heads. They
pass me as they pull their kids along by the hand or carry them in
their wombs. . . . And their lives silently challenge me. The violence
 Prologue ix
in which they live violates me, and often I don’t know what to do
either to help them or to bear my own “cross” of privilege—because
to eat and drink, to have friends, and to reflect on life are privileges
on a planet where the number of those excluded from them increas-
es daily. And this privilege opens up a historical responsibility, a
responsibility in love, not only for my own life but for the lives of
sO many persons.
This book is no more than an attempt. It seeks to contribute to
the restoration of Earth’s dignity, of the dignity of women and men
alienated from Earth’s body and their own bodies and often strug-
gling against both, waging wars of conquest against them, dividing
what ought to be united.
This book is an invitation to reflect together about ourselves
and about new ways of expressing love, a love that is far broader
than the defense of our own little slice in the larger pie of this world.
It is a love that includes us all, because at bottom we are all part of
this same pie, the one pie offered as “food and drink” for ourselves
and for all living things.
“Take and eat, all of you: this is my body and this is my blood.”
We are food and drink for one another. We are one another’s body
and blood. We are one another’s salvation. For this reason, I will try
to take a few steps with you, dear reader, so that these convictions
can become ever more flesh of our flesh. “Take and eat”: I offer
myself to you in the hope that this food may do you good and nour-
ish all your hopes.
 Sead ar oeBa oe

digentnsne bin meio pveos H) aBes

a - i
- psteers agi. cid eek ne
eaeeeiina!) <0) Aah ey
4 cai ae a
te RT Oa a .
a eee pe aaa
. 2 i
= ac
s tend aa
o? 1 yay“>bale

NRpa
spenteG heh 2 pati
y GaN E
olchiee Fhe 1 sultrRR pe genet ugnhinonnaia
qeante acer! fe“ Sdte 6 arte, se ro
ME ear = tee! parsleqe suum
ey" at chiroth
ea
po aah er oe
do sa ge nw a ta na¢va
a
se
gey Pee
Sebal
sree et
T e
ween wtsa tal yds26 cette ib ee
LP\yanaaerti ¥2
di 0 pr 200
Sage epee pas eld
ta «
ra aia aoemnetntacesit
Clealk. ie ceabareeae ¢
whee! soon ie Zecniame i
sen! wensMBSE
: Ps ian sept © i,
hee dong ae 12) ben
LIRR beg Hm te wR OP
Scie noe is! ays Aeterna
o Viana Pigeons 'w@ pions vendms
age cee iiome ond » J eet ager ‘Thee, u it
woo 08 ir aes, SY * = capes oe aeate
ms’ foe » hewn P< £*. tigi wo lilte 4 "oh
7 Bes peppers ft
Fy ee pee:
 INTRODUCTION

Like many others, I have become more and more concerned over
ecological issues in recent years, at least in theory. I have seen how
much society and culture are part of the ecological system, and con-
sequently how much political, economic, social, educational, and
religious issues are all related to ecology and to the stability of the
ecosystem. In practice, however, I often feel constrained by the
struggle for survival in which innumerable people in my country,
especially women and children, continue to be immersed. And the
survival struggle is always there, inviting us to take whatever steps
are possible: to be converted, in a way, to the concreteness of daily
life, to the reality of immediate need. So ecological problems urge
me to search for a more inclusive style of thought, so that bit by bit
people can feel the real connection between the issues of work,
unemployment, hunger, and pollution, on the one hand, and the
patriarchal image of God on the other.
Like most Latin Americans, I also inherit through my education
an eminently anthropocentric, or human-centered, cultural tradi-
tion. It is very hard to develop alternative behaviors and education-
al processes that can lead us to greater solidarity and communion!
I feel, based on my own experience, that ecological and feminist
proposals that do not arise from the concrete needs of the various
popular groups do not have much coherence. I sense also that the
solutions put forth by the established powers are not always likely
to be accepted, because often they fail to address the people’s most
urgent needs.
2 Longing
for Running Water

In the northeastern Brazilian neighborhood in which I live now

(and itis out of the perspective of my neighborhood that I write this
book), the word “ecofeminism” is not part of people’s vocabularies.
The same goes for many other words we use in intellectual circles.
So, although many of the women who are my neighbors have
inspired my writing, they will not be my first readers.
I sense that ecofeminism is born of daily life, of day-to-day shar-
ing among people, of enduring together garbage in the streets, bad
smells, the absence of sewers and safe drinking water, poor nutri-
tion, and inadequate health care. The ecofeminist issue is born of
the lack of municipal garbage collection, of the multiplication of
rats, cockroaches, and mosquitoes, and of the sores on children’s
skin. This is true because it is usually women who have to deal with
daily survival issues: keeping the house clean and feeding and wash-
ing children.
Women and men struggle to survive, and they struggle a great
deal; but they don’t always make the connection between the chick-
ens they sell on the corner, the dirty water that runs in the streets
after streetcleaning, and their children’s health. The street often
turns into a public garbage dump. On the inside, their houses are
generally neat, but the street, the collective space, is practically a no-
man’s-land. Because the poor have almost no access to public ser-
vices, they do not care for public space as if it were their own, as if
it were something a poor person could consider “mine.” They know
just how little the public spaces are really theirs, and by defiling or
neglecting them they reproduce, on a small scale, the neglect they
themselves suffer.
Further, the whole issue of public and private space opens up for
reflection here. Within a traditional feminist perspective, we might
say that public space has been men’s domain and private space has
been women’s. Today, however, it isn’t possible to argue this in any
absolute sense. More and more often, it is women who are hired for
certain public cleanup jobs, so they clean not only private space but
also public space. At the same time, men are most adept at getting
things dirty and failing to clean them up. This includes the produc-
tion of nuclear waste, the accumulation of which is becoming
alarming and distressing.
 Introduction 3

But the issue is not just the way gender is expressed in public
and private spaces. It is more than that: It is an issue of social class,
and of people’s increasing exclusion from some spaces. The space in
which the poor live out their lives, whether they be men, women, or
children, is a poorly cared-for space, a space that is ignored and
neglected.
Rich neighborhoods are cleaner and better cared for. Public ser-
vices there, including sanitary services, are more efficient. However,
it is not the rich who clean up: They do not have to deal with dirt
and grime. It is the poor whose task it is to clean the houses and
streets of the rich—and often, too, to assist them in their personal
hygiene. The spaces of the rich are cleaned by the poor, and most *
especially by poor women, who continue to endure the disregard
and invisibility that patriarchal society has imposed on them. Here
we enter fully into the logic of the capitalist system, with its narrow
exclusiveness, as well as the logic of hierarchical patriarchy and of
class, race, and gender privilege.
This micro-example leads to a macro-understanding of human
life as it is lived out in all our social institutions. In countries in
which there are a frightful number of impoverished people, as is the
case in Latin America, one can see how the places that are littered
with garbage are also the places where the poorest people live, and
among them are the most marginal of all: blacks and American
Indians. The rich throw their garbage in the spaces used by the
poor: Cities often open garbage dumps right where the poor build
their homes. In areas in which there is no drinking water, in which
air pollution is most dense, and in which health problems abound,
the poor jostle one another for a few square feet on which to live.
We know that most of the waste is not produced by the poor.
They are not the owners of polluting industries, of nuclear power
plants, or of the military headquarters at which wars are planned;
neither are they the principal consumers of canned and packaged
goods. However, the poor are the first to be hurt by the various
kinds of waste that are produced. It is true that the poor do gener-
ate a small amount of garbage, and that it ends up all around them;
but it is virtually impossible for them to change the rules of a game
created by others, a game that requires material wealth to live in
places far from the garbage one produces.
4 Longing
for Running Water

The destruction of the rain forests goes hand in hand with waste
production and the expansion of polluting industrial zones. Refer-
ring to the Brazilian government, Leila da Costa Ferreira says, it
“still plays no part in the creation of policies to conserve biodiver-
sity and social diversity, to protect indigenous lands, or to settle
conflicts in mining areas.”! Sensitivity to ecological issues is still
very limited, and existing ecological organizations are fragile and
vulnerable. Something similar can be said of the discourse and prac-
tice of the churches regarding this issue.
Within this context, I often ask myself what contribution
ecofeminist reflection can make in Latin America. What is its use-
fulness and what are its objectives, given the concrete social and
religious contradictions we face?
As I have gotten a feel for the world out of a broader perspective
than that of my own neighborhood, my first impression has been of
signs pointing to a qualitative change in our times. I see initiatives
designed to break the frightening cycle of destructiveness in which
we find ourselves. I see signs of a break with the patriarchal system
that enslaves nature, women, men, and marginal populations, forc-
ing them all to conform to a hierarchical pattern of relationships. I
also see signs of the reemergence of “differences,” exceptions to
hierarchical models, and this reemergence surely points to the
growth of a new sense of the meaning of our collective existence. All
these indicators deserve to be underscored: They point to a qualita-
tive change in perspective, and as such they are signs of a new hope.
In many parts of Latin America, the feminist movement is grow-
ing, especially the popular feminist movement. The name it is called
by doesn’t matter. Often the word “feminist” is not used, but the
fact is that women are beginning to be concerned about what is
happening to society in general and to themselves in particular.
Many groups are struggling for women’s dignity and for their self-
esteem, and for a more open attitude on the part of civic and polit-
ical organizations. As I see it, this already constitutes a break with
the hierarchies supported by patriarchy and a move, on the part of
women, away from political silence. In addition, ecological move-
ments appear to be growing in popular circles, and take forms that
probably would not be recognized by First World ecologists. The
first thing these movements talk about is not how to save the earth
and its rain forests and rivers, but how to live on the land; how to
 Introduction §

love it, and how to build a house on it. It is hard to try to save the
earth when your relationship with it is marked by conflict, and
when you spend your time just wishing for a piece of it—an urban
lot or a patch of land in the countryside on which you can live. In
the world of the poor, the ecology issue surfaces first of all in the
form of demands for land reform in the countryside and the redis-
tribution of urban lots in the city.
All this makes clear who is most responsible for the catastroph-
ic destruction of the ecosystem. The poor do not destroy natural
springs or watersheds; these have long since been taken away from
them. The poor don’t use powerful electric saws to cut hundred-
year-old trees, because they don’t own chainsaws. If they do so at
all, it is as hired labor, as impoverished workers—and they do so to
earn their bread and beans.
In the struggle for land and for a dignified life, the women of
Latin America and their sons and daughters have moved up to the
front lines. It is they who have the most to gain from these battles,
because in a certain sense they are the ones who, on a daily basis,
maintain the fragile balance of family life.
These popular movements are surely significant, because they
alert us to the fact that life is an interdependent process; that the
survival of one group depends on that of another, and that on them
depends the survival of the earth and of all living beings. Not a few
indigenous and African American groups are seeking their autono-
my and their own identity. They are struggling to break with white
arrogance and to get a hearing for their condemnation of whites’
unlimited power and greed. Even if up until now their achievements
have seemed insignificant, they are exposing the racist foundations
of our white western system and the complicity of the major reli-
gions in perpetuating violence and discrimination.
In the light of these encouraging signs, and to further the process
of seeking a new world order that is in harmony both with the plan-
et and with the cosmos, ecofeminists are attempting to discern signs
of hope. They do not invent new theories for the poor, much less for
their liberation. All they try to do is to understand what is happen-
ing and, on the basis of this understanding, to dialogue with others
who are willing to do so.
6 Longing
for Running Water

This is no new ideology. Rather, it is a different perception of

reality that starts right from the unjust system in which we find our-
selves and seeks to overcome it in order to bring happiness to every-
one and everything.
Despite our lack of clarity and the tentativeness of our actions,
I propose to examine the broad issue of ecofeminism from a philo-
sophical perspective as it is related to Christian religious experi-
ence. I think it is always important to understand our need to
refashion our beliefs and their particular formulations in each new
moment of history. There is a connection—one that is not always
visible—between certain religious doctrines and the destruction of
the ecosystem. And because this is so, to change these doctrines is
to open a path toward resurrection, toward social and ecological
justice.
Our religious writings almost always seem to be trying to stand
apart from any complicity with destructive processes, as if they were
“oases” of purity, goodness, and freedom: privileged domains in
which the air is pure and justice is possible. From this perspective,
religion appears to have been born of another world: a world of
perfection that is somehow above this one and superior to it. Reli-
gion itself seeks to perpetuate this illusion and fails to see the nega-
tive consequences of this attitude in contemporary life. We are not
always interested in raising critical issues that might change this
way of looking at things, because this would bring about consider-
able insecurity and weaken the foundations of many kinds of power
we currently enjoy.
My task will be to point to the possibility of reinterpreting some
key elements within the Christian tradition for the purpose of
reconstructing Earth’s body, the human body, and our relationship
with all living bodies. I will not try to rewrite traditional theology;
that would be both arrogant to attempt and impossible to accom-
plish. All I hope to do is put forth a few reflections in an attempt to
show the urgent need to change our theological constructs in the
new era that is emerging. It is no longer possible to separate the reli-
gious sphere from that of scientific discovery, as if they were two
entirely different discourses. Neither is it possible to think of
women and men as religious beings independent of the religion that
is embodied in the earth and the cosmos.
 Introduction 7

Many others before me have attempted to reinterpret the Chris-

tian tradition in the light of the challenges of their own historical
moments. This, too, is just one more attempt to understand our her-
itage in the light of a broader shared history; at the same time, it
reflects my desire to reinterpret the meaning of our lives as a part of
the great life process in which we are all immersed.
If all of humanity, the inhabitants of the entire earth, were to
take on the task of saving their own lives along with the life of the
earth, world religions would inevitably make this project their own.
And as they became converted to this urgent and fundamental
cause, they would have to modify some of their intellectual con-
structs along with the power structures that uphold them.
Patriarchal religions have always been marked by an incredible
and paradoxical duality of perspective. They preach domination
over the earth while at the same time exhorting us to loathe matter
and struggle against the body. They preach love and peace while at
the same time urging hatred and violence against those who are
“different.” To at least admit the existence of this ambiguity is the
first step toward refashioning our beliefs within a perspective that
allows us to treat all living things with respect.
Marcel Gauchet, in his book Le désenchantement du monde,
predicted the crisis that would beset religions of transcendence.*
The model that leads us to look for the grounding of this world
somewhere outside it—and seeks assistance from supportive divini-
ties—would appear to be destined for oblivion. Gauchet believes the
same fate also awaits a certain style of understanding and organiz-
ing national states. The viewpoint I plan to develop will attempt to
present the crisis affecting these transcendent models of religion in
the light of the environmental crisis and of the current crisis in rela-
tions within the human community. All this is aimed at pointing up
the urgency of acquiring a new understanding of the role of our reli-
gions, and, consequently, of our theologies, which are discourses
that articulate our deepest beliefs. Theology will have to carry out
its social role with greater humility and openness. Its truths will
always need to be open-ended. They will be mere approximations
of the Divine Mystery: attempts to grasp the meaning of our exis-
tence, if only in a tentative way. We will need to leave behind
absolute statements and “ex cathedra” truths, and learn to live in
8 Longing
for Running Water

the midst of the extraordinary changeability and mysterious fragili-

ty—and our comparative ignorance—of the very Being in which we
have our being.
The Latin American theology of the last thirty years has shown
relatively little interest in feminist or ecological issues. (I am not
making an absolute statement, because in the last two or three years
some significant writings have appeared.)> I am not saying this to
criticize my colleagues; it is merely a statement of fact. I think the
Latin American context in the 1970s and 1980s, the years during
which liberation theology developed, simply did not allow for the
emergence of these topics.
Our theological tradition was at that time strongly influenced
by nineteenth-century rationalism and by the struggle to transform
economic structures, but it failed to relate the oppression of the
poor to the broader issue of the destruction of earth-systems. In the
same way, it failed to identify the direct or indirect legitimation
that patriarchal religions bestowed upon the mechanistic domina-
tion of the world and the manipulation of human beings. Today, of
course, many voices have been raised in the churches, both in
defense of the poor and in protest against genetic manipulation
and similar practices.
In the meantime, we fail to see that we often formulate our
protests from within this same hierarchical power system, without
altering our understanding of the human person, of God, and of
Jesus. We continue to accept the traditional monotheism and
anthropocentrism that have characterized and structured Christian
tradition. So we could say that, although the topics being discussed
today are somewhat different, they are still dealt with from within
a philosophy and a theology that justify the manipulation of life
while at the same time urging its defense. I have experienced this
ambiguity in my own life and will deal with it in my first chapter,
which focuses on epistemological issues, or issues related to our
ways of knowing.
Throughout the book, my approach will be emphatically philo-
sophical and theological. I will try to uncover the thought structures
and understandings of human life that are implicit in the way the
Christian tradition is used interpret reality. We have done little of
this work in Latin America, and less still in the light of feminism
 Introduction 9

and ecological challenges. My reflections will be an attempt to offer

some introduction to these very extensive topics.
I must underline the extent to which this work is limited by my
personal experience and tradition. I offer no reflections on the
African religious world or that of indigenous peoples. I have to rec-
ognize the limitations of my own knowledge regarding these cul-
tures; I want to affirm also the importance of allowing these groups
to offer interpretations of their own realities. I feel that in Latin
America we too often seek out elements from various cultures and
attempt to translate or explain them in Christian terms. In one sense
this is understandable, given the penetration of Christianity into
cultures of African and indigenous origin. In the face of the religious
and cultural extermination that has taken place on this continent,
many theologians and pastoral workers have felt called to make
efforts to retrieve elements from these traditions. They have raised
a prophetic voice against the process of dismantling these cultures,
a process that continues right up to our own day. It could be worth-
while in light of this discussion for readers to refer to O rostro indio
de Deus, a book by several Latin American authors that addresses
these issues of cultural survival.*
However, I think we still need to grow in respect for, dialogue
about, and instil a profound receptiveness to the autonomy that
ought to be enjoyed by all these religious articulations of the mys-
tery of life. In other words, every cultural group needs to be free to
speak its own word in its own way, and to develop its own religious
expressions, using whatever approaches it chooses; it should not be
expected to interpret its heritage in the light of the Western Christ-
ian tradition or through the use of the kinds of academic tools we
tend to impose on it with virtually no reflection.

I would now like to offer a brief overview of ecofeminism in Latin

America, and especially of theological writings on the subject.
First of all, I should say that ecofeminism has not yet gained
public recognition in Latin America, either as a theoretical con-
struct or as a social movement that deals with the relationship
between the exploitation of nature and that of women. Its influence
has been relatively small, both in intellectual and in church circles.
When we analyze the limited work that has been done on the sub-
to. =6-Longing
for Running Water

ject in Latin America, however, we can see that even here the ties
between feminism and ecological concerns have been multiple and
varied. In fact, we can already speak of Latin American “ecofemi-
nisms.” And not only is there a variety of ecofeminisms, responses
to these ecofeminisms also vary.
Some Latin American ecofeminist circles are developing cri-
tiques similar to those that have appeared in the European countries
and in North America. We could speak here of an “essentialist”
position: an ecofeminism that would postulate a kind of shared
identity that brings together women and nature; one that would not
deal with the great social issues of our day and would not see
women as actors in the public arena.
In the global ecological summit in 1992, sponsored by the Unit-
ed Nations in Rio de Janeiro, some of these issues were debated—
especially in certain feminist groups that gathered after the assem-
bly’s closing. However, the issues never came to the attention of
public opinion; Brazil’s major media gave them no significant cov-
erage. In Brazil, ecofeminist debate has developed most among fem-
inist groups in the southeastern part of the country, especially in
response to Rosiska Darcy de Oliveira’s book Elogio da Diferen¢a:
o feminino emergente. Darcy de Oliveira argued that, in entering
the social arena, women should start from their own situation and
from the ways in which they are different from men:

Women are different from men because in the center of their being
there are different values. They emphasize personal relationships,
caring about and for others, the defense of life, the private and
affective sphere, and gratuity in relationships. In other words,
their identity is formed in their interaction with others. For this
reason, women are more intuitive, more sensitive, and more
empathetic.°

Probably without realizing it, Darcy de Oliveira upholds dis-

tinctions that patriarchal categories have imposed on us all—even if
she does so with the intention of underlining the importance of
differences.
Although she seems to insist on the revolutionary potential of
these “differences,” she fails to realize that it is no longer possible to
 Introduction 1X

assign some rigidly stylized attributes to women and others to men.

In the first place, gender—the distinction between the masculine |
and the feminine—is
like “nature,” “culture,” and “tradition,” in |
the sense that it is a historical and social construct. There is no way |
we can work with these distinctions as if they were ahistorical con- |
cepts that could identify certain essential qualities of either men or /
women. V5
When it comes to gender, sex, and race, there are no immutable .
essences. What do exist are different human groups, each of which |
constructs its own meanings. There are no pure biological “givens”:
everything is involved in that evolving and constitutive reality we,
call culture.
~
However, differences based on gender have become more and
more rigidly defined, both in the domestic sphere and in political |
and economic life. This is especially true in the urban world. Sub-
jective values, feelings, and ambitions, including competition, are
present both in the public realm and in domestic life. For this rea-
son, to defend rigidly defined roles for women and men is to fail to
perceive the current situation of women in Latin America and
throughout the world.
Another reality that needs to be underlined and clarified has to
do with our understanding of “nature.” It is not always clear, when
she speaks of nature, whether Darcy de Oliveira is referring to a
nontemporal essence or whether she means the physical world—the
earth, other living things, and the cosmos. In a very helpful article
on the feminine as a metaphor for nature, feminist scholar Bila Sor}
supports some ecofeminist positions:

There is a tendency to appreciate the role of women to the degree

that it resembles that of the feminine in nature. In other words,
are women more capable of critical ecological thought in virtue of
their domestic experience, especially that of maternity? Here once
again, we confront an emphasis on the “singularity” of women’s
experience; and this ends up leading us into essentialist discourse.
More attentive reflection should lead us to realize that while
women do play social roles, they have a human subjectivity that
always exceeds and overflows the confines of their gender identi-
ty. The involvement of women and of feminists in the ecological
struggle is due less to their feminine roles in family life—although
12 Longing
for Running Water

we admit that “ecofeminism” raises some echoes in this sphere—

than to access to the public realm, where they gain political expe-
rience, a wider and more diversified vision of human problems,
and the confidence to criticize the existing culture and propose
changes.®

Along with the French anthropologist Nicole Claude Mathieu,

we could ask why women are more affected than men by inade-
quate environmental and development policies. The answer has
nothing to do with women’s alleged affinity with nature or with
some special “sense” for the bounties of nature that they are alleged
to possess. Rather, it is because “on a planetary level, in rich and
poor countries alike, in the North and in the South, and in every
ethnic group and social class, there are policies that give men power
over women. These policies define women as a social group whose
necessary role is to assure continuity (and frequently survival) in
daily, material life.””
Although I don’t rule out plausible objections to the types of
thinking and action put forward by Bila Sorj and Nicole Claude
Mathieu, I think much of the criticism directed at their approach
remains on a very general and academic level. It almost never con-
fronts the concrete daily problems we face in poor neighborhoods:
the work women of the popular sectors do in order to survive and
the destruction of the environment in which they live. Theoretical
critiques often fail to show any awareness of the extreme inadequa-
cy of the food the poor eat, of their unhealthy housing situations,
and of the very bad water and air, especially in the outlying areas of
large cities. These critiques don’t always keep in mind that it is
women first of all who have to take responsibility for daily life, for
family survival, for child care, and for health and nutritional needs.
It is women who often walk miles to get semisafe drinking water or
to find some trough where they can hold off the animals and wash
their clothes.
Beyond all this, theoretical approaches run the risk of remaining
isolated in a world of privilege that has the luxury to discuss ideas
and in which the exchange of ideas takes place among groups that
have a very weak commitment to dealing with the real situation of
the great masses of the dispossessed. Maria Mies puts it well:
 Introduction 13

The problem with “essentialism” vs. “historical materialist” dis-

course, as discussed by Mary Mellor, is also that it remains with-
in the constraints of an academic, and that means idealistic, dis-
course only; it seems to distance itself from the fact that women
and men are confronted by urgent problems which need solu-
tions. In view of the ongoing destruction of our ecological life-
base, of increasing male violence against women, and of increas-
ing aimless civil wars and Ramboism around the world, the
constructivist “essentialism” vs. “materialism” discourse seems
out of place.8

For this reason, I don’t want to spend much time on this style of
debate. Instead I will attempt, as much as possible, to focus on con-
crete issues, issues that affect our daily lives—such as the survival of
the earth and the meaning of our existence.
I have never gotten involved in theoretical debates between fem-
inists and ecofeminists. The ecofeminist perspective within which I
work in philosophy and theology allies itself neither with the essen-
tialist point of view nor with the supremacy of the “difference”;
rather, it seeks to do Christian theology in the light of a wider per-
spective that is very different from the one that characterizes the
patriarchal world.
It will become clear throughout this book that I believe the basic
issue has nothing to do with sacralizing either the world of nature
or the world of women. In my view, to do either would be to suc-
cumb to an outdated, romantic vision that would be of very little
practical use. Human beings, animals, and nature in general can be
a source of either destruction or creation; in all of them, death and
life are intertwined in a way that attests to the inseparability of
these two poles. Similarly, the idea of nature can for women have
either a positive or a negative meaning, as Carolyn Merchant has
pointed out:

Central to the organic theory was the identification of nature, espe-

cially the earth, with a nurturing mother: a kindly, beneficent
female who provided for the needs of mankind in an ordered,
planned universe. But another opposing image of nature as female
was also prevalent: wild and uncontrollable nature could render
violence, storms, droughts, and general chaos. Both were identified
14 Longing
for Running Water

with female sex and were projections of human perceptions onto

the external world.?

The ambivalence of the human world, the animal world, and the
physical world can be noted in every dimension of life.
If our thought and practice are to be inclusive, they need to be
debated by a great variety of different groups; they can never be set
up as new dogmas. This is a continuing challenge for us, because the
temptation to be “in the right” is a danger that can be found in all
of us.
Theological attention to ecofeminist issues in Latin America is
still quite limited. The ways in which theological formulations sup-
port the ongoing domination of women and the unlimited exploita-
tion of natural resources have still not been clearly and critically
understood. We have not yet become aware of the magnitude of the
complicity of Christian religious discourse in the momentous crisis
faced by the planet and the human community that inhabits it.
Meanwhile, there are small, organized ecofeminist groups in
countries such as Argentina, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Bolivia,
Uruguay, and Brazil. They still have little influence on feminist the-
ological reflection in Latin America, especially in academic institu-
tions and religious seminaries, but despite their limited institution-
al presence, there is already an effort to create a Latin American
ecofeminist network. It seeks a broad base, and does not intend to
limit itself to theological issues; rather, it hopes to take up_a variety
of topics that are relevant to our lives. An awareness of the need to
develop a feminism that is within the Latin American liberation tra-
dition and to relate it to the ecological perspective in the hope of
building interdependent, noncompetitive relationships seems to be
slowly growing. Undoubtedly, it is only the beginning of a process,
but still a significant beginning.
At the moment, in my view, the liveliest ecofeminist group in
Latin America is the Con-spirando Collective in Santiago, Chile.
With great effort and courage, the collective has been publishing the
ecofeminist journal Con-spirando since 1992. In the first issue,
dated March 1992, they say:
 Introduction 15

In this initial issue we invite you to participate in convoking a net-

work of Latin American women who seek to develop their own
spirituality and theology in order to better reflect our experiences
of the sacred. The very name of this journal—Con-spirando—is
an attempt to picture some of these experiences: the image of
“breathing together,” which in itself evokes images of the planet
as a great lung of life.!°

In the fourth issue (June 1993), the journal reproduces texts by

a number of ecofeminists, especially North American authors. In
the introductory editorial, we read, “It seems we need new ways of
understanding our place in the world. We need to re-situate our-
selves, and from there to re-weave our daily lives, the web of rela-
tionships that gives form to our societies and our style of producing
the culture in which we live.”!!
In ecofeminism—ecofeminisms, if you like—we envision an ener-
gy flow that brings about political and cultural change and gets us
moving, excites our minds, revives our imaginations, and unleashes
our questions. As Latin Americans, how do we interpret this body of
visions and proposals? How do these ideas resonate in us? What ges-
tures and actions give birth to these perspectives? What theologies
can be born of these new worldviews? How do we express the spir-
ituality that grows out of a new anthropology? And what new
visions of political-cultural action flow out of ecofeminism?
These questions continue to be both significant and challenging
for groups that seek to reformulate the Christian faith in the light of
the challenges of our times. They continue to be reflected on and
debated in a variety of women’s groups, each one using its own
methodology.
What seems significant is that ecofeminist theology in Latin
America has developed among intellectuals who are committed to
the struggles of poor women. The theoretical material we study is
often informed by the work of colleagues from the North: They
help us to raise questions about our personal and social situations,
and we do the same for them. We begin to perceive the links among
all forms of oppression and violence and, based on our analysis of
the world situation, to agree on the political-ideological links
between the domination of women and the domination of nature.
16 Longing
for Running Water

This domination manifests itself on the ideological-cultural level in

our worldviews and within the whole patriarchal historical process
in the midst of which we live out our lives. This means that not only
women are victims of the process: So are men, and to exactly the
same degree. The problem is that the type of oppression and exclu-
sion suffered by women seems to be more openly legitimized by the
current hierarchicalized system, which pushes people aside on the
basis of gender, race, and class.
This is Latin America. The indigenous population, the very
group that lives in closest communion with nature, is subjected to
progressive extermination. The black population, which has a reli-
gious tradition that exalts the interrelatedness of all human and nat-
ural powers, is the most impoverished and excluded. Racism is on
the rise, supported by several ideologies, the most virulent of which
advocates “the whitening of both skin and culture.” Jungles, lakes,
and rivers, as objects of the greed of international capitalism, are
destroyed at a frightening pace. The female population, more than
any other, is deprived of civil rights. The patriarchal cross and
sword have indeed been victorious, and “macho” men continue to
be regarded as the most important mediators of the sacred.
Within the Latin American context, ecofeminism has been a
challenging light both for feminists and for women’s groups in poor
neighborhoods. “I dare to think that once the links between all
forms of oppression and violence became clear, from oppression in
the family to the destruction of the planet, feminism had to become
ecofeminism,” writes Rosa Dominga Trapasso of the Talitha Cumi
feminist group in Lima, Peru.!2
Patriarchal theology, and especially creation theology, legit-
imized both the oppression and domination of nature and the exis-
tence of hierarchical relationships among all beings. Doubtless there
were always exceptions, such as the movement founded by Saint
Francis of Assisi. Even so, the Christian tradition that dominated
the West held on to the idea that God stands above nature as creator
and lawgiver. Nature is somehow subject to the divine will. In that
sense, it is by divine command that nature gives us what we need in
order to live. '
Although nature contains both masculine and feminine ele-
ments, the relationship between God and nature resembles the rela-
 Introduction 17

tionship of domination between men and women. This is one of the

relationships ecofeminist theology seeks to analyze. What does it
mean to speak of “God the Creator”? What images and specific
behaviors follow from our discourse about God the Creator? In
what way have women participated in the creation and develop-
ment of these theologies? I offer these questions in an overall way,
as an invitation to reflection. They will not be the specific topics of
this book, but these reflections may offer some elements that will
help us to think them through in the light of other writings.
Some Latin American women’s groups are taking ecofeminist
theological and anthropological positions. Practically speaking,
however, we are not certain that at the close of the twentieth centu-
ry there will really be room for alternative ways of thinking to
develop within religious institutions. Our church institutions have
always tended to absolutize their patriarchal forms of thought and
organization, as if they were “revealed by God.” These institutions
have failed to recognize the fact that our theologies, our attempts to
make sense of things, cannot be based on dualistic or idealistic dog-
mas, and that they will need to open themselves to a pluralistic
understanding of the world and of our Christian constructs.
Given the deplorable state of our ecclesiastical institutions, those
who develop alternative styles of thinking and action will be the
minorities who are capable of accepting the challenge of looking
both at the world and at themselves in the light of new paradigms.
The ecofeminist perspective we are building looks forward to the
gradual acceptance of our need to welcome one another as members
of a single Sacred Body. In other words, Latin American ecofemi-
nism remains the “preoccupation” and the “occupation” of minori-
ties, and especially of minorities who are women. Therefore we
have neither the ability nor the temptation to introduce ourselves as
the new and unique alternative to be taken up by the official theol-
ogy of our religious institutions. Rather, we have growing difficul-
ties with the term “official theology,” since it reflects a history of
imperialism and domination. To take a theological stance like mine
requires a continual effort to remain in dialogue with others, despite
the fact that this dialogue itself often hovers on the edge of conflict.
Entering into dialogue doesn’t mean making easy bargains; rather, it
means encouraging opposed groups to open themselves on specific
18 Longing
for Running Water

issues. It also means refusing to take arrogant positions that imply

that we are the owners of truth and wisdom, and at the same time
recognizing the fact that every group is able to make a humble but
worthwhile contribution to our shared history.
Within the diversity of theologies, ecofeminist theology also
demands its civil rights in social and religious institutions. It seeks
to be present not only to the challenges of what philosophers and
social scientists have called the postmodern world, but also to peo-
ple in parts of the world that have never even had access to moder-
nity. Our thought is linked especially to the world of the poor, of the
hungry, and of the illiterate; of those who have no land on which to
live and those who live on lands tainted by toxic wastes and nuclear
radiation. I am talking about the growing mass of the excluded,
those who are struggling for survival and dignity. I also am referring
to the sacred body of the earth, which is bought and sold and pros-
tituted for the sake of easy profit and the accumulation of wealth by
a minority.
We are involved in this struggle without having any idea of its
outcome. We are here because we sense that it can engage us at the
gut level and nourish our hope. We are here because we realize that
it can be a way toward solidarity, mercy, and reconciliation among
all vitally committed groups. We are here because we love life and
do not want to see it snuffed out on account of our human whims
and our destructive tendencies. We are here because we can no
longer put up with the system of discrimination and exclusion with-
in which we find ourselves. We participate in this struggle because
it is the very meaning of our life.
This book seeks to make its modest contribution to all those
who, bringing an open heart and leaving aside prejudices, feel them-
selves to be part of the adventure of life and seek to make it better
for all living things.
 |
KNOWING OUR KNOWING:
oO TELS | Prvic Let:
es
——_—

The cultural role of philosophy is not to deliver truth but to build

the spirit of truth, and this means never to let the inquisitive energy
of mind go to sleep, never to stop questioning what appears to be
obvious and definitive, always to defy seemingly intact resources of
common sense, always to suspect that there might be “another
side” in what we take for granted, and never to allow us to forget
that there are questions that lie beyond the legitimate horizon of sci-
ence and are nonetheless crucially important to the survival of
humanity as we know it.
Lezek Kolakowski, “The Death of Utopia Reconsidered”

In the spirit of this reflection, the quotation above urges us to resist

the temptation to allow the various dogmas we have created in the
course of history to dull our cognitive faculties. It insists, rather, that
we be continually alert to the flow of life. Each of the points con-
sidered in this chapter seeks to be faithful to this basic insight, while
at the same time recognizing the limitations inherent in any human
quest.

Epistemology in Search of Meaning

This book deals with ecofeminism from a Latin American perspec-
tive. To begin its first chapter with an epistemological reflection—
that is, one based on theories of knowledge—might seem an

19
20 Longing
for Running Water

extremely abstract approach. In some courses I have given, partici-

pants’ first reaction to this topic has been alarm and skepticism.
Some have even had difficulty accepting the word “epistemology,”
which means “knowing.” For some, this term was completely unfa-
miliar, and for others it raised the specter of the theoretical philo-
sophical constructs they were forced to learn in their youths, and
which were far from being the object of their fondest memories.
They associated the idea of epistemology with highly abstract mat-
ters that had nothing to do with concrete life issues or the everyday
problems that worry us. Furthermore, it seemed to have nothing to
do with the theological concerns we were interested in studying.
Often, in the early part of one course or another, I have decided
to avoid using the word “epistemology” and instead simply talked
about human knowing. I have tried to show how complex and
beautiful it is to come to know a person or a situation. I have
encouraged participants to talk about how they have come to be
aware of sadness and suffering, as well as joy, in their own lives, and
pointed out that their ways of sharing these are already the expres-
sion of a way of knowing. They have begun to perceive the differ-
ences among themselves in the light of their own self-expression,
and to become aware of the extent to which “knowing their own
knowing” is an integral feature of life. They have seen that it is pos-
sible to speak in simple terms of things that seem to be highly com-
plex and restricted to the world of specialists.
Little by little, as their prejudices disappear, the have begun to see
that the word “epistemology,” which at first seemed highly abstruse,
is nothing more than an invitation to think about how we know our-
selves and the things that surround us in our everyday lives. Gradu-
ally this apparently arcane word has begun to be appropriated, along
with other terms that have barely been part of their vocabulary. They
then have begun to see that certain expressions, such as “you are
what you eat” or “I love flowers,” are ways of knowing or recog-
nizing the interdependence between the life of plants or the flowers
and our own lives. This is knowing; this is epistemology! Partici-
pants thus begin to, describe how they tell the stories of their lives,
and come to see that this too is epistemology.
It is a matter, then, of de-complicating words, of stripping them
of the false outer attire that makes access to them difficult. It means
 Knowing Our Knowing 21

giving back to ordinary people something that is part of their lives

but that has, in one sense, been taken away from them by our soci-
ety’s scientific elitism.
Reflecting on my Latin American experience, I have come to see
epistemological issues first and foremost as practical ones, directly
related to our work among poor people. In other words, beginning
to think in a different way requires us to take different positions on
the subject of knowing: to open up spaces for new ways of thinking
and to consider our own thinking in terms of how our goals affect
our perceptions. This is an important task, in women’s groups and
in neighborhood schools, in union organizations and in biblical
reflection circles. Working on epistemology is not just a matter of
trying to influence the process of transmitting knowledge; it is
working toward changing the hierarchical power structure itself,
which continues to propagate itself in the underlying structures of
our society and, in consequence, of our knowing.
Through the inspiration of Paulo Freire, many popular educa-
tors in Latin America have learned how much educational process-
es, and especially literacy training, can help people to commit them-
selves to the pursuit of greater dignity in their everyday lives.
Without entering into the wider debate about differing approaches,
and recognizing that it can be open to various interpretations, I
would say that my proposal follows to a large extent from the same
inspiration and logic that brought about the popular education
movement. The ecofeminist movement does not look at the con-
nection between the domination of women and of nature solely
from the perspective of cultural ideology and social structures; it
seeks to introduce new ways of thinking that are more at the service
of ecojustice. It is this need that justifies my decision to make epis-
temology the subject of the first chapter of this book.
The first questions we need to ask ourselves are, In what ways
do the feminist and ecological issues change our understanding of
our own reality? Are they merely new topics to be reflected on and
integrated into our traditional ways of thinking, or will dealing with
them lead us to work at modifying the very models we use to think
about the world?
These initial questions point to the fundamental importance of
these issues in developing a new way of understanding the world—
22 Longing
for Running Water

and of the human within it—that is slowly taking collective shape

among us.
When we speak of our understanding of reality (and this latter
term always needs to be dealt with explicitly), we are speaking of
our understanding of the phenomena that touch us—of our life
experiences and our ways of knowing them. For this reason, we
find ourselves in the realm of epistemology: of knowing our know-
ing. When I ask how ecology or feminism changes my conscious-
ness, I am trying to introduce ecology and feminism as two issues
that were not included in traditional epistemologies. We have tried
to understand the many dimensions of life without recognizing, as
key reference points and as realities without which knowing itself
is impossible, the presence of women and of the various elements
that make up the earth and the ecosystem. Women and the ecosys-
tem were there, present but unacknowledged, but they were not
regarded as constitutive elements in the process of making our
knowing explicit. In other words, what we called “knowing” was
in fact an awareness limited to a particular perspective on reality,
itself determined by a specific group responsible for formulating
this perspective. We could say, then, that these conditions were
profoundly androcentric—centered on male interests and points of
view—and anthropocentric—centered on human values and expe-
riences alone.
Today we want to broaden this perspective and leave it open for
new learnings. We want to bring in the issues of gender and ecolo-
gy as a constitutive part of our human way of knowing.
We could ask ourselves whether this is just a matter of intro-
ducing some new epistemological content, or whether we will actu-
ally need to build a new epistemology. It seems to me that there are
two things to consider. On one hand, to bring in new content is nei-
ther difficult nor problematic: Human beings are always bringing
new items into their field of knowledge. On the other, the construc-
tion of a new epistemology seems like an immeasurably large task.
But a large task is exactly what we are talking about. We need, lit-
tle by little, to construct new styles of knowing that are intimately
related to our new cosmologies—our new assumptions about the
universe and its form—and to our new and more unified visions of
reality and anthropologies. We need to overcome dualistic and hier-
 Knowing Our Knowing 23

archical divisions among our ways of knowing and to underline the

connections and the interdependencies among them. Similarly, we
need to break out of the Eurocentrism of our knowing and of the
various forms of imperialist, “corner-on-the-truth” attitudes upheld
by the western world.
We are talking, then, about the immense task of reconstructing
our cultural, cosmic, and vital reference points—a reconstruction
that becomes more necessary every day.
Our task in this reflection will be to point to a few clues that
could lead to a gradual change in our perceptions and our under-
standing of ourselves and of the world in which we live.
Ecofeminist epistemology is not, then, a fashionable mode of
thought that can be put on like a new hat; neither is it knowledge
that can be acquired like a new book. It is a stance, an attitude, a
search for wisdom, a conviction that unfolds in close association “|
with the community of all living beings. The ecofeminist perspective
I develop is a kind of action and thought that, like other kinds of
action and thought, opens the way to seeking a new relationship
with all beings.
I will not spend time here on what could be called “mechanistic”
theories of knowing—which hold that, like other natural processes,
human ways of thought can be explained by the laws of physics and
chemistry—or even on the different ways of knowing described in
psychology and the history of philosophy. Nor will I refer to the
specific method used for investigation in every field of human know-
ing. I want to underline the epistemological issues related to Chris-
tian theological knowledge, and especially that which has devel-
oped in the Roman Catholic context. And in the last analysis, of
course, this essay offers ideas and intuitions that will need to be fur-
ther developed.

Knowledge and Ethics

We know that all epistemologies lead us to ethical issues. This is so
because knowing is itself an act that has consequences, both for the
knowing subject and for the community. So even if they are not
always evident, ethical judgments are always implicit when we deal
with epistemological issues.
 24 Longing
for Running Water

I want to underline the fact that every act of knowing involves

an attitude toward life, both at the moment of knowing and in its
relationship with the predictable or unpredictable situations that
mark our everyday lives. Neutrality is not possible, even if we fail to
take cognizance of the situation in which we live or of the systems
of influence that affect us.
In every act of knowing there is a vision and an understanding
of the world and of human beings, a vision and an understanding
that can be observed in the act itself, as well as in its consequences.
To know is to take a stand, even if we do so without reflecting. To
know is to affirm oneself as a human being in a given relationship
with a world of values. To know is to take a position in relation to
other living beings, other human beings, and oneself.
Our everyday lives are full of examples of how our knowing has
ethical implications; inother words, ofhowitaffects thequality of
our actions. For instance, all we have to do is get to know our own
neighborhood better in order to understand how to behave in it.
And when I speak of a neighborhood, I mean not only the geo-
graphical space in which a large group of houses are built, but also
the persons who live in them: their difficulties, their means of sub-
sistence, their hopes and their dreams. I think also of the local veg-
etation, of whether it is scanty or abundant, of the quality of the air
and the color of the sky—all are part of the neighborhood I know.
My actions and my relationships with people change depending
n my style of knowing. Therefore, the relationship between ethics
and epistemology has nothing abstract about it: It is rooted in the
concreteness of our lives.
~ [remember a conversation I had with two women, both Argen-
tine university professors, who told me how much their relationship
with the whole university changed once they agreed between them-
selves to deal with gender issues, to insist on inclusive language and
greater respect for women on campus. Before that decision, they
had never had problems: Their style of knowing was part and par-
cel of the system’s approved ways of knowing. After their “feminist
pact,” there was conflict, but that conflict led to many positive
developments.
The ethics of knowing is an increasingly significant issue; it is of
extraordinary relevance. Today we can no longer speak of unlimit-
 Knowing
ni Our KnowingM 25

ed human knowing, and we cannot propose unrestricted scientific

research without asking what interests lie behind it. Ethical issues
force us to inquire into the limits we place on ourselves, for the sake
both of individuals and of the ecosystem. Within this perspective,
ecofeminism insists that there is an ethical dimension to all human
knowing.

The Hierarchical, Anthropocentric, and Androcentric

Bias of Patriarchal Epistemology
Philosophical theories of knowing created within the western tradi-
tion have always had an anthropocentric, or human-centered, and
androcentric, or male-centered, bias. This does not mean they are
false, or that they have deliberately pushed women aside. It does
mean, however, that their treatment of human knowing has been
limited: They refer to the experience of a part of humanity as
though it were the experience of all. At first glance, we might think
that this is perfectly just and in fact inevitable, and that it could not
really be otherwise. After all, it is human beings who know, and
rational knowing is the prerogative of the “anthropos,” of human-
ity. Furthermore, defining the function or task of knowing in a “sci-
entific” way and performing that task was accomplished most often
by male human beings, by those who were called “andros,” by
those who universalized knowing in the light of their own experi-
ence of knowing and of power. This meant that when we spoke of
scientific knowledge, of philosophical knowledge, of theological
knowledge, or even of “true” knowledge, we were always referring
to knowledge gained and disseminated by men. What was left to
women and to the poor was so-called experiential knowledge,
knowledge based on everyday experience; but this was not auto-
matically recognized as real knowing.
In earlier times, we spoke of degrees of knowledge, of depth of
knowledge, of breadth of knowledge, and of specialists in this or
that kind of knowledge. And very clearly, the poor and women were
always associated with the lowest levels of abstraction—of knowl-
edge, of science, and of wisdom. The hierarchizing of knowing runs
parallel to the hierarchizing of society itself that is characteristic of
the patriarchal world. It is a hierarchizing based on the increasing
26 Longing
for Running Water

exclusion of the majority of people for the sake of a male elite that
monopolizes both power and knowledge. The hierarchizing of
knowing is related to social class, but also to gender. The male gen-
der has a monopoly on the knowledge that is recognized and social-
ly accepted. It is also true that racial issues (some scholars prefer to
call them ethnic issues) influence our knowing. In general, blacks and
indigenous groups are presented as those who know the least. The
history of domination has so deeply marked the foundations of our
culture that we end up claiming, as if it were our own, the type of
knowledge put out by those who hold political and economic power.
We fail to see the degree to which this attitude limits us and raises
between peoples barriers that restrict the true sharing of knowledge.
We can also see the processes of domination and exclusion in
our own knowing—in the mass media, for example. The media
always present the news and other types of programs in ways that
link the hierarchical society in which we live with their own scale of
values. More and more, they dictate the knowledge and attitudes
that most of the population should accept. They ignore the life of
the outcast and excluded, indifferent both to their point of view and
to their sense of life. They regard them as “nobodies.” In the words
of Eduardo Galeano:

The nobodies: nobody’s children, owners of nothing. The nobod-

ies: the no ones, the nobodied, running like rabbits, dying
through life, screwed every which way.
Who are not, but could be.
Who don’t speak languages, but dialects.
Who don’t have religions, but superstitions.
Who don’t create art, but handicrafts.
Who don’t have culture, but folklore.
Who are not human beings, but human resources.
Who do not have faces, but arms.
Who do not have names, but numbers.
Who do not appear in the history of the world, but in the police
blotter of the local paper.
The nobodies, who are not worth the bullet that kills them.!

The very same social hierarchizing is expressed, then, in the hier-

archy of knowledge and in ethnic and sexual hierarchies. This hier-
 Knowing Our Knowing 27

archizing affects our understanding of the social system in which we

live and the ways in which we know our neighbors and ourselves.
This is the model we accept and reproduce on all levels of our lives;
it is our patriarchal heritage.
Above all when it is found in the social and historical sciences,
knowing based on androcentrism attributes special importance to
the actions of male figures: to thought produced by men and to
their glorious feats. Other actors are always secondary. In other
words, patriarchal ideology is a part of our way of knowing: It con-
ditions our thinking without our clearly realizing 1it. In Latin Amer-
ica, for example, we often ask how things are going in the church in
a given city, and the answer almost alwaysdescribes
what bishops
and priests are doing. The same thing is true when people ask about
Brazil’s social situation. The answer always tends to refer first and
foremost to the role of the government, which by definition is com-
posed mainly of economically elite males. In concrete terms, this
means that our knowing is marked by androcentric, hierarchical
patterns. And these patterns are recognized as the official ones:
They are the kind of knowing we publicly espouse, however often
our everyday experience tells us otherwise.
The act of knowing, then, is contextual: It is influenced by sex,
place, time, and date, and is also marked by ideological assumptions
and sexist leanings. Androcentric knowing also leads to_anthro-
pocentric knowing, in which only human actionsand reactions are
taken seriously. If a war kills hundreds ‘of people, for example, but_
at the same timedestroys th r fieldsserving dozens ofvillages,
the rice

Although the ricefields A

content populadion’ s survival base, they elt
not be seen as relevant either to victory or to defeat. To realize this
we need only look back at the two world wars, the Vietnam War,
the Rwandan war, or any of many others.
In any act of aggression against nature, the real target is the
local human inhabitants. So there is no direct intention to destroy
the fauna, flora, or fish in the rivers. Despite this, however, aggres-
sion against human beings also becomes aggression against all of
nature, and the latter aggression is used as a weapon against human
beings. We poison nature in order to destroy all of life because in
28 Longing
for Running Water

that way we destroy human life. We conquer nature in order to

make it an ally of the victors against the vanquished. We manipulate
it, using the same destructive technologies we use against human
beings, and force it into subordination via the victors’ terror tactics.
We use nature as a victim and also as a weapon.
The same thing happens with women. They too are a war target,
and their bodies are used as a means of sowing terror in the civilian
population. They are raped and brutally beaten, and thus used as
pawns in the process of provoking ever greater hatred among resis-
tance groups, which thus become more vulnerable to the enemy’s
trickery. All this has been pointed up, once again, within the last few
years, in military and paramilitary actions in Haiti, Rwanda, and
Serbia.
We do not often carry out this sort of historical analysis. The use
of nature, of the fauna and flora, and of women as weapons in war
and conquest gets little attention in our analyses. It is barely noted
in our body of so-called historical knowledge, and almost never is
it treated as an important ethical consideration.
We usually count the dead in war, but we almost never mention
the destruction of the environment, the death of animals, the poi-
soning of natural springs, and the destruction of the present and
future means of survival of those who have not died. We do not
mention the deaths of birds and other animals, the forests that were
burned, or the flowering fields that were trampled. We do not speak
of the filthy and poisoned water where once there was a beautiful
lake or river.
The starry sky, obscured by poisonous clouds of war, is forgot-
ten. The air, which has been made almost unbreathable by gases
used in chemical warfare, is rarely mentioned. Women who have
been raped and killed, or who have cared for the wounded, go unre-
membered. We do not mention the interdependence of all life sys-
tems, even though it is present everywhere.
Many would argue that to speak of nature in wartime condi-
tions is to turn our backs on human beings, to show concern instead
for less important beings such as birds and flowers. In fact this argu-
ment is often made, understandably so despite its anthropocen-
trism. But it fails to fathom the depth of the connecamong
tion all
the beings and energies in the universe. It fails to clearly grasp either
 Knowing Our Knowing 29

the
interconnecting web thatisinherent inlifeith
cance inassuring life’s continuity.
itselforbernie,
its signifi
For us human beings, clearly, it is our own species that matters
the most. We do not hesitate in choosing whether to save a nest of
baby birds or a human child: Human beings automatically move to
save the child, as the bird struggles to save her offspring. This is a
biological matter: It is instinctive in all animals. However, we need
to go beyond this immediate reaction of self-defense, of our biased
attempt to save only what is left of our own species.
We are aware that, despite progress in human knowing, both
nature and human beings are systematically used to serve the polit-
ical and economic interests of a minority of the population. Fur-
thermore, nature and human beings both are co-opted in “war
games” bent on destructive purposes, and then are largely forgotten
when it comes time to write the official histories.
It seems ever more important to ask ourselves how we under-
stand history. What position do we take when confronted by the
facts, and what are the values upon which we act? What kind of
knowledge do we develop, with what objectives, and using what
means? Once again, the issue of epistemology becomes an ethical
one—for both the present and the future. What we know, how we
know it, and how we make it known are all related to the way in
which we lead our livestand how we value our own lives and all lives.
We know we do not constantly reflect on our consciousness. In
fact, most people rarely think about it. They simply know, without
realizing that the way they know is the fruit of the environments in
which they live, their educations, and their social positions. It is
also a product of the prevailing ideology, which they may have
adopted more or less consciously, or simply accepted without even
thinking about it or choosing it. Most people fail to realize that
they could change their ways of knowing or that those ways are in
fact continually modified by the marketing and consumer society in
which we live.
Thus we are not constantly questioning our ways of knowing or
the conditions that affect them. Knowing is something quite spon-
taneous for us. The task of thinkers, however, and especially of
philosophers, is to stop and think about these issues and then to
help people who are interested by making it possible for them to
30 Longing
for Running Water

understand the personal and collective consequences of their styles

of knowing. Our duty is to raise the level'of our awareness, open-
ing it to broader perspectives in which tenderness and sharing in
solidarity can be recovered as highly important elements in the
processes of knowing and educating. This should be a consideration
not just in our wider societal relationships but also in everyday
domestic life.
In order to make the work of philosophers more accessible, we
will look at the patriarchal epistemology that informs our theology
and go beyond this to an ecofeminist epistemological perspective. I
am not proposing the simplistic idea of substituting one for the
other, nor am I interested in destructive criticism of the epistemolo-
gy on which our western Christian tradition is grounded. Rather, I
want to open the problem up and consider it as a challenge to be
dealt with. The idea is to loosen the soil of our certainties and to ask
to what degree these certainties rest on foundations that might be
more valid at one time and less so at another. It is to think of life as
a process in which change is sometimes gradual and sometimes sud-
den, and in which both the present and the future are significantly
influenced by our cognitive choices. This chapter on epistemology
aims to focus on precisely this objective.

Patriarchal Epistemology in Theology

I would like to underline some features that I think are characteris-
tic of patriarchal epistemology. My purpose is to use critical analy-
sis to understand some of its repercussions in our lives as Christians.
Despite the fact that it has allowed innumerable persons to express
their deepest convictions, patriarchal epistemology undoubtedly
reflects an understanding of the world and of human life that is
beginning to be a problem for us today. It is, then, with the deepest
respect for all human achievements that I take the liberty of open-
ing up this domain of critical reflection.

ESSENTIALIST EPISTEMOLOGY

One of the most important features of the patriarchal epistemology

that continues to influence Christian theology is its essentialist char-
acter. Even when it tries to be realistic and starts off by examining
 Knowing Our Knowing 31

the material reality in which we all live, this epistemology always

looks to a reference point that underlies this reality and seems even
more important than the reality itself. For Christian theology,
human beings have an essence, that which makes them “this” and
not “that,” and it is their essence that defines them as specific
beings. We always look for the constitutive essence of each thing,
for the way God wills each thing to be. It is as if all our knowing
were more than mere knowing, and all our so-called ethical actions
ought to adhere to the will of a superior reality or match a natural
constitutive reality that is prior to ourselves. It seems we are not
what we appear to be in our everyday lives. We are in a sense pre-
defined, and this prior definition is to some extent inaccessible to
our knowing, while at the same time it constitutes the governing
principle of that knowing.
Everything operates as if, throughout the course of our history,
for a thousand and one reasons, we had obscured this sort of ideal
or essence, and our whole task were now to restore it to clarity in
the midst of life’s ups and downs. This restoration process is nev-
ertheless understood as one that cannot be totally accomplished
within history. Thus human beings are able—despite innumerable
obstacles and as part of a process that is never completed—to seek
to recover some of their true likeness and to restore the ideal on the
basis of which they were once created. The movement is always a
turning back, even if life moves forward: an endless turning back to
a prior state, as if that state were the fundamental basis upon
which to judge the present. Each new generation has to begin the
process anew in an endless historical dynamic, until we arrive at
the “end times.”
Throughout the history of Catholic theology, this understanding
of human nature has been taken to be grounded in Scripture and was
affirmed as part of God’s revelation. This predetermined human
essence was understood as the equivalent of the human situation
before the “fall,” before humanity’s sin. And it is to this that we
almost always return in order to discover our forfeited wholeness.
How could this ideal essence have become established in the
human imagination? How did it develop to the point of becoming
the model we seek to emulate? How did it become so universal, to
the point of our attempting to eliminate the differences that arise
32 Longing
for Running Water

from the fact that we are cultural beings? These are some of the
questions that haunt us when we take on the philosophical task of
reflecting on our theological frame of reference.
To speak of essentialist epistemology is not to deny our human
fragility or our lack of inner consistency. In other words, it does not
mean denying that we have the paradoxical feeling of being both
more and less than ourselves. Neither does it mean denying our dif-
ficulties in loving and doing good. We do what we would not and
we fail to do what we would, as Saint Paul says. Our dreams are
always larger than ourselves, and frustration is a frequent experi-
ence in our lives. This is not essentialism; it is our concrete, lived
experience—at least during recent millennia. We know that well
before the Greek tragedies were written, a sense of the drama of
human existence had developed, caused by our paradoxical acqui-
sition of the ability to be both builders and destroyers of life, to be
either greater or lesser than ourselves.
We sometimes fail immediately to recognize essentialist episte-
mology, especially when it begins by describing human activity and
the difficulties we have on various levels of our relationships. It is
also hard to recognize when it refers to problems of injustice and
social inequality. However, if we look closely, we will see that in the
very act of theological knowing we have a way of denying the phe-
nomena we are observing; instead of acknowledging these phenom-
ena, we speak of the need to model ourselves on a given ideal of
what a human being is, of what human society should be, and of
obedience to God. And these preset ideals are always rooted in the
past—in times of yore, in some earlier moment of ahistorical puri-
ty, or in a given divine revelation—or else they are imagined in some
blissful future, a final parousia.
The most striking thing is that these ideals are often sought in
the biblical tradition, as revealed data above and beyond empirical
reality. It is as if these ideals could offer us certitudes that legitimize
our perceptions and our actions. Once again, this is what we call an
essentialist-oriented epistemology.
Essentialist epistemology is somewhat fundamentalistic in deal-
ing with the Bible. This does not mean it necessarily interprets the
texts “literally” or insists that they are factual in the way religious
fundamentalisms do. But it does mean that it takes the Scriptures or
 Knowing Our Knowing 33

the Bible as essential and irrefutable, as texts that ground our being
in the past or in some ideal state or ideal essence willed by God.
Essentialist epistemology recognizes that what is written in the Bible
is expressed within a specific cultural context, but it assumes that it
offers “something” that is above and beyond all cultures. And when
we ask what that “something” above and beyond all cultures is, or
how it can be apprehended by other cultures, or even how we can
identify it as a divine reality, the answers we get no longer manifest
logic or reason.
Thus the biblical fundamentalism to which I refer can even take
on progressive and revolutionary colors, but it still reflects a strain
of epistemological and anthropological essentialism.
Another form of this essentialist epistemology sets up future
models for knowing and behaving, as well as models for human
society, as if we were journeying toward a specific, predesigned,
preestablished objective. Writers have taken biblical images that
appear to have been present in the beginning of history, or appear
to be concrete aspirations for a better world, and transported them
to the end of history. So, for example, they speak of a terrestrial
paradise not in terms of origins but in terms of a future hope, of
desire, of the collective dream of the Christian community. My
friend Carlos Mesters’s book, Paraiso, saudade ou esperanca? is a
good example of this. Commenting on the first chapters of Genesis,
he writes:

The ideal God has willed for humankind is set down in the first
part [of the book]. It is Paradise. Within this narrative, the ideal of
Paradise acts as a contrasting image that stands in opposition,
element by element, to the present world, which is itself described
in the third part. If it is not God, then who is it that is responsible
for this overall malaise in the world and in life... ? ADAM,
humankind itself, is responsible: humankind and no one else. In
humankind we find the source of evil, although—and here is the
narrative’s other objective—humankind itself, by its own conver-
sion and initiative, is able to bring about the elimination of evil
and to attain the ideal of Paradise. All efforts in this direction will
be successful, because God’s will does not change.”
34 Longing
for Running Water

This rather dated text could be questioned in many ways, but

the first thing I want to point out is that it nourished the hope of
many Latin American groups in the 1970s. Today, this very idealis-
tic and anthropocentric formulation of that hope seems flimsy; we
would have to question many aspects of this understanding of the
human reality and of the “ultimate reality” that sustains all, and
which for better or for worse we call God.
Some might object that what I call the essentialist perspective is
really the expression of human hope, of a hope that could be called
the affirmation of the fundamental goodness of human persons and
of the possibility that they can be happy. In other words, it is saying
that good and not evil will have the last word in human history. I
can see a certain value in this objection, but I think it still remains
within the essentialist perspective, which attempts to describe what
human beings are and affirms that they are essentially good. This
sort of predetermined definition of humanity as being on the side of
the good seems ever more questionable in our day and age. My
questions to the essentialists would be, What does our personal
experience teach us? What does our experience of living with
human joys and sufferings reveal? What, concretely, do we perceive
in the growing violence in our countries? Has the time not come to
try and rethink our human experience—not in terms of worthy
ideals and essences, but based on the perplexing cosmic reality of
which we are a part?

MONOTHEISTIC EPISTEMOLOGY

Monotheistic epistemology teaches that there is a divine, centraliz-

ing model that makes human knowing possible. Although this
monotheism has specific cultural roots, it attempts to impose itself
on all cultures as the expression of the will and the truth of the one
Creator God. In concrete terms, this epistemological monotheism is
expressed in different ways. It is no novelty, for example, to hear
that God is the “object” of theological knowledge. Thus theology
attempts to grasp God’s way of acting, God’s desires or projects,
God’s will, and, to a certain extent, God’s being. Thus God becomes
an “object” of knowing—but a far from objective one. For the
philosopher Immanuel Kant, for example, God is a postulate of
 Knowing Our Knowing 35

practical reason and therefore cannot be grasped by pure reason.

God is an object with no objectivity, without a socially identifiable
personality. Nevertheless, it is about this present-and-absent object
that theology speaks. Theology does not speak of God’s way of
existing; it takes this existence as a given. It speaks of this existence
as an incontestable “given.”
The issue I raise with patriarchal theology is not its effort to
speak of God, of the Mystery that envelops us, but the pretentious-
ly “objective” way in which it speaks, and the historical conse-
quences of this way of speaking and its influence on the lives of spe-
cific social groups.
Theological discourse about God gives God a historical sub-
stance, an image, and a role. But who are the people who give God
a role? Human beings, undoubtedly; and, within a patriarchal struc-
ture, especially male human beings, who are most responsible for
the conventional image of God in our societies and who enjoy the
largest allotment of power.
When we examine the image of the One God offered us by men
of a specific social rank, in a sense what we are seeing is the men in
whose image God is depicted. We recognize their values, their hier-
archies, their countries, and their dreams. We know those who
speak of God, then, and we virtually ignore those who are silent,
those who do not speak publicly of God. This is the main thing I
want to underscore in this section. I want to show how much tradi-
tional theology’s discourse on God reveals the actions of men as
expressions of the divine, and how much it veils and obscures all
that falls outside patriarchal criteria. This, of course, is a funda-
mental epistemological issue. Through examining traditional theol-
ogy’s discourse, we can once again observe how the male gender
becomes the primary criterion of knowing, and how this discourse
devalues other perceptions.
It is interesting to examine a few biblical examples. These exam-
ples may help us to get a concrete sense of what we call epistemo-
logical monotheism, or monotheistic epistemology. Genesis, for
example, features a hidden narrator who relates God’s great feats.
God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God said, “Let
the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of
every kind .. .” and the earth brought forth vegetation. God said,
36 Longing
for Running Water

“Tet us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness;

and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth”
(Geli. 1231 1, 26).
The transcendent and mysterious character of that creative
breath has not always been respected. It is worthwhile to remember,
therefore, that in the text it is human beings who not only named
creation as the work of God’s word, but also named themselves as
the work of the same word. And this word is absolutely transcen-
dent, beyond all words. If we were to examine the text from an epis-
temological point of view, we would realize that a discontinuity can
be noted in the text itself.
The Transcendent, who creates and justifies all, is of a different
order; this is another being, one that is absolutely different. Tran-
scendence, as a superior reality, is absolutely “other,” and thus
becomes the underlying ground of all that exists.
But since humanity is the only creature that can name its own
origins—name God, that is—it has, in a way, received the power to
refashion God in its own image and to thus make itself the center of
creation. At the same time that humanity names God as its own cen-
ter, it names itselfasthe center of history. Anthropocentrism and
monotheocentrism—the as: assumption that worship of the one God is
the only legitimate form of religion—are identified with each other
and distinguished from each other in the same process. The one
depends on the other for its existence. So, because western mono-
theism named itself as the center of creation, it was able to take an
imperialistic stance and destroy expressions of the divine it regarded
as inferior, while at the same time progressively excluding women
from so-called sacred power.
In not a few historical episodes, individuals and cultures were
treated with contempt, destroyed, and conquered, and empires were
set up, all in the name of our supposed knowledge of the true God.
In the name of God, women were silenced, burned, and subjugated
at the hands of a power that proclaimed itself the one true way.
Another example drawn from the Bible may help even more in
understanding the issue of monotheistic epistemology. In chapter 3
of Exodus, in which the call of Moses is related, the hero of the
 Knowing Our Knowing 37

story is Moses but the principal actor is God. “I have observed the
misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry on
account of their taskmasters. Indeed, I know their sufferings, and I
have come down to deliver them from the Egyptians, and to bring
them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing
with milk and honey . . .” (Exod. 3:7-8).
Once again, the “person” of God understands the people’s need
for freedom and appears to take the initiative in their exodus from
Egypt. We could go so far as to say that the people make their expe-
rience into a “word of God.” Still, it is not transmitted as “our
word” or “our experience,” but as a word and a decision that come
from above and beyond us, rather than what it is: a clearly mascu-
line historical experience.
The episode of Moses’ being called reflects the basic structure
that governs discourse on God’s liberating actions. One can always
tell when absolute transcendence intervenes in the world of imma-
nence, that is, of experiences lived out by human beings. The justice
human beings need seems not to come from themselves, but from
God. The condemnation of evils that cause death and destruction
also seems to comes through divine action. The logical conclusion is
that, in the final analysis, only God knows what human beings
need. This basic structure of reality leads us to posit a sociopolitical
order grounded in the absolute transcendence of a God who
appears to have a direct influence on the course of history, even
though God’s action is not always victorious. This seems to apply
also to the sociopolitical structures currently in place. These basic
structures appear to justify the authority of those who have the
power to liberate the people, and so seem to favor the continuation
of the hierarchical structure in order preserve the social order itself.
Contemporary biblical studies show beyond any doubt that
women participated in the liberation process described in Exodus.
Looking at our knowledge of the event, however, we see that our
perception was limited to actions by men and by divine transcen-
dence, which was alluded to in primarily masculine images. Our
knowing is conditioned by those who “hold the cards,” that is, by
those who possess the power both to know and to decide within a
given social order.
38 Longing
for Running Water

ANDROCENTRICALLY BIASED EPISTEMOLOGY

The center of all theological knowing is located in masculine experi-

ence. For example, the great leader in the struggle for freedom in
Exodus is, as we know, Moses. Feminine figures virtually disappear
from the reader’s view. We almost never notice that it was three
women who prepared Moses’ journey: his mother, his sister Miriam,
and the daughter of Pharaoh who raised him. Our reading and inter-
pretation of the text obscure these women’s presence; if the women
are not hidden totally, then they are mentioned very discreetly.
Phyllis Trible, Professor of Sacred Literature at Union Theolog-
ical Seminary in New York, has shown in various writings just how
often records of women’s actions in the Bible were literally erased
by patriarchal domination. Just as physical creation (light, water,
and vegetation) appears to be the work of a “voice” or a word that
is masculine in its historical expression, so also the liberation
process—the struggle for social justice—appears to have been
reduced to a strictly male initiative. Reading the narrative without
perceiving these reductions was typical of all patriarchal teaching.
And we are aware of how much this reading influences our percep-
tions, our actions, and our religious, cultural, social, and personal
identities.
Human history is understood as absolutely dependent on the
will of a Supreme Being whose historical image is masculine. This
Supreme Being appears to take part in history, and although we
cannot always say which side this Supreme Being is on, the biblical
world seems often to have placed this Supreme Being on the side of
those who love justice and mercy. And this side is presented as more
masculine than feminine. This seems to imply that all the great
social and political decisions in history, as well as the great works of
justice and mercy, come from the male sex. The domestic world, the
world of women, does not seem to be part of the great adventure of
bringing about justice and peace; rather, this is the world on which
God’s punishments most often fall. The story of Miriam, the sister
of Moses and Aaron, is a typical example.
In a recent issue of the Atlantic Monthly, the journalist Cullen
Murphy relates a conversation he had with Phyllis Trible that makes
this situation clear:
 Knowing Our Knowing 39

Miriam moves with the people of Israel into the desert, where-
upon she disappears from the Book of Exodus. But she reappears
later in the Bible, in connection with what seems to be a severe
clash with the leadership, one from which Miriam emerges the
loser—accounting, perhaps, for her diminished prominence. The
reappearance occurs amid the jumble of the Book of Numbers,
wherein Miriam and Aaron are heard to question the authority of
their brother, asking the question Trible and others ask more
broadly: “Has the Lord spoken only through Moses?” The Lord
does not punish Aaron, but Miriam is struck down with a skin
affliction, possibly leprosy, for her rebelliousness, and later dies in
the wilderness of Zin.?

It is interesting to recall that similar behaviors are reproduced

today in our patriarchal culture. Women are always blamed, and
regard themselves as guilty, when their families do not grow har-
moniously or when children have problems in school and elsewhere.
Officially, history is always made by men, but its negative conse-
quences frequently fall upon women’s shoulders.
The same thing happens in the churches. Women always are
held more responsible and receive greater blame than men. Look,
for example, at all the issues surrounding birth control and family
planning. Male leaders are always easier on those whom they per-
ceive to be in their own image and likeness!
Finally, let us not overlook an issue that, as this century draws
to a close, seems to me important. All the theological, christological,
and mariological dogmas that have been proclaimed, especially in
the Roman Catholic Church, have been the result of controversies
among the various male theological schools of thought and their
alliances with the holders of secular power. Women have barely
even given their consent to these discussions. Today, however, the
situation seems to be changing. We are seeking to express our faith
and our convictions in our own way, and this behavior will
undoubtedly raise serious questions for traditional dogmatics. “Has
the Lord spoken only through Moses?”

THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF ETERNAL TRUTHS

Especially in theology, patriarchal epistemology bases itself on so-

called eternal truths. What are these truths? They are the unques-
40 Longing for Running Water

tionable truths, those that always were so and always will be so.
More than that, they are the ground on which our true knowledge
rests, because they are in some way expressions of the divine light
within us.
Within a theological perspective, the affirmation that God is
Absolute Being and creator of the world belongs to what are called
the eternal truths. Added to this are the so-called revealed truths:
those that cannot, according to Christian tradition, be changed by
different sociocultural contexts, even though they emerge from
within one such context. It is as if they appeared in concrete histo-
ry but were born of a reality that is beyond or prior to that reality.
This perspective opens us to the world of natural human experience
and at the same time to supernatural revelation, which is a gratu-
itous gift of the goodness and mercy of God.
In this perspective, supernatural revelation is not to be ques-
tioned. It should always be taken into account in any theological
work, as well as in the everyday faith life of believers. Epistemolog-
ically speaking, it amounts to the juxtaposing, in our own cognitive
experience, of two types of phenomena: one that comes from divine
revelation and another that has to do with human faith and experi-
ence. Within this perspective we also situate ourselves on two dis-
tinct cognitive levels: that of natural knowing and that of supernat-
ural knowing. The one is not necessarily opposed to the other, but
the supernatural has undoubtedly predominated over the natural,
just as the spirit has predominated over matter.
To make this epistemological structure more understandable, I
will cite a passage from a book by Ronaldo Mufioz:

We, who believe in Jesus Christ, believe that through his resurrec-
tion from the dead his GOD was confirmed as the true God and
the “god” of his judges was condemned as false. We believe that
in this “crisis,” in this sentence handed down by God in the con-
flict between Jesus and his attackers, we received the definitive key
for recognizing the image of the living God in any time and any
social or ecclesiastical situation, and for recognizing the image of
the living God and distinguishing it from all caricatures and coun-
terfeits.4
 Knowing Our Knowing 41

The level of certitude that can be inferred from these affirma-

tions appears to come from the Platonic-Aristotelian metaphysi-
cal structure, which was used in traditional theology to interpret
the tragic experience of Jesus in his struggle to defend the life of
the outcast. The resurrection is affirmed as an event that took
place after Jesus’ death and as the victory of “his God.” We are
not talking about symbols here: if we were, it would always be
possible to open up new interpretations. Rather, this is an “eter-
nal truth,” a “revealed truth,” a constitutive and immutable truth
of our faith. There is a sense in which any lived experience that
could relate directly to our own seems to have dropped out of
sight. This opens the way to formulating statements of principle
that tend to make us uncomfortable within the tragic reality of
our concrete lives.
In the above text, the true God, the Father of Jesus Christ, is
affirmed as the true God and thus as the unquestionable truth. The
proofs for this affirmation have a certain historical character,
despite the fact that they are interpreted in the light of a dualistic—
that is, involving both natural and supernatural ways of knowing—
and an ahistorical metaphysics.
In contrast, in a nonmetaphysical structure, the resurrection
would be affirmed first and foremost as Jesus’ own historical prac-
tice, a historical practice that led to his death. This practice is con-
tinued by his disciples and is constantly itself resurrected. In a dif-
ferent theological structure, the metaphysical dimension of the
resurrection—so necessary in the patriarchal scheme of things,
because of the affirmation that Jesus is truly God and truly
human—is not mentioned. Instead, there is an acceptance of the
mystery of the life process. There is silence in the face of his silence,
and the mystery of life and death is embraced as a reality that
always goes beyond all human understanding.
There is silence, too, in the face of the highly subtle distinctions
between false gods and the true God. I believe these distinctions are
responsible for injecting elements such as value judgments, a certain
moralism, and a reduction of transcendence to the level of histori-
cal conflicts into the Platonic-Aristotelian metaphysical structure of
this style of thought. Theoretically, too, this way of thinking leads
to flagrant contradictions. Who has the authority to affirm such
42 Longing
for Running Water

eternal verities? How do we establish their eternal nature, and in

what exactly do these eternal attributes corisist? What would these
truths be like if they were not upheld by their supposed eternity? To
what historical model do they correspond?
If we detach our thought from the dogmatic framework and
examine Jesus’ teachings in the light of the suspicions I am raising,
we find nothing in the teachings that refers to a body of eternal
truths. His proposal for universal brotherhood/sisterhood is neither
a political program nor a metaphysical affirmation. Rather, it is an
orientation toward life itself, a road that needs to bee continually
built, to be laid out in the light of the unexpected and expected
events of every day, in the light of encounters with the outcast.
Comparisons of the reign of God to the yeast a woman works into
the flour, or a great banquet in which all are satisfied, or the multi-
plied loaves that ease the multitude’s hunger: None of these is meta-
physics. These are wisdom lessons drawn from everyday life, from
the realities that touch our bodies and weave the texture our rela-
tionships. We will take these questions up again in greater detail in
the chapter devoted to Jesus.

ARISTOTELIAN-THOMISTIC EPISTEMOLOGY

The epistemology that is most widespread in the Roman Catholic

Church continues to reflect the Aristotelian-Thomistic structure that
prevailed in the Middle Ages. In other words, the way in which
Aristotle—and later Saint Thomas Aquinas—understood and orga-
nized their knowing became, so to speak, the glasses through which
we saw and understood our life and our Christian faith. Aristotle,
who lived in the fourth century B.C.E., and Aquinas, who lived in the
thirteenth century, even today to a great extent provide the frame of
reference within which we understand what we call the “truths of
the faith.”
In very general terms, this way of understanding the world dis-
tinguishes between truths obtained by way of natural reason and
truths of the faith..There is no contradiction between the two,
Aristotle and Aquinas taught, but there is a difference. Natural
reason can prove the existence of God, but not of the Trinity, the
incarnation, or the resurrection. These latter truths of faith are
 Knowing Our Knowing 43

known through the revelation given in sacred Scripture. Reason

can never refute the truths of faith, and it should in a certain sense
submit to them.
Concretely, then, this perspective maintains that the whole range
of things we know naturally can be changed, but not the truths of
faith, the order of things revealed by God. There is a sort of basic,
unchanging structure that is understood to be above and beyond the
contingencies of space and time. Nevertheless, this “immutable”
structure, which came directly from God, was explicitly revealed at
a certain time and in a certain place and is accepted by believers as
the road to salvation.
Divine revelation occurs in a given historical moment and is
experienced as a free gift bestowed on us for the sake of humanity’s
salvation. According to this traditional theological perspective, it
cannot be changed, for to do so would be to run the risk of altering
the very “deposit of faith” that was given to us by God.
From an epistemological point of view, this means that theolog-
ical knowing always has to take place within this structure of
immutable truths. So the questions we can raise about our faith,
and above all about the formulas in which our faith is couched, are
allowed to go only so far. They cannot question affirmations regard-
ed as “truths of the faith” or as revealed data. We can say many
things about God, about Jesus Christ, and about the virgin Mary,
but anything creative we might offer must necessarily continue to
affirm the so-called revealed truths that have been confirmed by
ecumenical councils in their dogmatic declarations. These “revealed
truths” come almost to have a life of their own: They end up
becoming truths that cannot be questioned in light of Christian
communities’ history and lived experience. This situation also leads
to teachings that sanction the power invested in male church
authorities to act as the guardians of fidelity to these doctrines.
These authorities exercise control over what the faithful can and
should believe, claiming that their power comes from Jesus Christ,
the founder of the church, in compliance with the absolute will of
God. And although there is much talk of faith communities and of
the need for consensus among the various members, in reality there
has been very little room for such democratic endeavors in the his-
tory of the Christian churches.
44 Longing
for Running Water

For these reasons, and undoubtedly for others as well, the

church has opposed modernity and refused to engage in a more
open dialogue about the world’s problems. Its foundations and its
truth were “not of this world,” although its power made itself clear-
ly felt in this world. The Roman Catholic Church in particular held
to an epistemology that ran parallel to the rationalistic and mecha-
nistic epistemology that developed in the modern world. As we all
know, it refused to accept the autonomy of the scientific enterprise.
It condemned, persecuted, and in some cases even killed those who
dared to dissent from its teachings, above all when the teachings
were presented as eternal verities.
Christian epistemology, and especially the version that devel-
oped in the Catholic church, affirms some formulations of the faith
as immutable truths that subsist within the very process of history.
It is as if everything were changeable, but, in order guarantee the
immutability of God, some realities have always remained the same.
This framework, which has concealed the fundamentally dualis-
tic structure of Christian theology, does not permit descriptions of
the human values inherent in the experience of Jesus’ followers in
any way but that coded in dogma and regarded as unquestionable
truth. We could go as far as to say that the experience of Jesus, his
struggle against antihuman forces, has been reduced to an intellec-
tual framework that often insults our reason, does violence to our
perceptions, and assails our hearts. And this dogmatic, dualistic
framework does not, in my view, allow the flexibility necessary for
understanding the values that gave meaning and substance to the
life of Jesus—values that could do the same for our lives today.
We can certainly speak of the historical universality of values.
Love, sharing, mercy, and the practice of justice are values without
which shared human life would be impossible. In this sense, these
values would be universal even if their interpretation might some-
times be specific to a given situation, or rife with ambiguities. To
keep these ambiguities in mind is important in order not to fall into
new forms of idealism.
Some readers might object that after the Second Vatican Coun-
cil, or with the advent of liberation theology in Latin America, a
new epistemology has appeared. I believe Vatican II heralded a new
willingness to deal with major world issues, especially those facing
 Knowing Our Knowing 45

the so-called First World. The council brought with it a greater

effort to dialogue with other churches and religious bodies; it also
opened a wider dialogue on social issues throughout the world. It
created a more open space for debate on the questions and chal-
lenges raised in the world of science. Strictly speaking, however,
there was no change in epistemology. Christian cosmology and
anthropology also remained the same, even though among so-called
progressives its dualistic language was softened.
Liberation theology’s great contribution was its refocusing of
attention on the plight of the poor as a fundamental theological
issue, and its encouragement of a spirituality centered on the strug-
gle for liberation from the various oppressions, especially from so-
called social sin. It pointed up the intimate relationship between
adhesion to Jesus and the struggle against social injustice and its
daily assault on life in Latin America.
Liberation theology opened the door to the writings of modern
Enlightenment thinkers such as Karl Marx. Despite the unquestion-
able value of their work, however, these authors understood histo-
ry in terms of the mechanistic structure that prevailed in the science
of their day. So although liberation theology did move beyond clas-
sical and medieval epistemology, it ended up using a modern episte-
mology that is still somewhat mechanistic and in which the notions
of class struggle, the classless society, and the reign of God appear,
on first examination, to be in harmony with one another.
In fact, liberation theology did not in reality propose a new epis-
temology. All it did was to bring some aspects of the epistemology
that characterizes the modern era into a theological perspective that
sought the integral liberation of the Latin American poor. For exam-
ple, liberation theology’s reinterpretation of the life of Jesus of
Nazareth does not question traditional doctrine or deconstruct
christological dogma, but instead recasts it in the light of the option
\ for the poor and of the struggle for justice.°
Therefore we can say that in liberation theology there is an
attempt to reconcile two different epistemological systems without
eliminating either of them. The task, then, is to discern which of the
~ two is more actively present in liberation theology’s theological dis-
- course itself. The answer is not easy to come by: The issue itself is
complex, and many theologians of liberation deal with it in their
46 Longing for Running Water

writings. Besides, the limits of the present reflection are such that we
can offer no exhaustive analysis of this subject. Meanwhile, howev-
er, a few examples might help us better understand the insights I am
attempting to offer here. Let me begin with a quote from another
friend, Gustavo Gutiérrez:

The God made flesh, the God present in each and every human
person, is not more “spiritual” than the God that is present on the
mountain or in the temple. That God is in fact more “material.”
That God is not less committed to human history but is, on the
contrary, more deeply committed to bringing about peace and jus-
tice among humans. That God is not more “spiritual,” but is cer-
tainly closer, more visible, and at the same time more interior.
Ever since God made us humanity, every human person, and
history itself are all the living temple of the living God. There is no
longer anything that is “pro-fane,” that lies outside the temple.®

First of all, I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing the

author’s thought or questioning its undeniable value; rather, I seek
to offer a theoretical-practical treatment of it, looking for arrows
that can point to new directions for us today. Nor is this an attempt
to get Gutiérrez to say things he could not have said, given his own
formation and the social and ecclesial context in which he acted.
Rather, it is an effort to examine how certain lines of thinking and
action become part of social movements, and how we need to fol-
low the various threads that make them up in an attempt to under-
stand their structure.
The fundamentally anthropocentric and androcentric character
of liberation theology appears unquestionable. It speaks of God in
human history, a God who in the end remains the Creator and
Lord. It thereby reaffirms the entire Thomistic tradition on God
and on the incarnation. It senses no need to reexamine the cosmo-
logical and anthropological foundations of the Christian faith. It
reaffirms the goodness and justice of God’s being without raising
questions about the repercussions, throughout human history, of
traditional or historically conditioned images of God.
Tam not making a value judgment. Rather, I have cited just one
example from a pioneering work of liberation theology in order to
show how the “event” that was Jesus of Nazareth is understood
 Knowing Our Knowing 47

within a dualistic epistemological perspective. The theology’s struc-

ture continues to work on two levels, even when there is an attempt,
as in the case of the author just cited, to get beyond the distinction
between the sacred and the profane. The judgment on history is still
of a transcendent nature, and is defined by the fact that Christian
revelation precedes it. It is as if Christian revelation were able to
stand in judgment on history and possessed all the elements neces-
sary to make that judgment.
This style of thought, which first appeared in the 1970s, seems
to continue unchanged in the 1990s. One text reads as follows:

The ultimate motive for our commitment to the poor and

oppressed is not to be found in the social analysis we use, or in
our human compassion, or in any direct experience of poverty we
might have. These are all valid motives, and they undoubtedly
play an important role in our lives; but for Christians, this com-
mitment is grounded fundamentally in the God of our faith. It is
a theocentric and prophetic option that is deeply rooted in the
gratuity of God’s love and is demanded by it.”

It is worth stressing that although we can be in agreement with

all aspects of Gutiérrez’s ethical position regarding the challenge of
the poor to the Christian community, we still discover in his work a
type of thought structure and an epistemology that leave us within
the Aristotelian-Thomistic epistemological frame of reference. The
“distance” or “discontinuity” between God’s life and human life
continues to be underlined. I am not saying this frame of reference
is wrong, but it does seem unable to deal with the reality in which
we find ourselves. Furthermore, it no longer responds to the chal-
lenges we confront now, at the end of the millennium.
A major question, then, faces those of us who are seeking new
directions. Is Christianity conceivable apart from the traditional
philosophical framework? Are we able to think about it from with-
in other frames of reference that might demand changes in its tradi-
tional formulations? Can we reflect on these apart from the dog-
matic formulas that have set their stamp on so many centuries?
These questions haunt us, and we have not yet found really satis-
factory answers.
48 Longing
for Running Water

My personal answer, a provisional one at this point in my own

quest, is that although we continue to swim in a sea of uncertainties
and doctrinal debates, it is still possible to find a way that differs
from that of classical Greek or Thomistic philosophies. And because
I believe in a new epistemological framework in which the experi-
ence of the “Jesus movement” can be expressed, I think there is
room for the epistemological approaches developed in the next
section.

Ecofeminist Epistemology
Because of its rather different perception of human beings and their
relationship to the earth and all of the cosmos, the ecofeminist per-
spective endeavors to propose a somewhat different epistemology. I
say “somewhat different” because no one can claim to be starting
from zero. We are one body in process, a_living body that is grow-
ing; we cannot deny all our earlier moments and former phases, as
if
fwe could learn to know again from zero, or as if we could begin
a new history that is out of continuity with the past. Besides, we
know very well that to know, organize, and reorganize the meaning
of all that surrounds us is always a relative task, and is never fully
completed.
What we call “knowing” is the most plausible way we have
found to say something to one another about the mystery that we
are and in which we have our being. It is one manifestation of our
reflexive way of existing and articulating for ourselves our images of
the universe, of human relationships, of our perceptions, and of our
desires and dreams.
Certain affirmations, themselves drawn from lived experience,
form an integral part of ecofeminist epistemology. These affirma-
tions are sketches whose ill-defined outlines express aspects of the
quest we begin ever anew in the world of knowing. We move with-
in a horizon in which we can always add new perceptions and
include different approaches, recognizing the constant challenge
and mystery present in the term “to know.”
Knowing is not primarily a rational discourse on what we know.
To know is first of all to experience, and what-we experience cannot
always be expressed in words. What we say we know is a pale
 Knowing Our Knowing 49

reflection of what we experience. What we say about what we expe-

rience is no more than a limited “translation” of that experience.
Therefore, what we experience can neither be fully thought through
by reason nor exhaustively expressed in words. Because of this,
within the perspective I am developing, it is fundamental to ask, To
what human experience does this affirmation correspond?
To attempt to express in tentative and limited words what our
experience is vis-a-vis this or that is to struggle to translate into
words not only the vibrations that go through our bodies but also
our meditative silence on things and facts in life. This could be
called the second step in what we call “knowing.” The first step is
ours alone: it is what we feel happening on the periphery of our
body-person, of our intimate.personal being. The second step is the
expression of what we know, and this expression takes a variety of °
forms in the light of the different situations to which we are
exposed.
Inthe last analysis, what we call theological truths are experi-
ences some people have had and have tried to express within their
own cultural settings. We repeat them as if they were ours, but often
we do so without making them our own. Sometimes we repeat them
as if we had learned them by rote.
If we do not make these experiences our own, we run the risk of
losing contact with the vital meanings they bear, meanings we
receive and also to which we add. Our religious affirmations must
necessarily be related to meaningful experiences in our lives. Often
we turn traditional religious statements into “truths” that are some-
how above and beyond our bodies and our personal histories. We
give them something resembling an existence of their own, and
make them to some extent independent of the limited experience
that brought them forth and the limited words in which they are
expressed.
To the degree to which we distance these truths from their ori-
gins and from ourselves, we act as if they had some hidden power
over us. This is not just a personal process but a collective one as
well. Most of us accept these religious truths as higher experiences
that occurred in other times and that have perhaps come from other
worlds: experiences that are handed down to us in order to be
accepted, confirmed, and contemplated. This attitude partially jus-
50 Longing
for Running Water

tifies the development within religions of so-called sacred powers; it

also justifies religions’ authority over persons, the manipulation
they countenance, and the fears they provoke. It is as if “the wise
and the powerful” in the religious hierarchy somehow knew the
secrets of religion and had a profound understanding of its myster-
ies. To insist on raising questions on the basis of experience is,
among other things, to democratize these powers to some extent,
making it clear that they exist in a variety of forms in various
human beings and groups.
It follows that when we ask the question, To what human expe-
rience do we refer when we speak of God, of the incarnation, of the
Trinity, of the resurrection, and of the Eucharist? we are filled with
alarm. Sometimes we believe we are on the brink of atheism or
heresy. We believe we have lost our faith, because these questions
are appropriate only for those who are suffering from doubt or who
have lost respect for the church’s authority. We are seized by fear for
having dared to raise such questions.
Nevertheless, these are the key questions that give meaning to
the ecofeminist perspective I am describing. To recover our human
experience—to permit the meaning of our deepest beliefs to devel-
op in our minds and bodies—is the guiding principle of this episte-
mology. And to recover our human experience is, in a certain sense,
to accord it the value it really has, above and beyond the multiplic-
ity of words and expressions we use to describe it. To recover our
human experience is, in fact, to place ourselves within the tradition
of our ancestors, of those whose bodies vibrated as ours do when
they experienced the attractions and repulsions we ourselves under-
go as we relate to so many different situations in our everyday lives.
All this also opens us up a critically important dimension of
recovering our human experience: struggling against certain alien-
ations that hold us captive to an authoritarian system that limits our
ability to drink deeply of our own experience. To recover our own
experience does not mean affirming some isolated, individual,
closed-off-within-itself reality. Nor can it be done within an anthro-
pocentric perspective. The anthropocentrism that certainly remains
a part of each of us needs to be complemented by a wider biocen-
trism, an acknowledgment of the central importance of all life-
forms. Our reflexive human experience does not exist in isolation
 Knowing Our Knowing 51

from the whole of our Sacred Body. We cannot detach our knowing
from our human reality, but neither can we detach it from our wider
cosmic identity.
Beyond any doubt, it is on the basis of our own personal expe-
rience that we ground ourselves experientially as being on the earth
and in the cosmos, part of the earth and part of the cosmos, and
having. within us both the earth and the cosmos. It is because of my
own breathing that I perceive the air and sense its presence and its
importance as it permeates all living things. But since the air is larg-
er than my breathing, I can speak of it with some degree of author-
ity only to the extent that I experience it as vital for myself. And it
is because of the attraction I feel for other bodies that I can faintly
discern the earth’s enormous attractive power. As Rosemary Rad-
ford Ruether writes, “The capacity to be conscious is itself the expe-
rience of the interiority of our organism, made possible by the high-
ly organized living cells of our brains and nervous systems that
constitute the material ‘base’ of our experience of awareness.” A
few lines later, she continues, “Human consciousness, then, should
not be what utterly separates us from the rest of ‘nature.’ Rather,
consciousness is where this dance of energy organizes itself in
increasingly unified ways, until it reflects back on itself in self-
awareness. Consciousness is and must be where we recognize our
kinship with all other beings.”®
On this basis, we are justified in speaking about a few charac-
teristics of feminist epistemology, an epistemology that is in the
process of developing and is, for that reason, seeking its own frame
of reference.

INTERDEPENDENCE IN KNOWING

The central assumption of ecofeminist epistemology is the interde-

pendence among all the elements that are related to the human
world. This affirmation comes from our own experience. We need
only pay attention to what is going on with our own bodies. When
we feel intense pain, for example, even the most habitual acts
become difficult. When we are breathing with difficulty, even our
thinking and our ability to express tenderness are affected.
52 Longing
for Running Water

Interdependence means accepting the basic fact that any life sit-
uation, behavior, or even belief is always the fruit of all the interac-
tions that make up our lives, our histories, and our wider earthly
and cosmic realities. Our interdependence and relatedness do not
stop with other human beings: They encompass nature, the powers
of the earth and of the cosmos itself. In this sense, knowing is a
human act insofar as it refers to the particular types of conscious
processes and awarenesses that characterize the human being as a
form of living organization. However, the animal, vegetable, and
cosmic forms of consciousness are also a part of our makeup. This
other kind of interdependence does not come to full, conscious
awareness, and so it is rarely considered. We do not recognize its
importance because it seems obvious that we live in a given place
and that in that place we breathe, eat, walk, and sit. Furthermore,
our senses are seldom educated to perceive this interdependence’s
great importance. Once we do recognize its importance, however,
we will be able to care for the earth and all its inhabitants as if they
were close relatives, as parts of our greater body, without which
individual life and consciousness are impossible.
The ecofeminist perspective seeks to open us to the importance
of this greater body, which is far larger than our individual egos, in
order to enhance our ability to respect and care for it. It is not a
matter of denying my individuality, my subjectivity, and all the joy-
ful and sorrowful experiences that are a parts of my personal being.
Rather, it is an invitation to a deeper perception that includes our
greater self, and thus an openness to recognize other resources that
are available to us in life and that are not exclusively limited to what
falls within the anthropocentric horizon.
A new understanding of human knowing also becomes possible
on the basis of this interdependence. We need to open ourselves to
experiences that are wider than the ones we have grown accus-
tomed to for centuries. Within our educational processes, we need
to introduce the notion of communion with, rather than conquest
of, the earth and space. This could diminish competitiveness in our
schools and in the economy, and could open us up to the possibili-
ty of cultivating qualities that, owing to the exclusive and hierar-
chical character of our current system, have been forgotten.
 Knowing Our Knowing 53

The history of western philosophy has revealed various facets of

our human nature, from our attributes as rational animals to our
existential loneliness and our identity as beings destined to die.
Although all these philosophies have their own particular values
and can also express much of what we experience, ecofeminism
invites us to step somewhat outside the closed subjectivity that sees
the world and other humans as objects subservient to our will.
It is not just a matter of describing the relationship between
human subjects and the objects of our knowing. Ecofeminism
affirms that, strictly speaking, all objects are contained it in the sub-
ject. And the subject itself is both subject and object: It isnot sepa-
rate and independent, but rather is interdependent—interrelated
and interconnected with all it proposes to know. Personal knowing
is only onea aspect of that relationship.
The thing to do, then, is to relate subjectivity to objectivity, indi-
viduality to collectivity, transcendence to immanence, tenderness to
compassion and solidarity, plants to humanity, and animals to
humanity, based on a perspective that is all-encompassing and inti-
mately interwoven. This perspective allows us to broaden our
understanding of human life, and especially of human suffering.
The existential drama of the individual human being can no longer
beblown out of proportion, as if it were an isolated situation;
ee

instead, we> knowv fronrom1experience that the1 pain of the whole is

mysteriously felt in every “being. To be aware that our tragic exis-
tential”ie id and destruction, as well as
of joy, tenderness, and hope, is lived out in an intimate relationship
with the whole of our Cosmic Body opens us gradually to a new
understanding of our human condition. In this epistemology, what
we call the human is probed in its astonishing association with and
dependency on what we call the nonhuman. Therefore, as we will
see later on, it is not enough to interpret our human experiences in
one or another existential, modern sense. We need to seek a new
understanding of our personal existence within the larger self that is
the Sacred Body of the cosmos.
Many people would argue that recognizing the interdependence
among all things is pointing out the obvious, and that the fact of
recognizing it does nothing to change our consciousness. But I think
the thing we often acknowledge is a mechanical or purely formal
54 Longing
for Running Water

interdependence, like that of a car motor with the fuel it needs in

order to run. What I am proposing is not a‘mechanical interdepen-
dence but a living one: a sacred interdependence that is vibrant and
visceral. It is not like the relationship between a motor and its fuel;
rather, it speaks of the relationship between Jife and its multiple
interconnections—a relationship which, at this juncture, would cer-
tainly invite us to produce fewer cars and less polluting fuel.
This sacred interdependence would, for example, require a rad-
ical modification of the transnational market economies, which fail
to respect regional cultures and almost always abuse both the land
and the populations that inhabit it. It would call for a new under-
standing of the makeup of nations, one that would recognize ethnic
groups along with their customs and cultural expressions. It would
also require the construction of a new network of relationships
among peoples. Furthermore, it would require that we rethink
Christian theology not on the basis of preset dogmas but of the
concrete lived experience of groups that find their inspiration in the
very same fountainhead of wisdom that inspired Jesus of Nazareth.
In fact, we need to welcome this source of wisdom, recognizing it as
both multiple and diverse, at times emphasizing one facet of this
life-giving wisdom and at times another. In this sense, we are talk-
ing about opening a new dialogue among religions, one that is
based on respect for the variety of religious expressions and above
all on the desire to labor together in exploring new ways of sharing
life among humans in the context of our earth-systems. In this
sense, instead of referring to non-Christian religions, we would
better speak of dialogue among different religions; this would help
us drop the insulting attitude of imperialist superiority that has
characterized the Christian world.
Reflection on the interdependence of knowing should open a
new page in the history of Christian theology, encouraging us to use
a language that is humbler, more existential, more tentative, and
more open to dialogue.

KNOWING AS PROCESS

Patriarchal epistemology emphasizes a particular quality of know-

ing: its linearity, or the idea that progress always moves in a straight
 Knowing Our Knowing 55

line. Linear thinking evokes a path of rectitude, a path that clearly

manifests positive moral connotations. It is far removed from cir-
cuitous thought patterns, which imply twisting, morally devious
ways. Along the straight but rocky path of linearity, the purpose of
theological knowing always stands out clearly. It can best be
described as “true knowledge of God” or “true knowledge of Jesus
Christ.” But if we speak of knowing in linear terms, then we also
need to speak of linear causality. This means that we always have to
go back to the beginning of the chain to look for causes, and in the
end we will find the first cause. This is a kind of circular linearity:
the beginning always appears as special, enlightening, and regener-
ative. To some extent, of course, this view remains meaningful in
terms of seeking alternate perspectives. At the same time, however,
we need to go beyond this linear model and be open to the com-
plexity of the reality-in-process we really are.
Despite the difficulties inherent in the term “process,” then, the
ecofeminist perspective prefers it over linearity. To speak of know-
ing as a process means that the process by which new elements are
constantly being added to overall human knowledge does not nec-
essarily follow a predictable causal path. To know is to perceive, to
understand, and to rearrange the universe of which we are a part
and in which we have our being so as to transform it into “mean-
ing.” And this is an ongoing process, one that is in constant flux,
like the bits of colored glass in a kaleidoscope, in which the bits con-
tinually form new patterns and all the pieces are in constant motion.
It takes only a slight tilt to make the whole thing change shape. In
the same way, we do not hold up any single moment in the past or
the future as a paradigm for all time. Rather, we affirm the extraor-
dinarily dynamic nature of the knowing process, adapting it to the
vital needs of the great variety of human groups.
Some people might argue that there are human populations that
have not changed some of their cultural habits and that these
remain the same even in our own day, at the same time that other
groups are trying to move beyond the atomic age. But this can in no
way be taken to mean that our knowing is unchanging; rather, it
shows that it varies according to the changing circumstances we all
experience. It is especially important to remember that knowing is
always carried out within a given cultural context. We cannot estab-
56 Longing
for Running Water

lish one type of culturally conditioned knowing as a paradigm on

the basis of which all the others must be judged. This is why we say
that every act of knowing is relative to the world in which it is car-
ried out and to the persons who carry it out. So, once again, the
term “process,” in all its many and varied forms, seems to better
describe not only everyday human experience but also the experi-
ence of Christian communities, especially in Latin America.

THE NECESSARY BOND BETWEEN

SPIRIT AND MATTER, MIND AND BODY

A great deal has already been said and written about the unity of
body and spirit. A lot also has been written about the integral
nature of the human. It is not enough, however, to formally affirm
this unity. We need to specify its implications in order to create a
new theological anthropology. Affirmations of the inseparability of
body and spirit have often been put forth in opposition to tradi-
tional dualism, only to end up disguising that very dualism. As
Rosemary Radford Ruether says:

This concept of two kinds of body allowed theology to explain the

immortality of the “risen body,” as the doffing of the mortal body
for the immortal, “spiritual” body. If all matter is equally “mate-
rial” and mortal, and there is no longer a heavenly realm spatial-
ly located at the top of the cosmic system, then this world picture
of where God dwells and the soul, with its transfigured body,
“goes” at death disappears.”

Traditional Christian anthropology was based on a dualistic dis-

tinction between the things of the body and those of the mind. As
we know, this distinction was brought into the theological world in
order to emphasize godly matters over worldly and human ones. It
also favored a somewhat vulgarized theology of the resurrection,
especially for popular consumption, thus preserving a dualism we
would prefer to avoid.
Within the traditional philosophical perspective of our theology,
the discourse on body and spirit is more than just using dualistic
language in order to look at our human reality from two different
perspectives. In fact, it refers to two different “substances” simulta-
 Knowing Our Knowing §7

neously present in that reality. What we have here are a clearly

defined metaphysics, cosmology, and anthropology that focus on
and grant superiority to one world to the detriment of another; to
some parts of the body to the detriment of others; to one sex to the
detriment of the other; and to the will of the Creator as opposed to
that of creatures. This means we think, work, and act not only as if
our universe contained these divisions, but as if God had willed it to
be that way. God is imaged as the One who imparts grounding and
legitimacy to these divisions—or, more accurately, to these imagi-
nary constructions of reality.
Within an ecofeminist perspective, these separations or divisions
disappear, and so we are invited to live the oneness of the matter
and energy that are our very makeup without knowing what that
oneness really is. No longer can we have the spirit struggle against
the body, angels against devils, and God against humanity. Rather,
we need to begin again at all levels of our activity and reconstruct
the unity that we really are, as well as the unity of our being in all
the evolutionary processes that have taken place in space as well as
in time. At the same time we will welcome our own mortality along
with that of the birds and flowers, of our dreams and our gods. We
will welcome the transformation of our individual bodies into the
mystery of our Sacred Body. And we will do this precisely because
life rushed into this universe and became vibrantly mortal. Similar-
ly, the love of this instant must be intense, respect for all beings is a
duty, the struggle for justice is a light for us all, and happiness is
possible and is the right of all beings.
There is a beauty in this indissoluble unity and in the intercom-
munion that invites us to develop life options that refuse to put off
justice and tenderness until tomorrow, or happiness until some
imagined eternity; life options that take a new look at what seems
ephemeral and accidental—at the passing moment, a sunset, a
flower . . . even at death itself.

GENDER-BASED EPISTEMOLOGY
AND ECOLOGICAL EPISTEMOLOGY

Ecofeminist epistemology introduces the issues of gender and ecol-

ogy as mediations, or ways of understanding both the world and
58 Longing
for Running Water

human beings. These mediations are not tools, mechanisms, or

contrivances for knowing, in the sense that we would use them
simply as ways of knowing reality. Within thisperspective, “medi-
ation” has a wider definition: a reality. that iis a means of knowing,
SS ee

but at the same time a part of and a co!

constitutive purposeof the
knowing. subject. A’ means is not a tool I use and then cast aside
when I no longer need it. In this sense, a means is present in the
beginning, the middle, and the end of every aspect of the knowing
process itself. In other words, the feminine dimension is constitu-
tive of the human reality, just as the ecological dimension is, despite
the fact that both these emerged only recently into the light of his-
torical consciousness.
To speak of gender in epistemology is to affirm that in the social
construction of human knowing, the masculine and the feminine
need to express their particular ways of being in the world. Today,
what we women are arguing against is the practice of assigning an
a priori masculine character to social knowing. In bringing up the
gender issue, what we are contending is that we should abandon the
universalization and the overgeneralization of the masculine at the
expense of the feminine. Universalization means that masculine
knowing is taken to be paradigmatic, or as constituting a frame-
work for all meaning. Overgeneralization means that we don’t
know when a given statement refers to the masculine or to the fem-
inine. We often speak of “human rights,” for example, but we know
that in practice only men enjoy these rights. Within this generaliza-
tion, there is in all probability not even an awareness of specific sit-
uations in which women could have a real chance of gaining access
to this or that right.
The gender issue, then, when introduced by feminists, will break
down the myth of masculine universality in the various fields of
knowledge. It has in a certain sense proclaimed the need to have
another look at human knowing, revealing this knowing’s limita-
tions and showing the extent to which official history has failed to
include women and oppressed peoples. “We need only remember
Hegel’s belief that Africa has no history,” writes Seyla Benhabib.
“Until very recently neither did women have their own history, their
own narrative with different categories of periodization and with
different structural regularities.” !°
 Knowing Our Knowing 59

The masculine can no longer simply be the synonym of the

human, and the earth’s ecology can no longer be regarded as a nat-
ural object to be studied and dominated by humankind. Opening up
epistemology to gender and ecological issues brings in new frames
of reference for our knowing, broader ones than those established
by patriarchal epistemology.
Some people fear that ecofeminism might want to introduce a
new essentialist perspective by seeking to affirm the difference
between specifically masculine and feminine epistemological per-
spectives. However, we are not dealing with biological or philo-
sophical essentialism but with the contextualizing of our knowing
on the basis of men’s and women’s own everyday experience. We
know how vigorously patriarchal society has insisted on the sepa-
ration between the public and private domains. The public domain
has been eminently masculine, while the private or domestic domain
has been eminently feminine. This society has also attributed
strength and courage to men and fragility and fear to women. This
is not essentialism, however; rather, it is a culture built on the ide-
ologizing of certain biological and cultural perceptions. And this in
turn depends on our styles of approaching the world, of acting and
of living out our social roles, and on our way of understanding all
of these. We are not trying to promote some predetermined femi-
nine essence, nor are we attempting to tame some irrational aspect
of nature. Rather, we are dealing with concrete relationships in the
de facto situation in which our understanding of women developed
and remained reduced to the domestic sphere.
To introduce feminism into epistemology or to create a feminist
epistemology is to affirm the reality of gender as something that not
only should increase our knowledge but should alter the underlying
principles—the foundations—and the concrete expression of our
knowing.
~ At this point, we can say that traditional cognitive processes are
being challenged, and that feminism is one of the social movements
that has contributed most to this challenge. Introducing the feminist
perspective into epistemological reflection has not brought about a
radical change in the act of knowing; but it has led to a change in
its perspective, in its conclusions, and in its content, and in the orga-
nization of knowing, of society, and of power. It has also led to the
 60 Longing
for Running Water

relativizing of certain affirmations traditionally regarded to be cul-

tural or even scientific “truths”: the intellectual inferiority of
women, for example, or even their supposed intuitive ability.
Feminism raises suspicion regarding the easy assumptions of the
patriarchal tradition and questions the objectivity and apparently
asexual character of science. It does so in order to reiterate the affir-
mation that human knowing is situated knowing: that it is based on
our social, cultural, and sexual reality. The path of knowing is rec-
ognized as a groping path, along which every hypothesis and every
perception is corrected, refined, modified, and complemented
through generations of incessant searching.
Gender and ecology also modify theological knowing. The affir-
mation of an absolute divinity whose image reflects that of his
human and historical male “double” can no longer stand up to the
insistent criticism of feminist movements in Latin America and
throughout the world. Nor is it possible, in the face of the com-
plexity of history and of the unfolding universe as described by con-
temporary science, to uphold a masculine-imaged divinity that
dominates and presides over all natural phenomena, altering them
according to his will.
In various parts of the world, ecologists are recognizing the
importance of appreciating so-called native cultures. In Latin
America, as we know, these cultures are found not only in the
indigenous world, but also among many living African traditions.
A world in which ancestors and the powers of nature enjoy privi-
lege of place is once again being appreciated as a cultural value: No
longer are these cultures accused of being, as some missionaries
used to say, “of the devil.”
“Ecofeminism lets me talk about my beliefs the way my own
culture does, without feeling embarrassed,” an Aymara Indian from
Bolivia told me after a course I held last year. “I don’t have to make
them acceptable by arguing that they contain Christian elements;
they simply are what they are, and they’re not what they’re not.”
- This process of revaluing indigenous cultures is not being carried
out by “repentant whites,” but rather by the sons and daughters of
those who were the victims of colonial processes in which racism
was used as a weapon to impose “white,” masculine values.
 Knowing Our Knowing 61

We are unquestionably involved in a process that will have

major repercussions throughout the world. For this reason, it
becomes an inescapable duty for the entire human community to
take care to respect our personal histories and the histories of the
great variety of peoples and ethnic groups; and also to raise our
voices in protest against the violence we discover in any of them.
A vibrant solidarity begins to make itself felt: a solidarity among
the multiplicity of human groups with an eye to their own survival
and the survival of our planet’s biodiversity. This survival is one of
the ethical challenges that lies at the very heart of ecofeminist
epistemology.

CONTEXTUAL EPISTEMOLOGY

Ecofeminist epistemology is contextual epistemology. In other

words, it is a demand of the historical moment in which we live, and
develops out of local contexts long before it opens up to a global
perspective.
To say, then, that this epistemology is contextual means that we
cannot absolutize our present way of knowing; rather, we need to
admit its historical and provisional character and the importance of
always being open to the new referents that history—and life in
general—will propose. In concrete terms, a contextual epistemolo-
gy seeks to take the lived context of every human group as its pri-
mary and most basic reference point. Thus we cannot judge feminist
groups in northeastern Brazil with criteria applicable to such groups
in SAo Paulo or New York. Neither can we take models of base
community life developed in some Latin American countries and
simply apply them to African countries, and vice versa. Contextual
epistemology presupposes that an appreciation of the immediate
context in which our knowing evolves needs to be fully developed
before we open it out to wider horizons and articulations.
This contextual epistemology requires a cosmology/anthropolo-
gy that is equally contextual, while at the same time it needs to be
open to dialogue in order to appreciate the fact that there are uni-
versal elements present in every context. And these common ele-
ments are undoubtedly an expression of the fact that we are all part
of that extraordinary expression of life that we call humanity.
62 Longing
for Running Water

The interconnection that unites all aspects of human life, includ-

ing our beliefs, constitutes the groundwork on which this new web
of relationships, behaviors, and meanings must be built.
Contextual epistemology upholds the tension between the local
aspect of human knowing and its universal character. Knowing any-
thing is knowing it from within some concrete context. And it is
precisely this local character, this quality of being spatiotemporally
limited, that opens out into universality. Universality does not mean
that a concrete knowing is valid for all human groups, but rather
that all knowing has a universal localness about it. What is most
universal about knowing is not the type of content that is learned,
but the “located” way in which we learn the universality that marks
us all. In the final analysis, it is on this basis that the human world
discovers its universal diversity.
In this sense, to speak of feminist and ecological epistemology is
already to envision, perhaps in embryonic form, an understanding of
the world that stands somewhat apart from our traditional notions.
And this is what we will attempt to develop in later chapters.

HOLISTIC EPISTEMOLOGY

Cartesian epistemologies are based on the famous phrase Cogito,

ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. These epistemologies have condi-
tioned us to understand human knowing as limited to certain
mechanical processes that take place in our inner or subjective
realm and expand outward into the so-called objective world. And
it is on the basis of this subjectivity that they affirm the rationality
and the scientific character—the objectivity—of their knowing.
Holistic epistemology attempts to underline the fact that we are
not just parts of a greater whole: The greater whole is also part of
ourselves. Furthermore, we know in the particular way we know
because the evolution of the greater whole paved the way for this to
be the case. Our present style of approaching reality, and of being
aware that we know it, is rooted in this evolutionary process, which
went on before us and goes on within us.
Holistic epistemology opens us up to the possibility of multiple
ways of knowing what is to be known, of appealing to the diversi-
ty of cognitive capacities we have within us. These different capac-
 Knowing Our Knowing 63

ities cannot be reduced to a single, rationalistic mode of discourse.

The holistic perspective also affects theology, inviting it to broaden
its horizons beyond monotheistic discourse about God, beyond cat-
echetical learning, beyond a dogma that can become authoritarian
and punitive and can even exhibit fascist characteristics. A holistic
approach to theology opens the doors to the many-sided human
experience of relating to the values that give meaning to our exis-
tence—values that could, in that sense, be called “sacred.”

AFFECTIVE EPISTEMOLOGY

Bringing the affective dimension into the realm of knowing appears

likely to frighten even the most coolheaded philosophers. Affection
is related to seduction; it involves a passionate approach to other
people and to the things we want to know. Affection is related to
eroticism, to the senses, and to emotions that respond to gut feel-
ings. Emotion and passionate involvement lead us to discover things
that would normally pass unobserved in the act of knowing.
Bringing in affectivity points to the impossibility of drawing a
sharp line between objectivity and subjectivity. It also opens us up
to the world of emotion as a source of knowing rather than as the
dark side of reason. When it is cut off from the passion, allurement,
yearning, charm, and wonder that the universe’s innumerable in-
habitants inspire in us, human reason loses its vigor. What, after all,
exactly is this reality we call reason? Is it possible to separate it out
and make it something apart from our being, something superior,
better, nobler? How would it survive all alone in its rational purity?
Making reason into a rigid, cold inner figure bound by strict
rules of behavior has led to the imprisonment of creativity. It has
exiled reason from itself and alienated it from the totality of our
being on which it depends and from which it nourishes itself.
Reason does not exist “in itself”; it is not something that has it
independent or autonomous existence within us. We are reason, \
emotion, sentiment, passion, and allurement all wrapped up in one. | \

We are the extraordinary blend that is able to emphasize one aspect

of itself at one time and another aspect at another time. cane
This is why we can no longer accept the traditional distinctions
that say men, masculine beings, are more rational, whereas women,
 64 Longing
for Running Water

feminine beings, are more emotional. We can no longer divide

human beings up on the basis of divisions imposed by patriarchal
structures and set forth as though they were something natural.
An epistemology that is characterized by affectivity will recog-
nize that the immense spectrum of emotions and feelings is mani-
fested in all men and women according to their individual charac-
ters, their life situations, and their cultures. Nature and culture are
not two separate realities in the human world; they are intercon-
nected components that allow us to be what we are and allow the
earth to be what it is today.

INCLUSIVE EPISTEMOLOGY

Ecofeminist epistemology tries to be inclusive. In other words, it

does not impose rigid limits on knowing. It is inclusive, first of all,
in recognizing the diversity of our experiences. This inclusiveness
has not only cognitive but also ethical consequences. This means
that we are not guided by‘a single, normative model or paradigm,
whether it be in culture, in our way of living out our Christianity, or
in our sexual orientation. According to this perspective, there is no
one model or criterion for determining what is authentic knowing.
This inclusive character also influences the various fields of
knowledge. For example, a sociological study opens out into other
fields and in a certain sense depends on them. It undoubtedly has a
certain autonomy and makes its own specific contribution, but it is
not independent of other fields of knowledge.
We try, then, to overcome all mechanistic theories of knowing,
those in which the whole is seen as merely the sum of its parts and
each part can be regarded as a mechanical entity or a relatively
independent component. Inclusive epistemology speaks of the reci-
procal interdependence in which we live and have our being. If at
some point we emphasize one aspect of knowing, we should be
aware that this emphasis is methodological and arose due to the
impossibility of devising an all-embracing discourse. Despite this,
what we know is related to other knowledge, and especially to all
- those things none of us knows.
Our knowing is at the same time a not-knowing, and what we
do not know is surely greater than what we do know. Knowing is
 Knowing Our Knowing 65

not that which opens us up to knowing; rather, it is what we do not

know that whets our curiosity and our desire to “see what we still
don’t see.”
Once again, this epistemology relativizes our ambition to domi-
nate the world through the development of the sciences and of the
various kinds of imperialism they bring with them.
This inclusive aspect is just as essential in theological knowing.
What we call “the experience of God” or “the experience of the
divine” is always an inclusive experience: our perceptions, our
intuitions, and our ecstasy are aptitudes that express themselves in
a thousand and one ways without any one of them exhausting any
other.
Religious experience is polyphonic and multicolored, despite the
fact that
in the depth of each of us we hear something of the same
note or perceive something of the same choir. It is a search for the
meaning of our existence, a groping for that “mysterious some-
thing” that is within us and at the same time surpasses us.
For this reason, an inclusive epistemology welcomes the great
multiplicity of all religious experiences as different expressions of a
single breath, a single pursuit of oneness.
This is not some new idealism. Neither is it a cheap, uncritical
inclusivism. What I am trying to propose is the rearticulation of our
lives’ deepest values in the very heart of our cognitive processes.
ie Lenehan
- details
dlp ekea eat
- papleeotnih ave ne Sere a Dincighy oes hana
reergcmenaian naa 00
nuhesnoaninishines auc vitiehtoegtc fe dadoult bipoie adesinc
slaetnichhe te nsoleeah-adt ope
townie berrec l Jatebaoheucasy
ri, Be ” £ eggiy heats gaat grads cco
i

Ml rcnapolinds. ube ewe aman a) Fanee nuibselsine nerhic

ec ggritaroct
vom caggmitc arate” ta Wards dex onepiactbesiont tiiconawrcasl T |
nage eitgeanoy hn ctneee sywilane ns aimed besietinib”
yee22 Wo has eroiatir ©|
e venivorkaceiianmatemt esbusaqe me
; - spun vidya stent Re ood (a THOMOW #~EM 200 ba bereencrll @
- wets PPwTE OLOGY 4 > anda 4
a
hive shaogiay'es aaeeneqne
eh oequnds benalacintiaan suoigilad
dein grlonny ae weal arty |e ane a daryaleondt thai) set
ilk taldane mi WALI aa Cae le p o Beviatrgpion, ex). ABO 7
PO ASAT UT TPT:Mel BDRM qneias un. leet”
ee Te
sFky PTV page DiedasyeMediye re
n a veers 9. pean ae ROO MTA -
th «eemaaimeunlas Undnaptdignree
eiealinerge alone
gen Acamenit te age ohuewe 6 lineata !
ue we as eng
erty re ene Alte YA BR RAN 290 REIT, NM
palo aon nganadal apacra wisectors 1adh cuaiaewp el
wpe Ra Bhay,
ater tccgie we mad y
: * ih ater de peruie 1 het: y» orl woody hur a 7 a

af whe frien abtanaortedigge * «oar a le aa

,apereiriy an i ompee 2) oer myers idee CCl ition, but itde 7

-_

¢ 4 ee a4! bi8 a ghar ot baw,

So wis cot se Seen? ine ele geeligee © oo

v ae Pt ——) te Th

1 ke nyedes ws as #2F orc sh ene oa a

oman porrpocent inde? Saelogy agvenks a ol

+ wea Heert deg dere : ¢ liwe ait have sri ; a

7
Khe PERE We, pias
a vvitee that iad Ont phases
vio)
so nie}
aspeet. Of RIO WENR ten
dteaycal atm wrirac ise na

- inte eubiiey 06 Weniang on git «orteocang BOERS, Deo

. 4 ale.a GF f
wu if : we kari a |gwiaszes onal
me OF ¢ers '
sled,

~~ thaw {Dug ore ob ys hu 7

rut krcraengSpate sere Gort a 0) Ue
Rn
der tet boar nowy roan whet epee < Ww
i | _
. =
 2
THE HUMAN PERSON
FROM AN ECOFEMINIST
PERSREGTME
ZS=——
SS

After laying the foundations for an ecofeminist epistemology, our

next step will be to consider the human “person,” the subject/object
that is able to reflect on itself and to be the thinking dimension of
the universe. Reflecting on the human person may seem at first
glance to be of little interest—especially since we imagine that
everyone already knows what a person is. We might have the feel-
ing we are wasting our time on notions that are already familiar,
and that we ought to be moving forward in seeking solutions to the
urgent problems that face us in the final years of this century.
This is not the case, however. We human beings are, again, in
some sense the thinking dimension of the universe: We have the
ability—however limited—to retlect on the universe, and we have
an important task to carry out. This is especially true of those of us
who seek the path of justice and mercy, and are unable to be content
with the patterns imposed by our current cultural systems. We are
daily challenged to rethink our understanding of who we are as
human beings.
To reflect on the meaning of the human person is to accept the
challenge of becoming creators of ourselves and of the entire living
world, and to be capable of overcoming the growing isolation
imposed on us by economic liberalism and the transnational capi-
talist system.

67
68 Longing
for Running Water

According to this system, in its various manifestations, there is

no need for us to think: All we need to do is let powerful tech-
nocrats think for us. But to break the system’s hegemony and accept
the challenges of this historical moment, we have every reason to
rethink our understanding of the human person.
The notion of “person” is one of the most central in both social
life and theology. It is on our understanding of “person” that we
base our notions of humanity and of God. It also constitutes the
basis on which we build our understanding of social action, politi-
cal and economic theories, and religious practices.
The concept of “person” has a historical development that
began before Christianity, continues within Christianity itself, and
will continue after the Christian dispensation has come to an end.
Because of my own Christian background, my reflections will begin
from there—above all, from elements present in the heritage of
many Latin American Christian groups.
In many parts of the world, and especially in Latin America,
there are groups that tend to identify the notion of person with that
of citizen. The purpose of this identification is to be able to rank us
all on the basis of social class, gender, and ethnic identity. The strug-
gle for full citizenship is not a new one, but in every historical peri-
od it has taken on different features in the light of the problems
faced by this or that group. Sometimes it has appeared in struggles
for women’s and illiterates’ right to vote; at others it has sought
recognition of the equality among the various ethnic groups inhab-
iting the same country; and at still others it has surfaced in the
demands of indigenous groups that their land rights be respected.
My task in this chapter will be to look at the overall notion of
citizenship and then add a more philosophical reflection on the
human person. Although in practice these two levels of reflection
are not always found together, I do not think it is possible to sepa-
rate them.
My own reflection is drawn from many persons’ experiences
and enhanced by the contribution Christianity has made to Latin
American culture. Thus, for example, a group of poor women in my
region of Brazil was unable to accept the fact that within the regime
af economic liberalism the poor are not regarded as persons—and
among the poor, women even less so. The group argued that dicta-
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 69

tors, generals, torturers, and those who rob the people should not
be regarded as persons. The poor do have dignity, however, and for
this reason they are persons. Despite their poverty, these women
considered themselves to be more truly persons than men: It was
they who always took responsibility for family life and for their
children when the men abandoned them.
This conversation helped me to grasp the different levels on
which we understand personhood, and to see how these under-
standings vary depending on the situation in which the questioners
find themselves and the types of questions they ask. In that particu-
lar group, the women were reflecting within the world of morality
and values; they were not involved in an analysis of the system of
exclusion per se. Neither was it a philosophical discussion; rather, it
was a reflection on everyday life, and it drew its categories from the
women’s own experience. For them, personhood was a quality of
humanity, a value to be esteemed rather than a concept to be dis-
cussed. For many of them, to be persons was to be different from
animals; it was to be respected as “people” and to be the subjects of
rights and duties. This, to some extent, reveals the complexity of
reflecting on the human person, while at the same time it shows the
urgency of doing so. Thus it is of fundamental importance that we
understand what kind of discourse we are involved in, and who is
speaking of whom.

Beginning to Talk about the Human Person

To speak of “persons” in terms that are somewhat different from
those used in recent Christian tradition is not to deny what has
been said or discovered in the past. We human beings constantly
need to correct our understandings of ourselves, our affirmations,
and the certainties we have acquired. If we fail to do the work of
rethinking both our thought and our image of ourselves, we can
bring about disastrously unbalanced situations in our personal and
social lives.
Often we discover something very good and place the greatest
possible emphasis on it, but eventually this exaggerated emphasis
prompts us to lose our sense of proportion or even behave destruc-
tively. We create a kind of disproportionality at the very heart of
70 Longing for Running Water

the good things we think about or create. Sometimes we go far

beyond what we wanted to, while at other times we don’t go far
enough. It seems we are marked by extremes: Exaggeration is a
part of us, a characteristic peculiar to the beings that we are. We
often drift toward one extreme or the other, urged by our passions
and by the pursuit of security that is also characteristic of our
species.
My basic thesis in this chapter is that human beings are prone to
radicalizing certain behaviors, to the extent that we turn initially
positive learnings into negative values. In other words, we are prone
to tampering with the positive meaning of some value or learning
and making it destructive and exclusive. Similarly, we can make
good things emerge from disastrous predicaments, and create ges-
tures of mercy in the midst of clearly acknowledged situations of
oppression. This peculiarity appears to have surfaced again and
again in the course of human history.
Beyond this, I am personally committed to affirming our need to
develop a more open-ended attitude toward all our established con-
cepts. This means accepting the fact that none of these concepts is
more than a perspective, a tentative point of view adopted in order
to deal with everyday life and with the broader sweep of history. So
everything we say about human beings describes some limited
aspect of their reality that we have been able to grasp, and is almost
always based on our own limited experience. I would underline this
difficulty by recalling, for example, our inability to fully understand
the relationships established by an autistic child or a mentally dis-
abled person. We struggle to discover “something.” We speak of the
child’s personal world without being part of that world, and we
always speak of it in terms of our own situation, as if we were some
absolute criterion of reality or normality.
My own position in the face of life is by no means a skeptical
one; rather, it is an attitude of profound respect for that which is dif-
ferent from myself. I am aware of our theoretical and practical
inability to grasp the multiplicity of worlds that make up our uni-
verse, the multiplicity of humanities that are found within what we
call the human, and the multiplicity of persons who are present in
what we call a person. Our reference points are always limited and
relative, but we often forget these limits and treat them as absolutes.
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 71

We are tempted to absolutize our knowledge. This is especially

true for groups of specialists: scientists, politicians, and theologians.
Today we realize that these positions are just one more expression
of a pretentious reductionism from which we need to liberate our-
selves. At the same time, in order to be able to respect the great vari-
ety of approaches to reality, we need to be ever more clear in
acknowledging how partial our own knowledge is. It is with this in
mind that I turn to the next section of this reflection.

Questioning the Autonomy of the Human Person

When Christianity began to affirm the autonomy of every person,
this seemed to be an unusual way of countering an exaggerated
emphasis on the idea that our lives are directed by a destiny we are
powerless to change. This destiny was given different names, includ-
ing that of “God,” and it was invoked in order to justify social
inequalities and the wide spectrum of injustices we come across in
everyday life. It manifested itself in a variety of forms and took on
diverse cultural trappings. For example, the religious approach of
some Old Testament traditions was to understand every individual
human life as destined to follow certain preestablished paths. If a
child was born with a physical defect, for example, the most likely
question would be, Who sinned and caused it to be born this way?
It was customary to regard a handicapped person as a sinner, some-
one who was expiating a fault committed by some ancestor. For the
world of ancient Greek culture, there was a kind of inexorable des-
tiny against which human beings had to struggle to attain their free-
dom, but the final victory seemed almost always to belong to des-
tiny itself.
Considering the many extreme attitudes that have arisen in the
course of history, Christianity’s defense of the importance and
autonomy of every person became urgently necessary in order to
allow for some balance in people’s lives. We began the process of
defending the autonomy of the human person in order to underline
the value of every human being, of his or her freedom, and of the
great respect owed to every person. Especially the early centuries of
our era, this was a just and necessary response to a society that lived
according to a hierarchical, exclusive scale of values strongly rein-
72 Longing
for Running Water

forced by various cultural traditions, and in which religious princi-

ples were invoked to justify ostracizing many human groups.
Disdain for outcasts, invalids, the sick, foreigners, women, and
children was very common, and was brought about largely by the
chasms among different social strata. It was necessary to correct
this imbalance in order that life in all its forms could continue to
prosper and individuals could live with more dignity and respect for
one another. Following this line of reasoning, we went so far as to
speak of the person of God, and of God taking on our own person-
hood. God was present and recognizable in everyone, especially the
“little ones,” slaves, the sick, prostitutes, the outcast, and public
sinners—that is, in those who were not ordinarily recognized as per-
sons. This was an amazing achievement, not only for Christianity
but for all of humanity, because every step that improves relation-
ships among human beings is surely a step in the right direction for
all of humanity.
Meanwhile, today, human life and history continue on their evo-
lutionary course, and the poles that attract us push us toward
extreme positions. They radicalize a belief, a behavior, or a value to
such an extent that it ends by doing destructive things to us. This
pattern is very common. An example of it is the good food that we
enjoy, but that does us harm if we eat too much of it. The same
thing happens in social, cultural, and religious processes. If we place
exaggerated emphasis on one kind of solution to a problem, we will
certainly risk creating another problem.
The respect Christianity showed for every person led to the
development of autonomy and self-determination among individu-
als and peoples. This appears to be an extremely positive develop-
ment, as long as we look at these values without regard for their
concrete historical consequences. Nevertheless, after two thousand
years of effort in favor of the autonomy and self-determination of
every person, we begin to see some appalling behaviors. Because it
was promoted in a dogmatic, absolute, univocal, and unlimited
way, what was originally affirmed as a value seems to have turned
into an antivalue.
We have gone from promoting the autonomy of individual per-
sons to the unrestrained exercise of our passion for possessing, for
self-assertion, and for power. French scholar Paul Ricoeur called it
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 73

“the decadence of possession, dominance, and prestige.” Regarding

possession, Ricoeur shows that in the early stages, there is nothing
wrong with having things. We need to “have” in order to be who
we are, to cultivate the earth, and to build relationships with fami-
ly and friends. But having is also a trap, and here Ricoeur reminds
us of Marx’s teaching in Das Kapital: “Capital is abolished by
humans: It is reified and made into a thing. This is the great fetish
by which humanity is dehumanized. Based on this, Marxism speaks
the truth: In a world dominated by the emblem of money, thought
and words are only varieties of the great fetish.”!
From the autonomy of countries and social institutions, we have
arrived at that of transnational corporations, which exercise their
supposed autonomy by an expansion that respects neither persons
nor local societies. Acting as a law unto themselves has become an
entrenched practice, especially by groups that have comparatively
great political and economic power as well as technological know-
how. Acting as a law unto themselves and attributing to themselves
the law of God has also become the habit of those who hold reli-
gious power, especially fundamentalist groups of all creeds.
From this deceptive autonomy, the step to claiming the right of
intervention was an easy one—especially as it was taken up as a
habitual behavior by the great western powers. Economic and/or
military intervention has been permitted and even justified in the
name of the self-determination and development of peoples. This
justification, which was partially inspired in religious traditions
based on the Judeo-Christian heritage, grounded itself on the claim
that it was necessary to help backward, enslaved, and underdevel-
oped peoples to arrive at a level of evolution more in accord with the
progress of all of humanity and with the “will of God.” In order to
“help,” it became legitimate to use intervention, interference, coer-
cion, and murder. In order to foster “development” or “freedom,”
it became acceptable to displace customs, beliefs, and divinities. In
the name of “progress,” we could destroy the earth and its inhabi-
tants, because the most important thing was that the “word” of
those who possessed the truth be preached and become victorious.
Invoking autonomy as the “children of (the western) God,”
conquerors attempted to abolish all traditional understandings of
the human person encountered in vanquished lands. The Christian
74 Longing
for Running Water

notion of the human person introduced by the West imposes an

exclusive model of autonomy, an exclusive model of being chil-
dren of God, and an exclusive model of economic and cultural
dependency.
But today, in many different settings, questions arise. Who
defines freedom and autonomy? Do we think our understanding of
freedom and autonomy has no need to shift with changing times
and places? Are our notions of freedom and autonomy valid for all
social groups and cultures, and for both sexes? Are we not involved
in an imperialistic absolutizing of certain concepts? Are we not
insisting that “the others” follow a path to autonomy prescribed by
a minority, despite the fact that this minority dominates the others
because it has more power and knowledge?
Religions have not always been faithful to their own ideals, and
often they have become accomplices in spreading a notion of “per-
son” that excludes the majority of people and favors the culture and
interests of dominant minorities. These processes undoubtedly have
both conscious and unconscious levels; they cannot be judged sim-
plistically. But the question always returns: Who are we as human
persons? From what point do we start in describing our attributes?
What are our constitutive values? What are our criteria for saying a
given man or woman is a person? Is it enough to be alive and to
have human features in order for someone to regard himself or her-
self as a person? Or is being a person “something more” than the
biological makeup of human individuals?
The issue becomes extraordinarily complex—and extraordinar-
ily relevant, above all when we look at the number of marginal peo-
ple regarded as nonpersons who inhabit every country of the world,
and the number of skilled torturers who define themselves, de jure,
as persons.
There are de jure and de facto persons, and there are illegal per-
sons who, as a result of their pitiable histories of struggle for sur-
vival, are barely even de facto human beings. The issue of person-
hood goes beyond rationalistic, phenomenological, or existentialist
philosophical descriptions. It goes beyond the statements of reli-
gious principle that continually repeat the phrase, “God loves all
persons.” To speak of the human person requires that we go beyond
theorizing, beyond prescribed sequences of words, and beyond
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 75

some ideal to be upheld. It means recovering the concreteness of our

being: its social, ethnic, sexual, earthly, and cosmic condition.
At first glance, Latin America appears to have a definite model
of what a person is: the white, westernized, wealthy man, the pos-
sessor of economic and political power. He is regarded as a person
on account of his relationships of superiority. He defines himself by
his power to subjugate and dominate “others,” most especially
women. He defines himself as “Number One,” the one who has
power over others. His is the number one sex, the number one king,
and the number one God; and he is the number one individual, des-
tined to be served and obeyed.
Despite all the social changes that are taking place in the world,
these anthropological foundations continue to govern most of our
behaviors. Once again, then, the question: To whom do we apply
the “definition” of a human person found among Christian church-
es, or in the communications media, or among far-flung groups
throughout the Latin American continent?
This question challenges the traditional reflections of personal-
ist philosophers. These philosophers offered absolutely extraordi-
nary descriptions of the value of every human person, of our invio-
lable mystery and our inviolable right to life and dignity. They
described the reality of the person in a world of values in which
human greatness balanced off the fragility and the concrete evil
observed in our actions. Today, however, our traditional reference
points have been challenged by ubiquitous violence and by the indi-
vidualism and exclusivity that prevail in our globalized society. It
seems the ideals that acted as blueprints or guidelines and instruct-
ed us on how to be human are betrayed on a daily basis. We no
longer know how to find the human within ourselves.
More than in the past, we behave destructively and in ways that
exclude others. We are nature’s greatest predators and humanity’s
greatest murderers. In the name of progress and our personal secu-
rity, we justify all kinds of violence. We compete ferociously to
affirm our autonomous individuality and to aggressively conquer
the earth, showing no respect for its integrity.
The notion of a free and autonomous person has been co-opted
by the ruling classes, by colonialism, and by neocolonialism, by the
capitalist free market, by contemporary wars, by advanced technol-
76 Longing for Running Water

ogy, by ideologies, and by religions utilized in promoting rivalries

and eliminating poor peoples, especially blacks and native peoples,
in order to uphold a power elite as it takes advantage of all the good
things of the earth.
The aggrandizement and radicalization of this kind of individu-
alism and autonomy demand various corrective measures that we,
men and women of today, are responsible for carrying out. Our
generation agrees that even our finest discoveries and acquisitions
could lead us to destruction if we place too much emphasis on them
or fail to recognize the utterly extraordinary integrity and interde-
pendence of life in all its dimensions.
Ancient wisdom taught that virtue lies in moderation. To return
to the way of moderation, to a new equilibrium, is not a denial of
the achievements of the past and the present, of our history and tra-
dition; rather, it affirms them in a different way. It also involves
readapting these achievements to meet today’s needs. Within this
perspective, the ecofeminist understanding of person does not annul
earlier perceptions; instead, it helps rebuild a new balance that sup-
ports respect for all of life. It helps in its own way to restore justice
in the midst of the calamitous injustice in which we live.
This new approach makes no pretense of being the final word on
the human person. Naturally, it is only one contribution among
many, and in the course of the life process it is bound to be
reworked, rephrased, reconsidered, corrected, and improved upon,
just as all others have been. Its originality is not that it is an
absolutely unique word in the western world’s great marketplace of
ideas. It recognizes its own fragility, as well as its debt to patriarchal
traditions. Even so, it seeks to present itself as an alternative word
on the world of the human.
Once again, we find it appropriate to seek a notion of “person”
that responds to the great challenges of our age, and to the tradition
of love and mercy that has always marked our kind of humanism.

The Patriarchal Perspective:

Its: Value and Limitations
Let us begin by recalling a few things about the word “person.”
The Latin “persona” is a translation of the Greek word “proso-
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 77

pon,” which means mask. The persona was the mask used by
actors in the Greek and Roman theater. It not only allowed actors
to hide their faces; it also helped them reveal the individual per-
sonality of the character being played. The mask, then, has a pro-
found meaning that deserves to be underlined. Masks indicate the
variety of roles every person can play in the complex network of
human relationships. Classical theater masks showed that each
person is really a multitude of persons that correspond to the life
situations in which he or she is involved. The “person,” the mask
that is worn, invites spectators to ponder what lies behind it. So
each of us comprises a variety of masks, but we are far more than
the sum of those masks.
But what is this reality, a reality that is displayed in a thousand
masks but still seeks to be more than the masks themselves? Is there
a fundamental, elementary face that lies behind the social images
through which it expresses itself?
The changeability of the masks we use—the masks we are—has
been a puzzle for thinkers from Greek antiquity down to modern
times. In order to set up a kind of counterpoint to the astonishing
diversity of roles that make up our characters, philosophers and
religious figures spoke of an essence within each human being, a
fundamental nucleus that makes a human being absolutely unique.
They accepted the likelihood that we can at least speak of this
essence’s existence, in spite of the disparities that mark the life of
each human being. They tried to define or explain this essential
nucleus by making it something godlike, spiritual, composed of
divine “stuff.” In this way they offered a counterbalance for and a
secure foundation to undergird the changeability that seemed to
characterize us. There was something essential, unchanging, and
eternal underlying this visible sequence of changeabilities.
Thus the patriarchal world shows us the masks and speaks of
something behind them, a kind of atemporal “essence,” a reality
that is above and beyond history, culture, and individualities. It is
precisely this reality behind the mask, this “true person,” this
human ideal, that has become a problem today, when we are con-
fronted with the multiplicity of masks we use. Is it really true that
we can speak of a human ideal beyond the mask? Can idealistic
descriptions of the perfect man or woman still hold together today?
78 Longing for Running Water

Can we know in advance what we ought to be? Can we still speak

of finding a common human essence in which we can all acknowl-
edge one another above and beyond our personal and cultural
diversity? Or should we merely embrace the shifting reality of our
makeup and stop asking questions about the “essence” that marks
us all?
In the course of this reflection, I certainly cannot offer any con-
vincing answer or totally novel solution. We are slowly and collec-
tively seeking a new way of articulating our human and cosmic sit-
uation. So I will keep these issues in mind throughout the chapter,
recognizing that I am addressing delicate and critical matters.
To begin with, I would like to offer a quick overview of the
notion of “person” within the patriarchal perspective in which we
find ourselves immersed. Then I will go on to develop this notion
within an ecofeminist perspective.
In this first sketch, as I attempt to explain some aspects of the
richness of, as well as the limitations we are beginning to distinguish
in, the traditional notion of “person,” I will use two texts. The first
is Personalism, a book written by Emmanuel Mounier in 1952; the
second is the recently published catechism of the Roman Catholic
Church. They may seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum, but
my aim is to show the complex and multiple range of views we find
in examining reflections on the subject of the human person.
In the opening pages of Personalism, Mounier offers a brief his-
tory of the notion of “person.” He emphasizes in a special way the
contribution of Christianity to the broadening of this notion. If we
were to look into Greek antiquity, we would notice great diversity
in the way this idea was understood and lived out. The human per-
son was subject to the will of the gods and bound to a preestab-
lished destiny. The individual person found its highest expression in
the collective idea—or rather ideal—of “person,” an idea that, as
we have seen, has its own inherent meaning.
Mounier underlines the fact that, under Christian influence, a
significant novelty appeared: the idea of personal autonomy. It is
rather easy to demonstrate the reasons for this novelty. According
to Christian teaching, the person created by God is a unique and
indissoluble whole whose unity precedes its multiplicity. Therefore,
we can speak of the uniqueness of the person and of the person’s
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 79

freedom and autonomy. The person has an eternal destiny foreor-

dained by the Person of God, and therefore the human person is
intimately linked to the Person of God, who through the incarna-
tion took on the human condition. God becomes a historical person
by means of our humanity. Within this perspective it becomes clear-
er why, in the Christian view, human beings are the only beings
made in the image and likeness of God. Mounier saw Christianity
as bringing about a qualitative historical leap in the evolution of our
understanding of the human person and in the attainment of our
humanity.
And since we human persons are also rational, we are a source
of freedom. Freedom is intimately linked to rationality. In fact,
Mounier saw freedom as the unique prerogative of rational beings;
it stood in opposition to what he called the “irrational” natures of
other beings, which are essentially subordinate to ourselves.
This understanding of the person places human beings at the
center of all creation and makes us the beings closest to God in the
hierarchy of creation. It underlines the transcendent destiny of
human persons, which is made manifest in our penchant for end-
lessly surpassing ourselves and in our unceasing tendency to become
more than we are.
This view of the human person fails to acknowledge our inti-
mate and articulated bond with the earth and with the entire cos-
mos. Essential to Mounier’s viewpoint is the belief that human
beings are the center of creation. This view is strongly supported by
the notion of two orders of being, one natural and the other super-
natural. Human persons live in a constant tension between histori-
cal values and those that go beyond history, those represented by
Christianity. Our lives unfold in the interplay between two poles:
contingent history, on the one hand, and eternity on the other.
Mounier’s reexamination of the notion of person contributed to
the formation, especially in Europe, of a generation of intellectuals
and activists that made a great contribution to many social move-
ments, especially in the early part of the second half of our century.
Today, however, we have to acknowledge that this notion of person
is being called into question. As the turn of the century approaches,
it is no longer adequate in dealing with the complexity of the human
person. The idea of a natural and a supernatural order, of transcen-
80 Longing for Running Water

dence within history and beyond history, and of existence and

essence is no longer adequate to explain the human and ecological
catastrophe we are experiencing—or to offer viable alternatives for
our time.
Turning to the Catechism of the Catholic Church published in
1994, we can see that its notion of “person” is based on the idea of
a breakdown of the original innocence in which God created
humankind: The sin of Adam and Eve led to a distancing between
creature and Creator.? Despite this, however, according to para-
graph 356, “Of all visible creatures only man is able to know and
love his creator. He is the only creature on earth that God has willed
for its own sake, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and
love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and
this is the fundamental reason for his dignity.”
Paragraph 366 adds, “The Church teaches that every spiritual
soul is created immediately by God—it is not ‘produced’ by the par-
ents—and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it sepa-
rates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body
at the final resurrection.”
Paragraph 374 continues, “The first man was not only created
good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in
harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state
that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in
Christ.”
These texts illustrate the perpetuation of a tradition that has
been handed down from the first centuries of Christianity and con-
tinues into our own day. We have undoubtedly inherited more ele-
gant and precise doctrinal formulations, but it is significant that at
the end of the twentieth century we still witness an “official” return
to the same mythical-religious theme, which is taken to be divine
revelation. The catechism makes no reference to critical studies on
this topic—not even those carried out in recent years.
Although for many centuries this understanding of humanity
was helpful in affirming the value of the human person, today we
sense its limitations. The contemporary world’s complexity and cul-
tural diversity, the progress of science, the questioning of tradition-
al myths, and all the consequences of our past decisions: All this cre-
ates in us the need to understand ourselves in a new way.
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 81

The catechism’s understanding of humanity is marked by an

absolute discontinuity between the Creator God and all of creation.
One senses a radical divide that separates the greatness of God, the
smallness of humanity, and the “irrationality” of the “rest” of cre-
ation. The mythical underpinnings of this theological language can-
not hold up in the face of the challenging questions we are asking
ourselves today. The text reveals an understanding of humanity
based on a specific image of God and of divine authority. It takes for
granted a world order established by God, and this order appears to
be understood in a static way. It stands in contradiction to our expe-
rience of reality as fluid and changing, and places us in the context
of a language that is no longer our own and that no longer touches
our heartstrings. It does not move us to let ourselves be charmed by
the beauty and goodness that surround us. It does not open us to
tenderness, compassion, and solidarity toward our fellows and
toward the whole cosmos. ;
What we note in these catechism texts is a hierarchical under-
standing of the world, one that is not necessarily Christian. This is
the worldview that has helped legitimate a long train of oppressive
situations and abuses of power throughout our history. Within this
hierarchy, male human beings enjoy special privileges and are called
to dominate the earth, or at least that is what they have done dur-
ing many long centuries of our history. Women are second-rate:
they are called to be submissive, and their life purpose is to satisfy
the desires of their husbands.
This hierarchical worldview justifies not only the ascendancy of
male human beings, but also the power of one ethnic group over
another, of one religion over another, of one social group over
another, and of one sex over another. It is, in a certain sense, an
accomplice to the present situation of destruction that affects many
peoples as well as the planet earth itself.
To raise our voices against this dramatic situation is not, as I said
earlier, to deny the benefits that have also derived from the notion of
a free and autonomous person. Rather, it points to the need for a
broadening of our perspective. The recent discovery of the interde-
pendent linkages among all things invites us to reflect on and artic-
ulate the notion of person in a different way. We wish to overcome
exclusivist dualisms, not only on the theological level, but also in
our social, economic, political, and cultural relationships.
82 Longing
for Running Water

“Person” in an Ecofeminist Perspective:

A Tentative Construction
Speaking of “person” in an ecofeminist perspective obliges us, first
of all, to offer a number of affirmations that have grown out of the
current historical context. The excesses of the traditional under-
standing of “person” have produced many casualties. Women, the
marginal poor, and the ecosystem are among the victims that cry
out today, vigorously demanding relationships that embody greater
justice. It is the poor and outcast who make known the conse-
quences of the unlimited economic development project to which
we are being subjected.
We now have a new contextual, circumstantial, and collective
perspective that seems to be a helpful starting point for a fresh artic-
ulation of the notion of “person.” When we speak of a context, we
are referring to the various concrete situations within which our
lives unfold. The destruction of which we are victims—and for
which we are responsible—is going on here in my neighborhood, in
my city, in my country, and in other countries. It is not a distant war
about which we hear talk, but a suicidal and murderous conflict in
which we are directly involved. We begin, then, with the global phe-
nomenon of regionalized destruction and oppression that we
encounter in relationships among human beings. But we also need
to go beyond regionalism. I offer the present study as a new anthro-
pological and cosmological vision for the next millennium, a vision
that is the fruit of a national and international collective and cre-
ative effort. The term “ecofeminism” may not survive for long, but
that is of no importance whatsoever. The important thing is that the
values embodied in this vision be respected, along with their local
articulations. The important thing is that the affirmation that we are
all one and the same Sacred Body in multiple and diverse expres-
sions, an affirmation that arises from our own experience, be
allowed to stand and to serve as the basis for the diversity of our
reflections.
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 83

RELATEDNESS AS A CONSTITUTIVE
DIMENSION OF “PERSON”

The first thing to be affirmed in an ecofeminist perspective is the col-

lective dimension of “person.” This collective dimension is not only
anthropological but also cosmic. And in this collective dimension
the most important thing is neither autonomy nor individuality, but
relatedness.
What does this “relatedness” mean? In the first place, let me
point out that the word “relatedness” is not taken from any partic-
ular philosophy, thought system, or school of spirituality. It has
been adopted because of the need to speak of a reality that seems so
fundamental that it is shared by all living beings. Instead, many of
us who were working in an ecofeminist perspective suddenly found
ourselves using a shared language that reflected our perceptions
regarding the complex and extraordinary web of relationships that
is called life. The term “relatedness” has slowly begun to enter our
everyday, oral language; it has the advantage of not needing much
explanation, because it is explained by everyday life itself and its
innumerable circumstances.
Within the perspective I seek to develop, relatedness is the pri-
mary reality: It is constitutive of all beings. It is more elementary
than awareness of differences or than autonomy, individuality, or
freedom. It is the foundational reality of all that is or can exist. It is
the underlying fabric that is continually brought forth within the
vital process in which we are immersed. Its interwoven fibers do not
exist separately, but only in perfect reciprocity with one another—
in space, in time; in origin and into the future.
If we understand relatedness first of all as the constitutive rela-
tionship of communion we have with all beings, then we will have
to acknowledge that the person is much more than the individuali-
ty recognized by my consciousness. Furthermore, my individuality
does not end with my human characteristics and my network of
human relationships. These no doubt have to do with my individu-
ality as well, but it is much more than this, even if I am not aware
of the fullness of being that brought me forth. My personal memo-
ry is very limited.
84 Longing
for Running Water

The education we give and receive limits our perception too

much. I remember very little about my less immediate ancestors. I
know next to nothing about their personal stories or the histories of
their cultures or home countries. I know nothing about the natural
environment in which they lived, the vegetation or the birds and
animals that were part of their daily experience. It never occurs to
us that the birds and the climate, the trees and waters, are part of
their personal histories and their personal realities. And if I don’t
think of this with regard to my most immediate ancestors, what can
I say about the process in which life and the first human beings were
formed? I never even think of the eons-long learning process that
allows me to stand upright or to choose and eat the foods that keep
me alive.
Our reduction of the description of a person to the individual
and anthropological sphere and to the few years in which an indi-
vidual lives begins to seem very limited and incomplete. We consid-
er ourselves to have scant connection with the earth, with the phys-
ical, chemical, biological, and cosmic powers that allow us to be
who we are and to seek what we seek.
The person we are within the patriarchal perspective is a very
limited, individual, and anthropocentric being. Yet despite this, we
consider ourselves to be the only beings who are able to think and
therefore to be entitled to dominate nature.
An ecofeminist treatment of humanity seeks to introduce a per-
spective that is limited and unlimited, finite and infinite, dependent
and independent, voluntary and involuntary, transcendent and
immanent, constructive and destructive, exclusive and inclusive.
This means that what we call a voluntary process fully retains its
involuntary character, that what we call infinite retains its finite
character, and so on. Relatedness is nota synonym for moral good-
ness; rather, it points to the vital power of the interconnection
among all things, independent of any anthropological ethical judg-
ment we might make about them.
We are, fundamentally, relatedness. But how can we better
understand this primordial relatedness, which seems to be our con-
stitutive grounding—to be prior to ourselves and to go beyond our
individuality? I would like to deal with this in a series of steps: relat-
edness as a human condition; relatedness as an earthly condition;
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 85

relatedness as an ethical reality; relatedness as a religious experi-

ence; and relatedness as a cosmic condition.

Relatedness as a Human Condition ©

To begin our reflection on relatedness with humanity is in no way a
return to the anthropocentric mentality that has long characterized
us. Rather, it reflects a dynamic that is a component of our very
humanness. We enjoy a growing awareness of our identity in rela-
tion to the cosmic whole to which we belong. To begin with the
human is merely to select a starting point that is limited to our own
condition and to the intellectual path we are following. We can
begin only from the limited point that is ourselves. So it is our own
situation that prompts us to build a discourse that begins with our
world and with ourselves.

Relatedness: A Reality That Goes beyond Consciousness. To speak

of relatedness as a human condition is first of all to reaffirm our
connection with all that lies beyond the realm of our personal con-
sciousness. Our cultural tradition has overvalued “consciousness,”
made it more or less coterminous with our definition of the human
and regarded it as the source of all social and political transforma-
tions. Not long ago, we in Latin America talked a great deal about
consciousness-raising: becoming aware of the roots of oppression.
We assumed that if we became “conscious,” we would already be
on the road to the solutions we needed. This behavior was urged
especially upon the poor. The poor should become conscious of the
oppression and exploitation in which they live as a step toward
achieving liberation. In this process, popular educators were to be
responsible for bringing about a new collective consciousness and
for channeling this into a more or less preset political project aimed
at liberation.
One thing we did was to limit this consciousness to the realm of
a social, political, and religious project. At the same time, we saw it
as a psychological project aimed at bringing into the light of con-
sciousness the frustrations and difficulties that were holding back
our personal and social growth. Once they became conscious, these
difficulties could be dealt with and, to some extent, overcome. In
religious terms, for example, we spoke of our “conscience,” which
86 Longing for Running Water

is aware of things we have done, and of our “examination of con-

science.”4 “Conscience” was more or less the criterion for deter-
mining the degree of someone’s guilt.
Consciousness was linked to a specific kind of rationality, a spe-
cific understanding of our psychic and social processes. Already
embedded within this notion of consciousness were individual and
collective proposals for the solutions to our problems. In other
words, “consciousness” was already oriented toward a given
objective.
This notion of consciousness, which is quite well developed in
modern times, had the advantage of making us feel personally
responsible for various problems that flowed from our actions. It
also had the advantage of pointing up the connections among
social, psychological, and religious processes that lay at the very
heart of what was called consciousness. At the same time, this con-
cept also set its own limits. Our consciousness was to some extent
confined to a single model of awareness: one that was western,
rationalistic, male, and white. This model was regarded to be con-
sciousness as such. Anything that fell outside of it was not part of
the consciousness-raising project, because it did not square with the
project’s model of rationality. Socially aware people, then, were
those who followed a more or less preset path to arrive at the
sought-after “consciousness.” And it was intellectuals committed to
consciousness raising—and religious leaders, in the case of religious
processes—who to a great extent defined the acceptable parameters
of the consciousness-raising process.
This was already an undoubtedly selective process, one limited
to those who had the ability to participate in it; further, this “abili-
ty” was determined on the basis not only of individuals’ personal
capacities but also their ideological choices.
The idea of relatedness does not deny this type of consciousness,
but it affirms consciousness as a prior and infinitely more compre-
hensive reality. Human consciousness is one among many kinds of
conscious relationships, and is conditioned by a variety of personal
and cultural dimensions of the overall relational process within
which all things live, are born, die, and are transformed. What we
call “consciousness,” in its various aspects and usages, is inherent-
ly dependent on our basic and fundamental relatedness.
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 87

We could ask what difference relatedness could make in human

behavior when it is marked by so many conditioning factors. In the
first place, I think that, although it affirms the value of conscious
processes, it also relativizes their value; it gives them a place as con-
stituting an important form of perception, but also as one that is
limited to a certain context and is related to a given historical
process. Beyond this, it helps us to see that consciousness is one
form of human presence in the world; but that, within the com-
plexity of our vital processes, other forms exist as well. Conscious-
ness does not necessarily bring about the needed or desired trans-
formations. It is not only blocked by the thousand and one
limitations inherent in my “consciousness” and that of others or of
other historical projects; it also is unable, in itself, to move people
to action. We are more complex than our consciousness, more
unpredictable than our plans, more unreliable than our decisions,
and more heavily influenced by our fears and laziness than we real-
ize. We fail to follow through on our own decisions and convic-
tions, and we do what we feel like doing instead of what is impor-
tant. At one moment we get excited about something, and the next
moment we are excited about something else. Examining related-
ness will point up the complexity of our relationships and the need
for candor in recognizing them as important variables in carrying
out any collective activities, especially those that have the “common
good” as their aim.
Finally, relatedness can open us up to a dimension of ecojustice
in which the life of other beings is essential to the living out of
human justice. Ecojustice is the kind of justice we seek and live out
when we affirm our bodies as part of the Sacred Body of the
universe.

A Relatedness That Goes beyond Western Rationality. The related-

ness that has developed among us is characterized by an emphasis on
“objective” laws and on the laws of so-called scientific knowledge,
which at first glance seem clear enough. We have expected that, just
as we can understand certain objective laws in the physical world,
we can also uncover objective laws in personal and social behavior.
Persons, groups, and events that fall outside the rules of scientific
objectivity have been regarded as nonscientific or as exceptions. And
88 Longing
for Running Water

the exceptions themselves have always been seen as anomalies,

abnormalities, oddities, and so on.
Compared to scientific objectivity, all other forms of knowing
seemed to be of scant significance. Intuitions, attractions, bodily
memories, forebodings, and common sense were regarded as hard-
ly even worthy of consideration. In practice, we created a kind of
“split” between what we called reason and our other faculties, as if
reason could somehow subsist without the rest of the complex
whole that we are. And as we very well know, this split has been
expressed in a gender division within the very act of knowing. Men
have had the superior faculty, rationality; women have had intu-
ition, emotions, and feelings. This dualism has estranged us at the
very heart of our being.
To affirm relatedness as a primordial and foundational reality
requires us to eliminate dualisms and other forms of separation. It
also requires us to affirm human rationality, but a rationality that is
connected, integrated, independent, creative, open, and willing to
engage in dialogue. Emotions are as much rationality as analytical
rationality is emotion. They are different expressions of relatedness,
manifestations of dimensions of ourselves that are differentiated but
still united within the totality of our being. And on the basis of the
totality that makes up our being, we could say that intuition is also
rationality, but a rationality that brings together a larger body of
personal feelings, perceptions, convictions, and apprehensions. We
need to defend the unity of our being and refuse to acknowledge, as
we have been accustomed to in the patriarchal system, a hierarchi-
cal order among “parts.”
This more unitary perspective leads us to a more holistic under-
standing of the reality that makes us up, and does not exclude from
rationality other dimensions that are just as much a part of our
being. Thus we may be able to overcome the divisions within our-
selves, as well as the attitude that, on account of our reasoning
powers, we are superior to other beings and are entitled to stand in
judgment on them all. This latter notion reflects the hierarchical
dualism of the traditional rationalist philosophies on which patri-
archal theology has built its discourse.
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 89

Relatedness as an Earthly Condition

We are earthly beings. Not only are we of the planet Earth, we are
also of earth, in the sense of the soil that makes it possible for seeds,
plants, and trees to grow: the earth that feeds us and allows us to
live and share in life. There is no opposition between planet Earth
and earth as soil, but I am speaking first and foremost of the soil on
which I live, of the geographic area in which my life develops, and
of my personal experience as an earthy being. My initial relation-
ship with the earth is not with Earth as a planet that is part of the
solar system, but with the earth on which I took my first steps; on
which I smelled my first smells, both pleasant and unpleasant; on
which, in time, I took firmer steps; and on which I jumped, rolled,
and shed tears.
My initial relatedness with the earth is with the soil upon which
I was born and through which all my other relationships have been
mediated. This earthy relatedness is spatial and temporal. It is the
reason we always long to return to the land of our respective births
and seek our ancestral homes. The earth, to each of us, is that spe-
cific piece of earth. And that piece of earth is also the planet earth
on which we dwell as one body.
The Christian tradition in which we have been educated has
always insisted on opposing earth to heaven. In the context of this
opposition, it taught us to wish for heaven—to dream of it and to
think of ourselves first and foremost as citizens of heaven. The earth
is just one planet among many, a place we are merely passing
through. We are all destined for heaven—the place in which God
dwells, the place of all that is good, eternal, and beautiful. In that
place, there will be neither pain nor loneliness, neither cares nor
blemishes.
The story of our denial of Earth in favor of heaven is very old. I
will not go into it; all of us are at least somewhat familiar with it. It
is worthwhile, however, at least to remember that this denial was
part of us; that it was embedded in our flesh, in our ways of know-
ing, and in our dreams of freedom. Only now are we attempting to
- leave this attitude behind, because we no longer feel inclined to seek
heaven.
Heaven is not our mother, and our earliest bond is not with an
ideal heaven but with our mother’s body, the earth’s body, the body
90 6Longing for Running Water

of a woman or a man. It is with this material reality that surrounds

us that we feel a connection: for better or worse, but in relationship.
Christian tradition often cut us off from our bodies, from our earth-
ly dreams, and from our love of the earth. Today we are recovering
our earthly citizenship. We are creatures of the earth, of the soil—
and we live out of this terrestrial relatedness and feel an urgent need
to rebuild it, to stop harming our own body, to stop exploiting and
destroying it.

Relatedness as an Ethical Reality

We all know that social life makes ethical demands. In this context,
ethics is a network of relationships designed to respect the integrity
of all beings, both individually and collectively. In all ethical con-
duct, there is a certain collective consensus about what should be
regarded as the “common good.” Thus we say a behavior is “uneth-
ical” when it fails to honor certain basic rules of social living, of
respect for the various social groups and the communities of living
things that share the same planet.
The issue that interests us here is to know how relatedness
changes the ethical relationships among humans and with other
beings. To speak of relatedness is not to appeal to a transcendent
principle or a higher divinity that should act as a sort of rationale or
moral grounding for our actions. Relatedness, or the interdepen-
dence among all beings, is a constitutive experience of the very uni-
verse in which we live. It is a constitutive reality for the universe and
for life, and in human beings it takes on special configurations that
we call ethics. We appeal to ethics not in the name of any religious
creed, but rather because we see it as the vital foundation of our
personal and collective lives. In this sense, the ethical dimension,
which implies respect for all kinds of living beings, can be appre-
hended by human beings in the very act of welcoming the extraordi-
nary relatedness that animates all living things. Meanwhile, after
thousands of years of patriarchal formation of our perceptions, to
grasp this as a constitutive dimension of our reality is not an easy
task. Thus ethical relatedness requires a whole educational process
aimed at rebuilding our self-understanding. This educational process
is slow and continual, and will be necessary in all social institutions
and religious creeds. We could compare ethical relatedness to our
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 91

own Judeo-Christian wisdom tradition, which has shown itself able

to renew and re-create the lives and relationships of individuals and
groups.
“Wisdom was created before all other things, and prudent
understanding from eternity. The root of wisdom—to whom has it
been revealed? Her subtleties—who knows them?” (Sir. 1:4-5). It is
in the spirit of wisdom that humanity seeks and hopes for redemp-
tion, and it is in the spirit of wisdom that all creation, as Saint Paul
says, “groans in labor pains” (Rom. 8:22) in order to be freed from
the multitude of slaveries that holds us in subjection. There is, then,
a wisdom that is understood in different ways by the different
human groups; there is a wisdom that can be read in the very histo-
ry of the universe and of the earth, one that makes us all able to
understand the presence of this power, which “helps us in our weak-
ness” (Rom. 8:26). There is a wisdom that can be learned, cultivat-
ed, and loved. As Ecclesiasticus says, “Come to her like one who
plows and sows” (Sir. 6:19) in order to taste her fruits.
It is this wisdom that teaches peoples to seek justice and freedom
and to call them by many names; it is this wisdom that teaches long-
sufferingness and patience, mercy and prophecy; it is this relational
wisdom that awakens us today to the ecological crisis and prompts
us to seek ecojustice in the name of our entire Sacred Body. And this
wisdom is not the privilege of just one group or of any one religious
creed; it is here, a part of life, present in our collective breathing and
in our ability to feel in ourselves the groans of the outcast of the
earth.

Relatedness as a Religious Experience

What is this “thing” we call religious experience? It has become
more and more difficult to answer this question. What seems certain
is that what we call religious experience is a manifold experience,
one that can be expressed in many different ways. One of the most
common expressions in religious language is discourse about the
experience of “union” with the divine, or with the whole; the over-
coming of the fragmentation caused by the masks and divisions
with which we have to deal in our everyday lives. I will deal with
this issue in more detail in chapter 4.
92 Longing
for Running Water

The experience of being one with the whole, of not being op-
posed to the whole, of feeling “in communion with,” has been
sought in many different ways ever since the time of the earliest
human groups. The experience of being “one” is not necessarily
harmonious, peaceful, and serene. On the contrary, the very search
for this “unity” is often marked by conflict, sometimes violent con-
flict. It is enough to consider struggles for national unity, or even the
search for oneself, to understand the conflict-ridden character of the
struggle for unity.
This points up the paradoxical nature of our search for unity, as
well as the paradoxical nature of what we call “religion.” The
ecofeminist perspective seeks precisely to underline the paradoxes
and the plurality of the paths that are part of this search, and the
need for dialogue among the different paths. It insists that speaking
in religious terms does not mean limiting ourselves to any recog-
nized institutional religion; rather, it is opening ourselves to a more
or less conscious dimension of the relatedness that is part of our
constitutive makeup. ~

Relatedness as a Cosmic Condition

To speak of relatedness as a cosmic condition does not, at first
glance, seem difficult for us, as contemporary people, to under-
stand. But to speak of ourselves as human beings in the midst of the
same cosmic relatedness requires us to give up some of our anthro-
pocentrism and some of our imperialism vis-a-vis the rest of the cos-
mos. This means, once again, to welcome the cosmos as our body,
and thus to recognize it as a “subject” and not merely as an object
subordinate to our will to conquer.
If today, as Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry say, we are able to
tell the story of the universe, it is because we include ourselves in
that story and are expressions of universal relatedness.’ Within this
perspective, we open ourselves up to a humbler dialogue among
peoples. All are an expression of the selfsame universe story that
generated us. We will survive only insofar as we all recognize our
personal responsibility to the whole.
Part of welcoming our relatedness as a cosmic condition is mak-
ing the effort to educate ourselves experientially in order to feel our-
selves to be a reflection on, and an expression of, the universe story.
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 93

OPENNESS AND EVOLUTION AS INHERENT

COMPONENTS OF OUR BEING

I identify with the position already developed by other authors, such

as Rosemary Radford Ruether, that we human beings are in the
midst of an ongoing evolutionary process.® This means that we can
no longer call ourselves beings who are mostly good but who have
been corrupted by society or by sin. Nor can we define ourselves as
evil beings saved only by the grace of God. These kinds of state-
ments, which are typical of our tradition, continue to feed our the-
ology, but with every passing day they seem to become less adequate
in answering some of our most critically important questions.
Although it is possible to distinguish philosophical from theo-
logical discourse, in practice many philosophical and theological
conceptions end up converging and intermingling in the very heart
of our culture. So when we criticize the Christian notion of person,
we are criticizing not only its theological formulation but also the
philosophical underpinnings upon which it is built. What we can
affirm regarding these philosophical underpinnings is that, tradi-
tionally, the human person is always referred to in substantialist cat-
egories. This means that the human is understood as a determinate
“substance,” and that any conceivable change in the human would
have to preserve the same substance or the same structure of under-
standing. Human beings would then be defined in such a way that
they would be prevented, in a certain sense, from any novel form of
participation in the dynamics of life or any attempt to “utter them-
selves” in a different way.
The classic notion of the human person in Christianity, as I
explained earlier, distinguishes between two kinds of discourse on
human beings. The first is drawn from common sense and from our
self-awareness. The second comes from revelation, and is more or
less immutable in theological terms.
The Belgian philosopher Jean Ladriére gives a good summary of
what we are according to revelation:

Human life is ordered to an eternal destiny. The present life is no

more than a preparatory phase, although it is the decisive one in
the sense that humans are responsible for their future destinies. By
94 Longing
for Running Water

their actions they become, in this life, worthy or unworthy of eter-

nal happiness, and it is their entire being that is included in this
destiny. The dissolution of the body is just a transitory episode...
But death does exist. It is regarded as a consequence of orig-
inal sin, and thus as a newcomer in human history and the result
of a spiritual event in which humanity’s relationship with God
was placed in jeopardy.’

In Ladriére’s view, Christian revelation would usher us into an

order of being different from that of ordinary experience. In our
ordinary experience, we live with the concrete realities of evil,
death, suffering, and an unknown future. Revelation raises us to the
level of the so-called certitudes of the faith and opens the door to a
hope that exists on the theological-anthropological level. In my
view, however, these certitudes seem to uphold the same dualistic
viewpoint found in the Greek tradition within which Christian the-
ology was inspired and built. There is still a supernatural order that
is superimposed on a natural order regarded as purely anthropo-
logical. The former order, which showed the imprint of Platonic
metaphysics, was called the divine order: It remained above and
beyond the empirical world, even when it exhibited the limitations
characteristic of that world. No one ever asked, for example, what
reasoning led us to conceive of this supernatural order or what
human experiences prompted us to affirm its existence.
To speak of openness and evolution is, first of all, to recognize
the order of historical experience as the primary and most impor-
tant source of our knowledge about ourselves and about the world,
which is our body and our source of life. Although this order of
knowing far from exhausts our reality, it is the only one that is
accessible to us. And it is on the basis of the experiential order that
we discover ourselves as being in evolution not only in our bodily
state but also in the accumulation of knowledge that characterizes
us. It is on the basis of this evolutionary openness, of this growth
process, that we open ourselves to the mystery that envelops us and
within which we have our being. And it is this process that leaves us
dumbfounded in the face of the immense greatness of which we see
only the smallest glimmer. We are in awe when we contemplate the
starry sky or even widely reproduced photos of the earth, the blue
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 95

planet of the astronauts. We feel swept up by the beauty of the trees

in autumn and the promise of life in early spring. We are caught up
in feeling during lovemaking and in moments of suffering and tears.
It is in our body and through our flesh that our knowing takes
place.
What we call Christian revelation cannot be reduced to a kind of
static metaphysics that assumes we already know what human
beings are and who God is. The ecofeminist perspective assumes
that, despite the fact that we are human beings, we can know nei-
ther God nor human beings by a priori deduction. We will never
know human beings any more than partially, and it will always be
from clues left behind, from their dreams and from their relation-
ships with all the beings that make up the universe. We know only
a particular story of humanity, the one that is told and interpreted
by ourselves.
We are no longer interested in saying that human beings are
good or-bad by nature. We are no longer interested in giving human
beings a sort of preexistent essence that is prior to concrete, living
human beings. We do not speak of human beings before the fall,
any more than we speak of Rousseau’s noble savage being corrupt-
ed by society. Nor do we speak of “original sin” as a sign of a break
with God, an expression of a kind of “defect” that came upon us.
In the worldview we are fashioning, in fact, that break does not
exist. What does undoubtedly exist is the destruction of life process-
es, of human groups, and of persons as a result of the “barbarity”
we have developed within ourselves. What does exist is the profit
we are able to extract even at the price of ostracizing others. What
does exist is hatred, the brother of love, which comes to take on
murderous qualities within us. We no longer ask where the evil in us
comes from; rather, we ask how to escape the destructive process in
which we are all involved with different degrees of guilt. We ask
how to “negotiate” escapes from the sort of evil we produce,
endure, and teach. Even though we struggle against evil, we know
it is part of us: it is our body, just as good, love, and mercy are.
In this situation of evil and destruction, the divine milieu itself is
affected; our Sacred Body is bruised and mortally wounded. In tra-
ditional terminology, “original sin” would be the development
within us and outside us of a capacity for destruction and exclusion
96 Longing
for Running Water

in which all human beings are at once victims and culprits. This
destructive capacity takes on a particularly dramatic form when it
becomes violence against the “innocent,” against those who are vic-
timized without having been directly involved in the evil that
occurs, who are immolated on the stage of history without ever
having a choice.
Within this perspective, we can no longer speak of either an
original or a final paradise, but only of the process in which we have
been involved—and in which we remain involved. By analogy, we
might say that doing evil or good, even without knowing what we
are doing, is like eating and drinking: It is a vital and necessary part
of our lives and of human history.
Ecofeminism has not turned back to a naive naturalism or to
some earlier innocence that would try to speak of humanity “before
the fall.” On the contrary: We would question the kind of naive nat-
uralism we have become aware of in some ecological organizations
and in movements that seek to revive primitive cultures, whether
they be indigenous or black in origin. In many forms of Latin Amer-
ican “culturalist” discourse, there is a clear tendency to see these
cultures as if they were free of any violence or evil. (When I say this,
however, I am in no way refusing to recognize and vehemently
protest the colonialism, economic liberalism, and racism that even
today continue to victimize these groups.) At the same time, there is
a naive attitude that believes in Rousseau’s “noble savage,” even
though this notion has no verifiable historical grounding. We ought
to ask ourselves whether these movements do in fact retrieve values
that could undoubtedly be retrieved, or whether they are still anoth-
er way of manipulating the oppressed cultures that are so often uti-
lized by minority interests.
Opening and evolution are two processes in which all beings,
including human beings, are involved. They encompass all institu-
tions and theologies, even Christian ones, despite Christian claims
to “eternal truth.” It is on the basis of this process-oriented open-
ness that our one Sacred Body stays alive in its great and extraordi-
nary diversity. And it is on this basis that we maintain and joyfully
celebrate the indivisible mystery of our being.
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 97

MYSTERY AS THE ORIGIN OF ALL BEINGS

I would like to be quite explicit in affirming the mysterious origin of

the cosmos, of all beings, and of humanity itself. This affirmation
means refusing to place what we call ethical perfection at the begin-
ning of all, as if everything had started out as good and then evil
had raised its head somewhere along the way. To speak of initial
ontological and ethical perfection requires us to present imperfec-
tion, sin, and our ability to be selfish and destructive as realities that
arose from a quasi-deliberate historical break or rupture. Also, it is
to posit an imaginary construction of our original state as one of
idyllic perfection. This perfection would be identified with the all-
powerful Being, with being in itself: with the Creator, who is above
all other beings. In reality, however, perfection is a powerful guiding
idea that arises out of a particular understanding of humanity and
the universe. This perfection is not found in any concrete material
situation or in any specific historical time and place, although with
Jesus we have moved toward making it a concrete reality within the
human sphere. The notion of ontological perfection led to the
appearance of a series of theoretical paradoxes that survived by
virtue of dogmatic proclamations of the essentialist variety.
On the basis of this dualistic vision, the idea of the origin of evil
as an “event” that arose within human life and had consequences for
all of nature would be explained in various ways. One would be
human beings’ freedom to compete with a divine and absolute being,
and thus to choose their own impulses over obedience to a supreme
will that had the goodness to create us. This would mean that God
created human beings with the freedom to accept or reject God.
The ecofeminist perspective does not spend time reflecting on
this freedom to accept or reject God as supreme being, because it no
longer speaks of the supreme being as an autonomous, separate per-
son; neither does it mention this being’s qualities or prerogatives.
Since we are a single Sacred Body, we are within the divine, and in
a certain sense we are this divinity. The individual is not annihilat-
ed, but is instead related to a wider whole without which life would
be impossible.
I begin, then, with a specific point of view, which is that we
should not affirm any traditional ethical-anthropological or meta-
98 Longing
for Running Water

physical system as necessarily being the right one for human beings.
For example, we should not assume we can say that the good exist-
ed in the beginning and that evil was introduced as an accident
along the way, as if it were something from which we could later be
freed in order to affirm the absolute triumph of the good.
The ecofeminist position affirms not only the mystery of our
origins but the effort to bring about ethical improvement in the
future of humanity and of the cosmos. Ethical perfectibility would
be more in the line of the challenges we human beings set for our-
selves when we think about our future. We begin by refusing to
affirm that human beings are constitutionally good and that we
were corrupted by our situation. Rather, we can more or less affirm
the origin of ethics as a fruit of our humanization process, of our
collective growth, and we can bank on the improvement of this
ability within us and the gradual construction of a world in which
shared life, within a context of respect for differences, can become
more and more a reality.
Perfection, then, would no longer be an ideal we seek as we
would a preestablished formula that is already known or revealed.
Rather, what we would call the road to perfection would be a grad-
ual, dialogical, spatiotemporal process that would allow beings to
go on living, to avoid voluntarily hampering their own develop-
ment, and to seek balance and a shared existence—one based on a
community of differentiated beings that vitally need one another in
order to continue to live.
Perfection is not a preestablished state, and neither is it a state at
which we necessarily have to arrive. It is not a model to be learned
or copied. It is not a person we should imitate as if that person had
attained the required human qualities in an unlimited quantity for
all times and all places. I do not mean we should not be inspired by
the multitude of people who pass through our lives, or that we
should refuse to be nourished by their lives or to allow them to be
reference points for us.
Each new generation must rediscover, through mutual aid and
surely also by learning from its past, new forms of shared living that
will permit, to the greatest possible extent, the flourishing of the life
of all beings and the development of each individual. This presents
to us the challenge of thinking through an ethic with new founda-
 The Human Person from an Ecofeminist Perspective 99

tions and new reference points that are most adequate for each
human group and context. Beyond this, it opens us to new forms of
dialogue and shared living.
To affirm the mysterious origin of all beings allows for ecstasy,
admiration, surprise, and wonder, as Brian Swimme says.® Far from
falling into a mechanistic materialism, we open ourselves to praise,
to the canticle of the universe, to the ecstasy that makes us feel at
the same time our grandeur and our smallness, our one body and
our individuality, our tentativeness and, in a way, our eternity.
Christian tradition is imbued with these mystical intuitions, and
the ecofeminist perspective seeks to recover them as our tradition,
our collective inheritance, our humanization and “cosmification,”
all of which have been in a process of development for thousands of
centuries.
To acknowledge the mysterious origin of all beings is to affirm
their freedom in the vital process of evolution itself. It is to affirm
the contexts of their lives—their adaptations to life in accord with
needs that have arisen, and the direction taken by the life within
them—in order to be able to affirm the unique sacredness of each
one’s life. To affirm the origin in mystery of all things is to affirm, as
well, their reabsorption in the life process, their mysterious trans-
formation beyond all our individual dreams and accomplishments.
The remaining evidence of these mysterious origins does not give
us the key to their secrets. They persist as a kind of challenge to us,
and prompt us to assume a respectful and reverent attitude that
welcomes the greater mystery that envelops us.
The philosophical references we consult are no longer Platonic,
Aristotelian, and Thomistic, and the intuitions and experiences of
Jesus of Nazareth have been opened up to a whole new world of
understanding and meaning. Consequently, the various religious
traditions are part of this greater movement we call the evolution of
life. They constitute different poetic “variations,” musical chords
with different tonalities, separate roads that lead to a shared wis-
dom. In this sense, the human person is a kind of “word” capable
of allowing other words to resonate within it, as if it could hear in
itself the voices that draw it forth and remain in silence in the pres-
ence of its own mystery.
 a a
tian
ms a ventbey
oe : oe ace ania
oo her) vie ~~ eee
- ’ prrane srrsbitegaged Unio oboe
7 eo vii ee De sgharehen
7 a Bt eeee edna sree gaits
ay ge teas Vidiicl (ieee ets ras ort sate tocendecenednitncaans te
Ee =m fanwued Derg Weer yr ol Jigen yrica Ch yb ly anc umn:tore set |
Hee eae! eo ot) Loe ie mau.
hiettow beitebasilaet
oe het ernoniaorns hate cit anche ivy ae hes Wearknpaoains asia be te
cos alte
nan shad oe = posers MOlnee vmodsryaniniendt
a OREM cere: ores Tegal Thee wan arnadtion _wdrnisibes Hur f
ci esc soTaianeo, pe igang foregut estvlner ebHan
a" ite ce gr yoann ries

~ falas saat:ante: hy hich |*

en eerrese belvecaioace
alte a iar ent ts liahimpent le iy (sake erences thcaatter

; Ade Sierra yt)> wich aaa viet) vss) Tiedt Mretaginng oct

gach Bc i) soteet ietendtiopgar dade srzeeds divert walt ahocme _~

piaitopiews ht ates ales! arainwermewidd:
iad ig: a Aaeeesaedan ol ieyne: cy cee ith teat =7
edt tain dt eemraciipaln ai honor eithese ae abe »
evraria sae yh nate ng A marr doeneaceitarti a

enerepee 2 ery Aare - Tukueae 4 Shutee OF yt

ae a” wie Se ~ we sO eee prmetere= aagpty
TE RT 9tt TH URN ON
Separate, anret cantCan ge
<tbenast whos:stent ee
ua quel roesage,en Sarin ton
* Aalhaieinds -id Re remasord orm
. —:
—— eneetnalgenatal | “ot re-raceee Youalnyandes await
dirond Ae ommadeine rorrangany" aetuc erential ormasiadtany se
iat hese gsre,toival nity benny sapedienyte a "
vehefen Dena retest eau rnepsisarents
aT sont bila:senidaagy tt eR Ten: meee
wv wbrakigsn Ajtmaserity,
fats Mwah ia
brie
ee Sad the decry
vp =a hy rellange ahi ay a

c sins
 é
GOD: AN ECOFEMINIST
APPROACH TO THE
GREATEST OF MYSTERIES
—_—_E~
S=—
SS

The search for God is a path we never succeed in leaving behind. All
generations walk it in their own ways, often without so much as
pronouncing its name. It accompanies us throughout our lives. It is
part of our questioning the meaning of life, a questioning that is
phrased in a thousand and one ways and that appears and reap-
pears in all cultures and challenges all individuals. In the last analy-
sis, questions about God are questions about ourselves: about the
fact of being alive, of being here, of being confronted by countless
situations and questions.
We are always returning to this “something more” that is both
here and there; before us, within us, and outside us; first and last;
transcendent and immanent; good and perfect; existent and nonex-
istent; spiritual and bodily—and enveloped in mystery.
To seek God is to seek our own humanity, in an attempt to speak
of ourselves beyond our own limitations and contingencies and to
heal a kind of wound that we feel within us always. To seek God is
to seek meaning, a meaning that is expressed in a thousand differ-
ent ways and always demands to be expressed anew, because no
language is able to exhaust this meaning.
IOl
102 Longing
for Running Water

Relatedness as a Language
and an Experience of the Divine
To speak of the search for meaning is to go beyond our religious
traditions’ habitual distinctions between theists and atheists.
“Atheism” is a word that always refers to one or another way of
giving meaning to our lives, and it always stands in opposition to
certain specific interpretations, expressions, beliefs, creeds, theolo-
gies, and powers. In the perspective I am developing, in this sense,
atheism in its various forms could be regarded as an expression of
the human search for the meaning of life. Atheists usually say, “I
don’t believe in God.” Many are speaking about God as a being-in-
itself, a separate being with its own will. They are not referring to
the meaning of life. In the interest of broadening our understand- ,
ing of God, and in light of the inherent problems that plague our
traditional images of the divine, I would dare to avoid using the
word “God” so as to be able to stammer out something about the
ground of our being. However, because of my spiritual formation
and the Latin American culture in which I live, I am unable to
avoid the word. So I am attempting to speak of it, but in the light
of a different understanding.
In the preceding chapter, I offered a novel understanding of
“person.” Now I will try to offer a different notion of God, fully
aware that I will have to face some problems about which we have
little clarity and regarding which silence might be the best answer.
Sketching out this different notion is not an individual effort but
rather a collective one, a task of the contemporary culture in which
we live—and especially of women, with their countless questions
about life.
In many parts of the world, in East and West and in North and
South, a new understanding of humanity is being worked out as the
current millennium draws to a close. We feel the urgent need to
refashion ourselves as a human species, to re-create the fundamental
values out of which we live. We feel the urgent need to reinvent our
dreams of love and justice and our capacity for communion, mercy,
and solidarity. We have a growing sense of weariness in the face of
the endless violence that assaults us and the absence of respectful
ways of struggling for a world that embodies justice and solidarity.
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 103

Thus the collective search for God becomes the task not just of so-
called theologians but of all those who share a passion for life.
As we have seen, the first and most basic characteristic of the
human person is relatedness. As I see it, relatedness is the primary
and the ultimate ground of all that exists. Relatedness, as expressed
in human language, means “experience” as a condition and a value.
However, it goes beyond the human world and beyond all we can
articulate. Both the world we see around us and humanity within it
are expressions of the relatedness that characterizes all things. It is
on the basis of this experience, and on going beyond it, that we can
thus affirm that God is relatedness.
To call God “relatedness” is to use a word to express something
that goes beyond all words; it describes an experience, but goes
beyond all experiences. It speaks of God as possibility, as opening,
as the unexpected, the unknown; as physical and metaphysical. This
is a relatedness that has no exact definition: it cannot be reduced to
a given being, a given species, or a given system. It is not relatedness
in itself, or separate from the fullness of all that exists; rather, it is
relatedness as a continual presence that is made explicit in different
ways in different beings. It is, then, the relatedness in all beings; it is
not in itself and for itself. In describing relatedness in this way, we
are trying to say that this seems to be the only way, limited as it
surely is, to grasp this reality, to express it and to live it out. It is a
multiple relatedness, encountered in its variety of expressions.
Relatedness is not an entity apart from other beings; rather, it is
a mystery that is associated with all that exists. Relatedness is utter-
ance, word, attraction, flux, energy, and passion, insofar as it is the
materiality and spirituality of all that is. It is this, but it is also that;
and it cannot be fully represented by anything that is. We are all
both created within and creators of this relatedness. We are of its
substance and it is of our substance, independent of the precise
space and time in which our concrete lives are lived out. We cannot
explain it; we can only consent to its unutterable mystery as the ulti-
mate ground of all that is. Today many authors say we are “a single
sacred body.” But “body” is not just the materiality we perceive
with our senses: It is not limited to our immediate perception. Our
“body” has dimensions we do not know, although we often think
that it is only what we know.
104 Longing
for Running Water

Within this perspective I especially want to cite Sallie McFague:

“The model of the Universe as God’s Body unites immanence and
transcendence. At once a powerful image of the divine immanence,
for everyone and everything becomes potentially a sacrament of
God, it is also, though perhaps not as obviously, an image of divine
transcendence.”!
This perspective leads us in some sense to overcome the
dualisms that have marked our Christian tradition when it has spo-
ken of God. In this tradition we have spoken of God as pure spirit,
above and beyond all beings, at the same time that we spoke of
God’s incarnation. At one moment, we underlined the spirit dimen-
sion as a need to go beyond historical contingencies, while at anoth-
er we emphasized the divine presence in human flesh in order to
point to the concrete need for love and mercy.
The schools of thought that accentuated mistrust of matter
underlined the spiritual transcendence of God. Those who were
concerned with social problems and the acute pain of humanity
emphasized the God who takes on human flesh and redeems it. This
oscillation, which was sometimes paradoxical, seemed to “balance
out” the two great tendencies mentioned above, both of which were
present in the life of Christian communities.
Today we seem to feel differently. Dualism is felt to be inade-
quate in explaining the complexity of reality. Opposing the materi-
al and the spiritual as if they were separate substances is turning out
to be obsolete and inconsistent in the face of our world’s violence,
our progress in scientific knowledge, and our contemporary under-
standing of the universe. For these reasons, we open our hearts to
speak of another aspect of the ecstatic and terrifying experience of
being a part of life, a life that is far greater than our individuality
and is barely perceptible on the basis of that individuality. At the
same time, we have the poignant experience, despite our limita-
tions, of discovering our ability to intuit the greatness of the mystery
that we are and within which we have our being. As Emmanuel Lev-
inas says, we are able to start from ourselves in order to live and
acknowledge the greater Being.”
To speak of relatedness as the mysterious reality of God is, in the
final analysis, to affirm that God is not a pure essence existing in
itself; rather, God is relationship. And it is by means of relationships
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 105

and of relational behaviors that we speak of God. It is through rela-

tional behaviors that we affirm, “This is divine!” And we say this on
the basis of our fragile, limited, contingent, and ephemeral experi-
ence. Long ago Saint John said that those who do not love their
brothers and sisters do not love God! And on the basis of what can
be experienced, of a limitedness that blossoms forth, we welcome
the experience of the unlimited. Within this perspective, the word
“God” is the name we give to the extraordinary relationship that
evokes ecstasy and leads us to see flashes of the greatness of the
mystery of the Divine Body. To speak of God is to speak of that
which is beyond us. To speak of God is to affirm the “something”
that we are and that goes beyond us, based on human experience
and moving beyond it.
For us human beings, this relationship is personal: We speak of
it out of our personal experience. We only delight in love when it
refers to concrete persons, we only struggle for justice when there
are individuals who suffer injustice. We only seek the beauty of liv-
ing beings and of all things because their beauty is a part of us; this
beauty attracts us, dwells in our flesh, and is part of our living tis-
sue. Therefore God is and is not a person. This relatedness is
expressed personally, humanly—and is at the same time far more
than human and far more than simply personal.
For this reason, we no longer speak of God as existing before
creation, but, in a way, as concomitant with it. We no longer think
of God first and creation later, because this sort of gap between
atemporality in God and temporality in creation does not make
sense to us. We no longer speak of the presence or absence of God,
but, basically, of presence. It is a presence that is hard to speak of in
traditional terms. Traditional discourse on God referred to a sepa-
rate, preexistent being who could be invoked in all life’s joyful and
difficult circumstances. God was spoken of as the first cause of all
that is, as the beginning or starting point of all that exists. All the
questions that have later assailed our minds and hearts need to be
dealt with anew in the light of this new moment in our understand-
ing of the universe.
Relatedness is not a discourse about the person or the being of
God, but about what we perceive of the mysterious Body of the
universe to which we belong. And, unquestionably, we are moving
106 Longing
for Running Water

into a different cosmology, a different anthropology, and a different

theology. This new theology needs to make its way humbly and
without pretenses, recognizing that it can only dimly and gropingly
make out the ever-present clues that point to the greatest of
mysteries.
In this perspective, what we traditionally called the “absence of
God” continues to be an expression of a dualistic approach that
leads us to place God always on the side of the good. We thought of
God as absent from the hell of warfare and from the hell of betray-
al and destruction. We thought of God as absent from the most seri-
ous situations of social injustice and exclusion. We though of God
as absent from what we call “evil.” We thought of God as far above
filth, ostracism, and destruction.
But why should we speak of the presence or the absence of God?
Why should we always open an escape hatch that enables us to jus-
tify the goodness or evil of human actions on the basis of something
that lies beyond the human? Why explain natural catastrophes and
their consequences as somehow linked to the designs of a Supreme
Being above and beyond creation? Why do we have so much trou-
ble accepting what Edgar Morin calls the gospel of perdition? Here
is the bad news, he says: “we are lost, irremediably lost. If there is
a Gospel of the Good News, it should grow out of the Bad News
that we’re lost. But still we have a roof over our heads, a home, and
a country: the small planet on which life grew its garden, where
humans make their home—where, despite everything, humanity
ought to recognize it possesses its shared dwelling.”
As long as we are unable to accept the reality of our “perdition,”
we will go on talking of the presence and absence of God. If the
good is absent or is not winning the day, then we speak of the
absence of God. Theories about the absence or the silence of God
have marked a good part of the theology produced in this century.
But it appears that this absent being is still imagined as a concrete
and living reality that’s here or there. Furthermore, this is a differ-
ent and perfect being, and thus one for whom it would be unwor-
thy to get mixed up.in the squalor of our lives. In fact, this is a being
on whom I can call for help and before whom I feel unique, whether
or not my request is granted.
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 107

This God evokes profound anxiety and a multitude of unan-

swered questions, despite the fact that all the anguish and unan-
swered questions are inside ourselves. Despite its goodness, this is a
tragic divinity. It is a divinity that is limited to my existential situa-
tion; reduced to it, made in its image and likeness. It is a barely
anthropocentric God.
It could be argued that we can call upon God only from within
our concrete situation. And although I fully agree that we are con-
ditioned by our life situations and by the persons we are, I think we
can gradually prepare ourselves to consider other images of our-
selves and of the mysterious reality we call God. In fact, this is one
of the tasks theological ecofeminism has set for itself. We will not
solve the critical problem of human anguish and suffering, but we
will get in the habit of understanding ourselves not on the basis of
a tragic and dualistic worldview but rather out of a unitary and very
realistic perspective. This does not mean we will be able to leave
anguish and suffering aside, but we may be able to face them in a
different way. This in turn means opening ourselves to other points
of view and in some sense moving beyond mere human suffering.
We will be able to understand the suffering of the earth, of animals,
and of the cosmos in addition to human suffering, but we will see
human suffering as neither superior nor inferior to other kinds of
suffering. This taking on of our collective pain is characteristic of
the great religious traditions of history, and especially of the Jesus
movement. However, this tradition has been obscured by individu-
alistic attitudes of all kinds.
In the perspective we are developing, God is in all and all is in
God—including suffering, dirt, and destruction. I do not affirm the
individuality of God, as the traditional perspective does, but rather
God’s relatedness, the understanding of which surpasses us. If I
affirm the individuality of God, this is really a projection of my
own individuality, of my ability to feel that I am I, that I live and
breathe, and that I am tied to all that is, while at the same time I am
distinct, different, and unique. I speak of the mystery that surpass-
es me in terms of my own life, my own existence; and so I almost
spontaneously tend to “reduce” God to an individual or a person,
in order to make God in my own image and likeness.
108 Longing
for Running Water

The term “to be” is a linking term, one that points to existence.
This is also what a relational presence is: It links everything with
everything, and everything with all. Relatedness is existence in con-
scious processes and also beyond humanly conscious processes.
To speak of relatedness leads us to a somewhat imprecise dis-
course, one that seems relative—and to some, perhaps, universalist
and abstract. The effort to understand this relatedness sometimes
makes us uncomfortable. Although we live out relatedness in our
daily lives, we have trouble accepting it as the “divine milieu” in
which we have our being. Discourse on this ultimate, mediating,
and primary reality, in which we have our being and about which
we babble words and express intuitions or to which we address
complaints and petitions for comfort, can only be approximate,
poetic, and intuitive. But the patriarchal world never taught us to
recognize the poetry in our lives; neither did it teach us to deal with
approximations and intuitions. It always oriented us toward certi-
tudes, especially when it dealt with religious discourse. The patriar-
chal world always made distinctions between the good and the bad,
the just and the unjust, and the masculine and the feminine; it
always erected clear boundaries around what it pompously judged
to be good, just, pure, and perfect. The closing of this century offers
us the great challenge of learning to think of ourselves in categories
that are no longer oppositional, but rather inclusive.
One critique aimed at the ecofeminist perspective is that it is
associated with a kind of “imprecision,” almost a “vacuum,”
regarding the notion of God. This seems to disconcert people who
are used to having a clear picture of the unlimited being of God.
They like a God who is a perfect “substance,” an independent
being—a God who, in the last analysis, is not limited by mere
human fragility.
We often hear people say, “I can’t accept the idea of God not
being an individual person,” or, “I can’t pray to someone if I don’t
know who it is.” Or they say, “How can I tell my children about
God? I can’t ask them to pray to and obey a whole with no visible
faceu,
“It makes no sense to pray to an energy or to a relatedness.”
“You can’t identify God with the world, or the creator with the
creature, or you'll lose the sense of transcendence that’s the foun-
dation of our morality!”
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 109

“You give the people no definite face of God,” they go on. “The
people need spiritual materialism in order to live—in order to be
consoled, controlled, and helped.” “You’re destroying the Christian
tradition and changing the very content of the faith.” “How far do
you intend to go?”
There are many questions of this kind, and the answers are not
always easy—mostly because people do not have the kind of atti-
tude that would open them to answers that differ from those they
are used to. Even if they see problems with their own answers, they
often resist novel attempts to answer these questions: They prefer to
go on with the same habitual answers to avoid modifying their secu-
rity systems in any way.
Most people cannot even perceive the intimate relationship
between our beliefs and the understandings of the world and of
humanity that we take for granted. They are unable to grasp the
contextuality and provisionality of our discourses on the so-called
eternal truths of religion. Furthermore, they do not accept the fact
that our discourse on God is always relative to our experience and
to our place in society. If our experience changed, our discourse on
our beliefs would probably change as well. Even if we continued to
use the same words, they would not have the same meaning.
Despite the difficulties involved in giving answers, I have always
taken people’s questions seriously and tried to offer them at least
some clues that can help them find their own answers. And just as I
do this in my work with groups, I will try to do the same in this
chapter. I will try to begin with the specific questions people ask me
about God and use those questions to open the way for new
answers. All my attempts at answers will be from an ecofeminist
perspective. This will undoubtedly constitute a new style and a new
model for “speaking of God,” one that flows out of the lived expe-
rience of various groups scattered throughout several countries.
I will begin by setting out some of the questions that are most
often raised in the various courses, forums, and meetings at which
at I have spoken, and the kinds of reflections I have offered in
response. I am aware that my answers are incomplete, but they have
been useful in sparking conversation about the eternal issue of the
search for meaning or, in traditional theological terms, the search
for God.
110. 6Longing for Running Water

Issues Raised about

Ecofeminist Discourse on God
e [can’t accept the idea that God is not a person.
e [can’t pray to an energy flow.
e We must not fall into pantheism.
e The poor need concrete images of God.
e The ecofeminist perspective fails to stress the image of a God of
Life committed to the poor.
e What do we do with biblical images of God?

BCAN’T ACCEPT THEIDEA

THAT GOD IS NOT A PERSON

In Latin America, this has almost always been the first objection
raised when the ecofeminist perspective is broached. The distinct-
ness of God and God’s radical independence in the face of all other
beings have been a part of our Christian heritage, especially in the
West.
One of the difficulties we have in accepting a different kind of
theological reflection is that we have not yet assimilated the fact of
the interconnection and interdependence among all beings, much
less integrated this with the fact of our relative human autonomy.
Our mindset was formed in a patriarchal tradition that posited a
break or discontinuity between a Supreme Creator and all of cre-
ation. The idea of a divinity that pervades all beings, times, and
places was seen in this tradition as a primitive, mythological notion
that had been almost totally forgotten by Christian theology. For
the superiority of this Supreme Creator over all others to be upheld,
this being had to be above and beyond the general run of beings.
And in order to uphold our understanding of the relative autonomy
of human beings, we had to compare it to the absolute autonomy of
the Divine Being. The latter had to be a being in itself, all-powerful
and independent of all creatures.
Within this dualistic antithesis, we not only had to grasp the
concept of God and of creation; we also needed to understand the
notions of “perfection” and “imperfection,” and “purity” and
“impurity.” We set up pure and perfect beings to contrast them with
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 111

our Own experiences of impurity and imperfection. We set up pow-

erful beings to contrast them with our own fragility and weakness,
which we experienced in so many situations. It was, in a certain
sense, a way of denying our own relative and contingent natures. In
reality, we know that we can barely imagine what a pure and per-
fect being far above us could be. All we can do is deduce it as a
hypothesis in order to continue with the life we have received. In the
discourse of the mystics, to experience God’s life directly seems
almost impossible; they always refer to this “absolute” in analogous
and symbolic images.
Most of the time, we fail to see that we are dealing here with a
mental construct, a making sense of our experience, the using of a
set of cultural parameters in order to grasp at the mystery that is
alive within our own being. These parameters have been regarded
as eternal and proclaimed to be “truth,” especially within the west-
ern Christian tradition. Institutions and powers were built on these
truths; so were dogmas and liturgies, inquisitions and prejudices.
On them were built missions and tasks to be carried out. Much
blood has been shed for them and much destruction wrought, and
many loving acts have been undertaken in their name. And all this
building up and tearing down has been carried out in order to sep-
arate God radically from creatures, as if we were seeking to uphold
God as an untouchable “moral reserve” that would permit human
beings to draw back from their evil actions. Meanwhile, history has
showed that even this point of view has its radical limitations: We
continue to shed blood, mostly innocent blood, and to justify our
actions in God’s name.
The great limitation of our present theology is its struggle to
maintain these mental paradigms and constructs without reflecting
on the deep changes we are going through, especially in the light of
the development of contemporary science and the often destructive
consequences of our “conquest” of the planet. The old reference
points were undoubtedly useful in earlier centuries, but now they
show themselves to be inadequate. Now we see just how much
their claimed eternity is really contingent and limited by their con-
text. We see just how much their proclamations are fruits of a sta-
tic worldview in which the so-called eternal verities are accorded
more value than the flow of truths that has emerged in the course
112 Longing for Running Water

of history, truths that are really tenuous expressions of that myste-

rious fabric within which we have our being.
We do not even dare to reexamine the philosophy that upholds
our theology. We do not dare to inquire into the meaning of the
terms we use in building the many meanings of our lives. We say, for
example, that God is an eternal and immutable person and at the
same time the creator of all that exists. Emmanuel Levinas reminds
us that “[a]n eternal subject is a ‘contradictio adjecto,’ because a
subject is in itself a beginning. An eternal subject not only cannot
begin anything outside itself: it is itself impossible, because as a sub-
ject it should be a beginning and this excludes the possibility that it
could be eternal.”*
On the basis of my work with various groups, especially
women’s groups, I have observed that there is enormous difficulty in
encouraging people to adopt an alternative kind of philosophical
approach in their everyday thinking. It is not that people are con-
sciously Platonists, Aristotelians, Thomists, or Cartesians. They
probably know nothing of these philosophies. But these philoso-
phies move unconsciously through their veins: They are part of peo-
ple’s cultures, their spiritual formations, and their educations. They
show up in the dualistic and mechanistic way in which they under-
stand human beings, as well as in their relationships with other
beings and with the so-called Supreme Being. At first glance, they
are unable to see that the vital process of development of our One
Body is sacred, and that our universe demands that we develop our
ideas about it and seek ways of loving it with greater justice and ten-
derness.
Theologies seem not to be concerned with adjusting their for-
mulations to the specific issues the people raise. They are more con-
cerned about adjusting the reality of the concrete lives of men and
women to their theoretical concepts, which are drawn from other
times and situations. They call these formulations “God’s revela-
tion,” as if all this discourse were not woven of human experience,
in all its greatness and precariousness.
With some exceptions, the churches have always sought to sub-
ordinate the concrete context around them to their doctrines—and
consequently to their power. They have claimed that the great issues
of every culture and historical period must be clothed in the same
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 113

traditional garb, the same basic meaning structure, as if this were

something universal and revealed by God. Often, they have declared
it possible to muffle our cries and heal our pain only by subordi-
nating ourselves to the world of perfection proclaimed by theology.
They have pronounced many discourses on the goodness of God, on
spiritual joy and happiness, while our stomachs growled with
hunger and tears of distress burned on our faces, and while the
weapons of war killed our children and our hopes.
Traditional theology sees God as a person with a will, a purpose,
a plan for salvation, and a historical project. All God’s plans are
good and perfect, even if we never see them realized in the concrete.
This divine personality was clearly fashioned in the image and like-
ness of the human personality. Sometimes religious authorities
agreed to speak of the Person of God in analogous terms. However,
we know that all this theology is built on the fundamental idea of
the uniqueness of God’s being—a metaphysical notion.
The ancients discovered in this idea a principle of authority that
allowed them to demand ethical behavior or to impose their world-
views. In the last analysis, the church always used God as the ulti-
mate justification for its power and its actions. It needed God’s
authority in order to wield power and exact obedience. In the end,
it is easier to exact obedience by appealing to God’s power than by
appealing to that of human beings!
In his name the church meted out love and punishment. In his
name it intervened in the people’s lives. In bis name it exhorted and
taught the nations. In his name it admonished women and slaves to
obedience. The church’s voice has always been considered to repre-
sent God’s person and God’s power. Whereas democracies tried to
speak in the name of the people, the churches claimed—and still
claim—to speak in the name of God, and their actions were always
thought to be for the good of the people.
Politically and socially, God had to be a person with a will in
order to legitimate actions imposed on persons. And sometimes
God has become a rigid, intransigent, vengeful, and even blood-
thirsty person.
For anthropological reasons, too, God had to be a person. “Ask
and you shall receive, knock and it will be opened to you.” We can
only ask if there is someone there to hear, or knock if there is some-
114 Longing
for Running Water

one to open the door! But to whom, in fact, did the door open? Did
this metaphor of need and power not end up being co-opted into
history, becoming part and parcel of its struggles, reflecting its
claims, its racism, its sexism, and its illusions, as well as its hopes
and consolations?
A metaphysical, anthropomorphic, and anthropocentric God
became a necessity within the psychological structure that evolved
throughout the history of patriarchal culture. This meant that, in
the traditional theology we were taught, God was regarded as
another “I,” an ego of infinite excellence whose designs were inac-
cessible to human beings. The affirmation of this other ego, which
is understood in the light of my own ego, offers a sense of paternal
or maternal security even if my prayers are never answered. There
is always the possibility of enjoying the complicity of this other ego
within the confines of my own ego. There is always the hope that
this ego will recognize me, listen to me, and respond with what I
hope for. And if this fails to occur, some people hope that another
time their prayers may be heard with more sympathetic ears. Oth-
ers despair, feel guilty or rejected, and ask why God has forgotten
them and why God does not heed their petitions and supplications.
God as another “I” in the image of the human continues to be
preached by religious authorities. The fear of God’s dissolution into
cosmic or anthropological dynamics seems always to be present.
“There is none like God,” the authorities say. “None has power like
God’s.” “No one can stand up to God’s sovereign will.” “Only God
saves.” “Only God can do everything.” “Only God knows all.”
Although we could accept the existential meaning of these affirma-
tions, in the religious sects that are growing by leaps and bounds
among the poor, these affirmations are often used to manipulate
people’s behavior. They are not presented as metaphors or attempts
to express the greatest of mysteries that envelops us; rather, they are
taken literally and thereby bring with them the danger of using peo-
ple and persuading them to follow disreputable leaders.
The need to affirm a higher power—a power presented as being
in discontinuity with all the powers of the cosmos, the earth, human
beings, animals, plants, and even life itself—appears to be of fun-
damental importance in maintaining the hierarchical organization
of the society in which we live. Within this structure, to affirm God
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 115

as a person who is totally different, superior, and other is in a sense

to remain within the same hierarchical logic.
Within an ecofeminist perspective, the first thing we need to
admit is that the human person is relatedness, a special relatedness
despite the fact that it participates in the relatedness of the whole
universe. Because of this, we personalize all our relationships, from
the simplest to the most complex. This means that in a certain sense
we understand all that exists in light of ourselves, of our genetic and
cultural situation and our creativity and unpredictability. This is
the case not only of human beings but also in some way of animals.
In a certain sense, a dog perceives the universe on its own terms, just
as an ant or a bee does. Animals experience the world, respectively,
as a dog does, or as an ant or a bee does. Saint Thomas Aquinas
said that everything that is known is known in the manner of the
being that knows it.
In our anthropocentricity, we human beings have always
thought we were the center upon which all converges; thus our
image of God was thought out and articulated as the center onto
which all things converge. Our personal God could not avoid being
the Absolute Being that dominated all that exists. We neither used
nor even remembered the analogous or metaphorical perspective.
As I explained earlier, in the light of a more analogous approach
to knowing, we could go so far as to say that God is a person in an
analogous rather than an ontological sense—that is, in the sense
that we can make an analogy between God and our idea of “per-
son,” but we cannot say that God’s being is a person. For the
human world, this relatedness wrapped in mystery is personal,
despite the fact that we must affirm it as also more than personal.
Today, there is a growing awareness that we can no longer be
the center by means of which all is dominated. Rather, we have to
be the center through which all enters into fraternal communion.
We are trying to decentralize our power to possess and dominate in
order to build new meanings based on relatedness, independence,
and universal brotherhood/sisterhood. Today we are aware of the
extraordinary fact that we are all made of the same cosmic matter
and energy, and that there is no single pivotal reality on which we
all depend; rather, all depends on all. The center is in all and in
everything. In this sense, we could even keep the word “God” as an
116 Longing
for Running Water

indicator of the surpassing reality that is the sustaining source of all

life and movement and about which we can only babble muddled
words that somehow reflect our own experience.
We are opening ourselves to a new model for understanding
humanity and the cosmos, and so we can no longer go on insisting
on the traditional notion of a God/person—that is, a separate being
superior to all that exists, a kind of superperson with the power to
“control” the universe, human life, and the morality of our actions.
This is not first and foremost a theoretical topic. It is a practical
one. We are trying to address the issue of the destruction we are
doing to ourselves and to the entire cosmos, not just in terms of our
devastating political and economic practices but also in the light of
our theological-anthropological worldview. Today we face the
issues of hunger, illiteracy, disease, and violence in the world, while
at the same time we struggle to modify our centuries-old beliefs.
Our beliefs are implicated in all these processes, and this means that
we need to face the destruction of the economically poorest ethnic
groups as a religious issue as well. It also demands that we regard
the contemptuous treatment and exploitation of women as a theo-
logical issue.
This means that when we approach the situation from the per-
spective of universal relatedness, there is a real complicity of reli-
gious bodies and of various theological systems with the perpetua-
tion of dependency, violence, and oppression.
The notion of God as a person who is metaphysically asexual
but historically identified with the male sex, and especially with the
powerful of this world, is no longer adequate in dealing with the
great issues of the survival of humanity and of life itself on this
planet. The original sense of God as inaccessible to human knowing
has been obscured by ideologies and dogmatisms of all kinds, and
it is our urgent task to seek it out anew.
In an ecofeminist sense, then, we would say that God is related-
ness, and, as such, also personal—and therefore neither different
from persons nor above them. By analogy, God is a human person,
the sap of human life, but also the sap of the life in trees, in flowers,
in animals, and in all that exists. By analogy too, God is man,
woman, breeze, hurricane, tenderness, jealousy, compassion, mercy:
Mystery.
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 17

The personhood of God must no longer be the object of reli-

gious manipulation. For this reason, it is better to speak less of God
and from this point on to refrain from mentioning God’s will or the
divine plan as realities that are absolutely separate, superior, and
good. It would be better to silence this latest chapter of our dis-
course on God. To acknowledge that the greatest of mysteries that
envelops us simply “is,” is to agree not to take in vain the name of
that sacred energy which pervades all beings.

I CAN’T PRAY TO AN ENERGY FLOW

People who raise issues of this kind do so with a great deal of

anguish. It is as if someone wanted to take away their own particu-
lar way of praying, or even their gods. I try to reassure them, and
invite them to reflect more calmly on these doubts. The idea is not
to introduce some new divinity or to violently tear down people’s
beliefs, but rather to go ever farther in accepting our human respon-
sibility in the face of life.
The first thing we need to do is give a general answer to the
question, Why do we pray?
To begin with, prayingis a human need, like singing, dancing, or
listening to music. But it is a human need marked by gratuity and
freedom, by the desire to be at one with myself in the presence of the
mystery that sustains us all. It is a human need that varies in inten-
sity and form from one person or culture to another.
There is no one style of praying, then; there are many, just as
there are many kinds of music, many poems, and many dance
forms. Praying is a multiple and diverse form of contact with our
deepest reality, with our “I,” with our personal and cultural histo-
ries, and with our desires and fears. So praying is something more
expansive than an act carried out in the context of one or another
religious institutionality.
In the dualistic and exclusive patriarchal tradition in which we
were brought up, praying is, in the first place, an act of praise and
adoration toward God; in the second place, it is a supplication or
request that God satisfy certain needs. The idea that we are fragile,
evil, and sinful led us to develop an ever more acute sense of help-
lessness and guilt. God, who is infinite perfection, seems to be the
118 Longing
for Running Water

only one capable of improving our situation or solving our prob-

lems. We need only recall the great mortifications that were prac-
ticed until very recently in various Christian communities—
penances inflicted on the body in order to obtain the favors begged
of God or the saints. These were very common behaviors in con-
vents and in some lay religious groups. Whippings and mortifica-
tions were regarded as corrective and expiatory practices. To evoke
the goodness and clemency of God, the faithful had to show that
they recognized their sinful state and then do something to expiate
their guilt. Disease, plagues, drought, storms, and death were
regarded by groups in various historical periods as scourges sent by
God. In a number of appearances, the Virgin Mary seemed to inter-
pret the so-called punishments that fell upon the world as divine
actions aimed at the conversion of sinners, for our sins were many.
To recall these traditions is not to deny the stubborn persistence
in life of fragility, or our felt need to build security systems. It does
mean attempting to unveil the structure and the experience of what
we call “praying.” Prayer is then shown to be a way not only of
avoiding punishment by “God’s strong arm,” but also of expiating
our faults and acknowledging that we are repentant and chastened
sinners. “I have done what is evil in your eyes,” says the penitent in
Psalm 50; “therefore in your eyes I repent.” But this repentance “in
your eyes” has to be something concrete, says Jesus. It has to lead
us to specific historical actions that in fact proclaim a change in our
behavior. Otherwise we will go on talking of a purely idealistic real-
ity that has no connection with our daily lives. In Jesus’ perspective,
words cannot be mere literary forms; they have to show a certain
efficacy.
Praying has seemed to be a purer and more elevated activity than
others. We have been accustomed to saying that “to pray is to raise
our hearts and minds to God.” Prayer has been regarded as a very
special moment in life. And, in general, it was something we did after
tragedies struck, as if through it we sought to appease God’s anger
and to receive some soothing consolation.
These actions show that when we pray, we project our personal
situation. If I ask something of someone in prayer, that “someone”
has to be a concrete individual with a selfhood that is different from
mine and with a great deal more power than I have. Similarly, if I
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 119

praise someone, my praise is aimed at “someone” who deserves it

and can accept it.
God becomes this “someone” in my own image and likeness,
one who listens to my entreaties and laments as if I were the only
person in the world who was crying out at that moment. But God
also appears in the power of the saints, who are very much present
in Latin American Catholicism. With them, I can establish solid
bonds and create relationships of power and submission, of tender-
ness and reverence. The saints in some way represent divine power,
since they live life on a different level.
This has been the behavior of the great masses of believers, espe-
cially Roman Catholics, in Latin America and doubtless in other
parts of the world. It has also been the doctrine imparted by those
charged with catechizing the people.
Despite this, a sense of orphanhood seems very widespread
among us; the need for, at least, the feeling that “somebody” is lis-
tening becomes ever more urgent. This need is what, even today,
makes it so difficult to suggest new behaviors or to widen the hori-
zons of our habitual ways of thinking.
In an ecofeminist perspective, prayer has to be rediscovered as
a human need. This need is expressed in a variety of forms and cir-
cumstances, depending on the particular person or community that
is praying. We pray because we need prayer. We pray because we
want to pray. We pray because it helps us live better. We pray
because we need this contact with ourselves, with our community,
and with the entire universe. We pray because of our need to bring
to mind the people we love, to reflect on the grace of their lives, to
recall their sufferings and joys, and to share with them in their
mysterious encounters with us. Prayer reveals the multiplicity and
unity we all are. Prayer also opens each of us to his or her ability
to draw the world to him- or herself and, at the same time, to be in
contact with the world within the confines of our individual
subjectivity.
Prayer, then, is not addressed to an abstract “energy flow,” as
some make the mistake of thinking. It takes place in the light of the
concrete materiality of the beings we are, in connection with the
materiality of the world that surrounds us, in relatedness with that
whole of which we are one tiny expression.
120 Longing
for Running Water

Prayer is a moment of gratitude, of silent contemplation of the

simple fact of being here, of being part of this immense web of rela-
tionships, of breathing within the bounds of the world’s breathing,
of living this instant within the great evolutionary sweep of life. It is
breathing within the orbit of the world’s breathing and that of the
universe; it is the spirit, the breath of life within us. We breathe
because we are breathing beings, beings that inhale and exhale.
That is our condition and our situation.
Prayer is our personal and collective preparation for acting in
solidarity and respect, for awakening feelings of tenderness and
compassion for persons and for all living things.
This position does not amount to a denial of the various prayer
forms that have been used in different religious traditions, but it
insists on the need to avoid dualistic and hierarchical approaches,
which have shown how limited they are in furthering the construc-
tion of universal brotherhood and sisterhood. Praying is not just
making requests; it is being present, being intimately part of the
body of the universe, the human body, and the bodies of those who
are dear to us—the bodies we love.
This prayer does not stand in opposition the prayer of Jesus as
we find it in the Synoptic Gospels. It does not matter what name we
give the mystery: We know that Jesus’ experience reveals his open
acceptance of the great mystery of life. His moments of solitude
were probably deep encounters with himself, powerful experiences
that threw him once again into the struggle to restore dignity to the
lives of the poor and outcast.
Within an ecofeminist perspective, then, praying is also neces-
Sary: praying to remain faithful to the very faithfulness of life in
ourselves. It is praying to be able to breathe, in our own human
way, the breath of the universe; being thankful for life, for this
moment, for this situation, and for this encounter. It is praying for
the ability to accept what we neither understand nor accept. It is
praying for the strength to fight against the evil that injures and
destroys. It is praying to “keep our lamps trimmed” when darkness
enters our lives. It is praying to stand with the oppressed, the
despoiled, and those who have fallen among robbers, as the
Guatemalan poet Julia Esquivel has so beautifully written:
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 121

I will remain with my people,

with the despoiled,
the duped,
the afflicted,
the sold out.
Those who have never been looked on as human
but who straighten up always
And survive
and start over once again. . .°

WE MUST NOT FALL INTO PANTHEISM

Among Latin American Christians, the word “pantheism” has

always had negative connotations. Pantheism smacks of material-
ism and seems close to paganism. It seems to be a regression to a
more primitive and rustic world, one that is less spiritual and less
complete. It is ambiguous, obscure, and disorderly. Pantheism is
associated with the denial of a God who is above all and above
everything. It is associated with a vague negation of human reason,
which identifies God as the cause of all beings.
Our fear of pantheism is largely explained by our dualistic, ide-
alistic, and spiritualistic formation within the patriarchal tradition.
This formation has always insisted on maintaining a hierarchical
relationships among all beings, not only distinguishing between
higher forms of life and so-called lower ones, but also distinguish-
ing radically between the Creator and creatures.
Pantheism appears to break down the distinction between spir-
it and matter, between heaven and earth, between God and human-
ity, and between humanity and ali other beings. The fear of panthe-
ism could even be compared with the fear of communism that has
marked the history of some Latin American countries in recent
decades. Especially among the popular classes, anticommunist pro-
paganda allowed us to blame communism for all the world’s ills:
hunger, the deaths of children and the elderly, religious persecution,
and so on. All that was evil was said to be a fruit of communism.
On the popular level, a similar process has taken place with regard
to phenomena that are labeled as pantheism. The process takes var-
ious forms, all of which identify pantheism with people who mix
everything up and fail to accord an adequate place to God.
122 Longing
for Running Water

We have been afraid to adore the sun, as the Egyptians did, or

the earth, as indigenous peoples did. We have been afraid to adore
nature or to speak of jungles, seas, rivers, and stars as divine. In our
hierarchical worldview, we had to keep all these things carefully
pigeonholed. They had to remain submissive to the Supreme Lord
of the universe and to obey the order established by God. Pantheism
would lead to disorder, the breakdown of hierarchies, and general-
ized confusion. Thus it is possible to understand the fear we devel-
oped in the face of this heresy, which tempted us continually—even
when we thought we had gotten rid of it.
Besides this, our theology has always insisted on two important
words: “identity” and “otherness.” These two words refer to
human beings, to all other beings, and to the being of God. All
beings were characterized by having their own identity, and by their
otherness in relation to all other beings.

Identity
Every being must maintain its identity. Every being has something
that makes it what it is and nothing else. This is its own essence,
that special constitutive something that is manifest in its concrete
existence. This identity is hierarchically organized, so that we
should keep carefully in mind the place each being occupies in the
hierarchy, which is willed and designated by God. Within this hier-
archy, then, each being has its particular identity and value.

Otherness
Once we have affirmed identity, we can also posit the notion of oth-
erness. Every being is different from all the others, and this makes
it other, different. Every being has its own place and cannot be
reduced to any other. Therefore we affirm that every being is
absolutely unique and irreplaceable.
Basing our thinking on the identity and otherness we experi-
enced in created things and in human life, we speak of the identity
and otherness of God. God is the being whose identity cannot be
mixed up with that of any other, and whose otherness is radical and
absolute: God is not only superior to other beings, but absolutely
different. On this basis, we can speak of the absolute transcendence
of God. Although we also speak of God’s immanence, we certainly
place more emphasis on transcendence.
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 123

According to criticism raised in various courses I have given,

ecofeminism appeared not to be taking these two notions into con-
sideration; therefore, it looked like pantheism. Consequently, it was
an unacceptable school of thought, especially for those who
adhered to the Christian tradition.
The confusions raised by this criticism, which is often rather
simplistic, are immense. They have reached not only base commu-
nities but many religious intellectuals who work in our churches.
People have trouble seeing that the traditional wording of our ideas
about identity and otherness refers to a specific way of understand-
ing the structure of the universe and a specific understanding of
human beings and of God.
In spite of these confusions, the ecofeminist perspective includes
the dimensions of otherness and identity; it affirms them as ground-
ed in the relatedness and interdependence of all with all. We are part
of an immense web of relationships, a web that evolves outward in
different ways, in continuity with the universe’s creative process—
of which, of course, we still understand very little. This perspective
also points to the uniqueness of this moment and the unique coun-
tenance of every being, a countenance that is both a unique face and
one that reflects the whole web of life that has gone before it and is
contemporary with it. Rather than being pantheistic, the ecofemi-
nist perspective opens us to see the sacred dimension of our Cosmic
Body and prompts us to assume a humility that dismisses all our
totalitarian pretensions. It opens us to an attitude that seeks com-
munity and solidarity among all beings.
Sallie McFague insists that the theoretical model she has devel-
oped is not pantheistic but “pan-en-theistic.” “Everything that is,
is in God and God is in all things and yet God is not identical to the
universe, for the universe is dependent on God in a way that God
is not dependent on the universe,” she says. Later, she goes on:
“Pantheism says that God is embodied, necessarily and totally; tra-
ditional theism claims that God is disembodied, necessarily and
totally; panentheism suggests that God is embodied but not neces-
sarily or totally. Rather, God is sacramentally embodied: God is
mediated, expressed, in and through embodiment, but not neces-
sarily or totally.”®
124 Longing
for Running Water

The distinction McFague proposes requires deeper reflection. To

say that in the panentheist perspective God does have a body and is
incarnate, but not necessarily or totally, means that the last word on
the mystery that enfolds us is not our own. It signifies openness to
the possibility of all that is different, unpredictable, and unutter-
able. It means we should not build a closed discourse, a discourse in
which the unknown, the as-yet-unthought, or even the nonexistent
has no chance of being included. So we do not seek to protect the
philosophical image of God as a “being in itself,” thereby main-
taining the traditional image of transcendence; rather, we open our-
selves to a different or broader perception of the “divine milieu” in
which we live and have our being.
I like to say, then, that to speak of pan-en-theism is to consider
the potentialities of the universe, the potentialities of life, and the
potentialities of human life as always open-ended. Thus we escape
from the closed circle of immanence and transcendence, of “being in
itself,” to become part of the reality we call the process of life, in
which transcendence and immanence are mere expressions that
point to the dynamics that draw us forth.
The poetry of Ernesto Cardenal, in his extraordinary Cosmic
Canticle, opens us up to the kind of communion that we fear
because it breaks down our hierarchies and our securities:

The universe lit up

by thousands of galaxies of thousands of millions of stars!
I gaze at the universe
and I am the universe gazing at itself.
The universe’s most subtle retina gazing upon itself,
that’s what we are.”

THE POOR NEED CONCRETE IMAGES OF GOD

Without denying all the churches’ efforts to help the poor, the mar-
ginal, and the excluded, we have to recognize that in Latin Ameri-
can there has been an extremely paternalistic tradition that has
unconsciously cultivated dependency among the poor. For instance,
even when the church has defended the autonomy of the poor, it has
sought to make them dependent on certain religious ideas that are
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 125

presented as salvific. However, we must also admit that this has

been a complex human process, one that would be hard to analyze
in the kind of book I am writing. I will limit my remarks to only a
few considerations.
We always prefer that the good we do be recognized and emu-
lated. We would like the act of doing good—especially when it is
done by an institution—to be adopted as a generalized behavior
pattern. We would like to have political, social, and religious influ-
ence. This is, of course, a deeply ingrained behavior in Latin Amer-
ica, especially in the case of the Roman Catholic Church and its
close relationships with the various Latin American countries. The
Catholic church has been present here since colonial times, and its
influence on the life of the continent is undeniable.
Given this situation, it is understandable that, because we help
the poor, we should want them to move ever more deeply into the
world of symbolic meanings offered by the various churches, and
especially of the Catholic church, which still predominates over the
others. But the symbolic world it offers is patriarchal in structure,
and it is also distinctly dualistic and hierarchical. Therefore, despite
the progress made by liberation theology, the symbolic world the
Catholic church offers remains the same.
There is little doubt that despite some rare exceptions, official
representatives of the various churches wield power in the relation-
ships they establish with the poor. The poor are looking for securi-
ty, identity, and consolation, and the churches offer moralistic
preaching, an often literal reading of the Bible, the saints, and so on.
We are almost immediately tempted to claim in response that the
“product” we offer is one that the poor need in order to go on liv-
ing. Therefore, we block efforts to change this world of meanings,
arguing that the poor need it exactly as it has traditionally been
communicated to them. To keep this world in its traditional institu-
tional form is to be faithful to popular religious traditions and,
above all, to show respect for popular culture, say some pastoral
agents.
A typical example is religious authorities’ growing encourage-
ment of popular participation in the maintenance of shrines, the
canonization of saints, new sightings of apparitions of the Virgin,
the spread of stories of miracles, and so on. Often they argue that
126 Longing
for Running Water

this is done out of respect for the people’s desires, but little is said of
the ways in which they themselves bolster these desires or of the
propaganda they put out in order to keep these desires as they are—
not to mention these authorities’ conscious or unconscious com-
plicity with the political and economic means used to keep poor
people dependent. We know how well political and economic
power holders like to support this kind of religious practice by
means of financial contributions, even by installing banking ser-
vices in the immediate neighborhoods of shrines and miracle sites.
The dependency we see in patriarchal religion is largely an expres-
sion of a culture of dependency and exclusion.
What alternatives do we suggest? What new expressions would
we be inclined to propose? The ecofeminist perspective does not
attempt to offer recipes or radically new solutions; it merely seeks to
point out the ways in which we can appear to be social progressives
when what we really are is religious conservatives. What we have
here is an often unconscious struggle to stay in power, to hold on to
a religious power that still has a significant influence in Latin Amer-
ica, especially in the cultural formation of our peoples.
There is a great deal at stake here, and we do not always clearly
discern what attitudes will be helpful in encouraging freedom and
creativity in religious expression. The important thing, nonetheless,
is to avoid stifling creative initiatives, spontaneous cultural expres-
sions, or creative feminist liturgies.
Within the culture of dependency, we claim that the poor need
concrete images of God. When we are asked about the meaning of
these concrete expressions, we answer, “The people need to feel that
God is their Father”—or, in the more progressive sectors, their
Mother. “The people need to feel that God has not abandoned
them, especially when they are living in situations in which they are
spurned and totally disregarded.”
Would the concrete image of God, then, be one that makes a
radical distinction between God as a being who is, in essence,
always good, and God’s creatures, who are always in need? Does
this concrete image of God not amount to repeating the very con-
tradictions that dog traditional theodicies, in which, despite the
growth of evil and destruction, God continues to be good and to
desire the good of all human beings? Could the concrete image of
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 127

God they speak of really be the preservation of a masculine image

of the deity, somehow mitigated by the figure of a patriarchal moth-
er, a powerful virgin, the Great Mother of humanity? As far as I am
concerned, to save these so-called concrete images at all cost would
be one way of denying all the struggles against idolatry that have
marked our prophetic tradition.
The ecofeminist perspective opens itself to the multiplicity of
forms reality takes and to reality’s amazing interdependence, and in
the process it reaffirms the need to avoid reducing the mysterious
reality of this Sacred Body to a single image. Therefore, we protest
the refusal to accept changes in this image, and identify this refusal
as negative ideological behavior—even when it is carried out in the
name of the poor. This attitude that underlies this refusal treats the
poor as ignorant, as helpless, as nonadult. And although it is true
that it is largely the economic system that makes the poor what
they are, it is also true that our religious world itself has often con-
tributed to perpetuating this situation.
Far from showing a lack of respect for popular cultural tradi-
tions, then, the ecofeminist perspective proposes a reflection on the
real interests that are at stake—and on the anthropocentric and
androcentric religious ideology that is put forth in the name of
respect for these same traditions.
I am aware of the complexity of this topic and of the difficulties
that appear when we are deeply involved, as we are in Latin Amer-
ica, in the struggle for survival. But, once again, the task of teachers
and writers is to help people reflect on their daily lives, including the
everyday things that keep us imprisoned and enslaved to ourselves.
Our task is to stir up the waters so that life can be constantly
renewed.

THE ECOFEMINIST PERSPECTIVE FAILS

TO STRESS THE IMAGE OF A GOD OF LIFE
COMMITTED TO THE POOR

One of the most common objections to ecofeminist thinking has

been that it fails to focus its concern preferentially on the poor, on
their political organization, and on the social changes required for
their survival. There is a tendency to identify ecofeminism with
128 Longing for Running Water

“new age” groups, and at the same time to emphasize those groups’
more individualistic and alienating features.
I think there are some very significant ambiguities in all this. In
the first place, we increasingly need to ask what ecofeminism we are
talking about, just as we sometimes ask what Christianity we are
talking about. In a pluralist society such as our own, names no
longer offer a reliable key either to things or to social movements.
Besides this, in Latin America there is a widespread fear of opening
up our markedly anthropological and anthropocentric Christianity
to its more cosmic, ecological, and feminist dimensions. If we did
so, our analyses would have to be more broadly based; they could
not be limited solely to the human dimension. We fear that the cos-
mic dimension could somehow take away from our Christian iden-
tity. This fear is rationalized by an appeal to the idea that Chris-
tianity is based on a direct revelation from God to a specific human
group, and by the argument that this revelation ought to be pre-
served and defended.
These attitudes offer no critical analysis of the challenges to
Christianity at this point in the evolution of the planet and of
humanity itself. Questioning our image of God would force us to
modify a centuries-old theological edifice; it would mean talking
about our tradition in a different way and working more creatively
and freely with the legacy of our forebears. Both conservatives and
progressives show strong resistance to this kind of change. Deep
down, both groups agree that there is an untouchable “revelation,”
and that if we tamper with it we run the risk of losing Christianity’s
identity and its public claim to be a religion founded by God. When
we ask them what exactly its revealed, untouchable content is, they
answer right away that it has to do with the whole dogmatic corpus
regarding trinitarian monotheism: the incarnation, the passion, and
the resurrection lived out by Jesus for the sake of human salvation.
The revealed data are reduced to a certain point of view, a certain
interpretation of Scripture, and specific formulations that, although
they contain undeniable truths, certainly do not exhaust the whole
process through which truth unfolds as we ourselves move along
the path of history.
In the face of the new international context in which we find
ourselves, the transformations of every sort that are taking place in
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 129

our world, and the new theological alternatives that certain schools
of thought—among them ecofeminism—are proposing, most Chris-
tian theologians have a rather closed attitude. An argument fre-
quently put forth, especially by Latin American progressives, is that
ecofeminism fails to offer solid religious grounding for popular
emancipation struggles, which are regarded as struggles for freedom
along the road to the reign of God. Once again, they argue that the
image of God offered by ecofeminism is not firmly grounded, not
demanding enough, and only vaguely committed to dealing with
specific situations. But what they call “grounding” can be reduced
to a particular sociological reading of Christianity, especially the
one that has been widely hailed in the last twenty-five years. This
point of view appears to be in severe difficulty today owing to the
widespread crisis being experienced by liberation social movements
themselves. What they call a solid foundation is the anthropocen-
trism and theocentrism that have long marked our thinking. What
they call groundedness is the continuation of a theology based on a
hierarchical religious system.
In fact, ecofeminists do not base themselves on this or that the-
ological system when we invite others to participate in the process
of saving the earth or defending life. On the contrary, we struggle
for the dignity of life, and the foundation for this struggle is in the
sacredness of the life that is within us and in which we participate.
Every being and every moment is unique and extraordinary within
this immense Sacred Body, whose boundaries are immeasurable. At
every instant, every being maintains its own uniqueness, and in
this context every being is worthy to live the fullness of its own
existence.
We will not speak of the “God of life,” but of life as a divine
milieu. We will speak of life as a sacred individual and collective
reality that should be loved, respected, and preserved. We will speak
of life as a mystery, and of the greatest of mysteries as a reality that
is present in life. We will speak of the life that throbs in us, and in
the lives that surround us—the lives we love. The “God of life” still
appears to be above life—as if there were an ordinary life, the every-
day life of the various beings and of nature, and above it all a divin-
ity that presides over and governs that life. Ecofeminism opens the
doors to a new understanding of the role of religion in human life.
130 Longing for Running Water

In this sense, we do not love other persons and the world itself
on account of a superior Being who (we are told) creates, loves, and
saves all creatures. The invitation to love and mercy does not come
from a reality that is external to us; rather, it is an urge that is pre-
sent in our very humanity. Within our very being, within our flesh,
within our “organized energy,” there throbs an incredible attraction
toward other beings. Although this outward-looking energy can be
discharged in destructiveness and hatred, it can also open up in ten-
derness and mercy. And this is the human enigma, its paradox and
its constant challenge.
What we call the divine is within us, and it draws us to open our-
selves passionately to other beings. We need to remember, however,
that this openness is never total. It always implies a closedness, a
denial, an exclusion. Closing ourselves off is as much a part of the
dynamic of life as is opening ourselves. Openness and closedness are
expressions of all living things, and not merely of the human—despite
the fact that in human beings it takes on its own characteristics.
Going beyond a naive stance toward nature and its appeal,
women and men in various parts of the world have seriously criti-
cized the patriarchal system’s complicity in the destruction of the
earth, of women, and of children. Intellectuals involved with the
feminist, ecofeminist, and ecological perspectives have repeatedly
described the horrors of the destruction we have been creating for
ourselves. This is not a romantic approach, but a concrete one that
recognizes the reality that men plan and declare wars while women
remain behind with their children, struggling for daily survival. In
this respect I recall the women of Sicily, who protested against the
stationing of nuclear missiles in their territory:

Our “no” to war is part and parcel of our struggle for liberation.
Never before have we so clearly seen the connection between the
nuclear arms race and the culture of muscular men; between the
violence of war and the violence of rape. In fact, rape is women’s
historical memory of war. . . But this is also our daily experience
in times of peace, and in this sense women are always at war... It
is no coincidence that the repulsive game of war—in which a good
part of the male population seems to take pleasure—goes through
the same stages as traditional sexual relations: aggression, con-
quest, power, and control. There is very little difference between
a woman and a territory.®
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 131

Why has the male God of life so seldom condemned these hor-
rors? Why do his functionaries fail to mention these injustices? Why
are they silent in the face of growing violence against women? What
side do they choose in life? These concrete situations of struggle and
commitment prompt us to affirm the engagement of ecofeminism in
struggles for social justice, and, beyond that, in the struggle for eco-
justice, which requires a wider and more global perspective.

WHAT DO WE DO WITH BIBLICAL IMAGES OF GOD?

Another frequently heard criticism is that the ecofeminist perspec-

tive brings in traditions and forms of discourse that are not integral
to the great traditional themes of Christianity. Ecofeminism is
accused at times of appearing to forget traditional biblical images of
God and of God’s liberating intervention in the “history of salva-
tion.” Beyond this, it appears to propose significant changes in the
traditional expressions of meaning that have been a part of our her-
itage. “By what authority,” the critics ask, “do you seek to change
Christianity and still remain within the Christian community?”
In my view, these reproaches express a fear of pluralism right in
the heart of what we call “Christian experience.” Because of this
fear, the critics absolutize one interpretation—the dominant one—
as the only means of maintaining our identity. In the process, they
fail to see that biblical interpretations and the very images of God
found in the patriarchal perspective are plural and circumstantial.
The ecofeminist perspective does not cast the Bible aside; it
merely works with it from a different perspective. Ecofeminism
gives more attention to texts that seem in closer line with the world-
view it is proposing, and attempts to broaden our extremely west-
ern reading of the text. Similarly, at every moment in our history,
the Christian community has identified more with some texts than
with others—and has interpreted them according to its needs.
I think it is of fundamental importance to avoid putting the
authority of the Bible above that of life, above everyday struggles
and above the scriptures of other cultures and the histories of all
peoples. It is not because it is in the Bible that we should do this or
that, just as the fact that this or that’s not being in the Bible does not
mean we should not do it. Our life experience is our first teacher.
132 Longing for Running Water

In this sense, we no longer call the Bible the “Word of God”;

rather, we call it a human word on life and meaning. It is a “word”
that continues to inspire us despite the fact that it does not always
fit within our cultural horizon. It is a word linked to our religious
history, our beliefs, and our very flesh.
The ecofeminist perspective has never abandoned the Bible. This
should be clear from the many texts and commentaries by women
theologians from various countries. One example is Ecofeminism
and the Sacred, edited by Carol Adams;? another example is the
many biblical references found in the Chilean ecofeminist journal
Con-spirando. Beyond this, groups of women in various Latin
American countries are working within the perspective of Brazil’s
Ecumenical Center for Biblical Studies (CEBI) in an effort to reread
the biblical scriptures and rediscover in them the integrity of cre-
ation and respect for women.!?
In the same way, Christian women of other continents and tra-
ditions have shown a special interest in reappropriating the Bible in
order to rediscover in it the religious experience of our forebears. A
more detailed study of feminist writings in the last twenty years is
the best answer to the doubts being raised on this particular score.

God: Models and Mystery

Sallie McFague always reminds us that when we speak of God we
are speaking of models, not descriptions.!! Models are categories,
frames of reference, and organizations of meaning we construct to
speak of that which we live and perceive. We always think in terms
of frames of reference, of a given order and organization. There is
no thought that does not have a particular logic, a certain sought
coherence. The organization of meaning changes, just as do the
models we use to understand the world, ourselves, and God. There
is no one explanation for the birth, highlighting, or even death of
certain models and religious symbols. Everything is a cultural effort,
in a given place and time, to express something about the “ultimate
reality” that grounds all that is.
As McFague says so clearly, “Models are to be judged not by
whether they correspond with God’s being (the face is not available to
us), but whether they are relatively adequate (in other words, more
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 133

adequate than alternative models) from the perspective of postmod-

ern science, and interpretation of Christian faith, our own embodied
experience, and the well-being of our planet and all its life forms.”!?
For this reason, all that we say about God is an approximation,
a model for expressing our perplexed grasp of the mystery that
envelops us. “Mystery” is a word I use quite often in this book. I
like it despite the fact that it sometimes exasperates some col-
leagues, such as sociologists, who think it reflects very little effi-
ciency or productiveness. But in order to speak of the meaning of
life, which is a reality of which we are more ignorant than knowl-
edgeable, I have to use the word “mystery.” Mystery as used here
means that which is known and at the same time unknown, a mix-
ture of certitudes and uncertainties; of probabilities, hypotheses,
realities that surpass us, and fundamental questions to which we
have no answers. Mystery is a word that traverses all things, all
words, all lives, and all our yearnings, because it reveals and hides
all that is and is not. For anyone who does theology or who reflects
on the meaning of life, the word “mystery” is essential. It is one of
those words that is indefinable, but that can in the final analysis be
part of any definition.
But what is really important is to understand the historical con-
sequences of our imprecise discourse on God, of our “models of
God.” This is the case because models are not neutral. They beto-
ken a stance, an action in the face of the various problems that arise
in our world. God as all-powerful Lord, king over all persons and
living things, God as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, or
even God as the avenger of the poor and restorer of justice—all are
images or models that imply concrete historical behaviors.
In this sense, the “ecofeminist model” expressed in relatedness is
undoubtedly just one more model: It suggests a certain kind of reli-
gious sociopolitical action that will be somewhat different from the
actions that flow from other models. This is what I have tried to
show throughout this chapter.

God: My Hope
God is my hope. This affirmation, despite the patriarchal ring of the
word “God,” continues to be made by ecofeminist theologians. God
134 Longing for Running Water

is our hope because to say “God” is, in one sense, to say nothing
very precise. To say God is to express through a name our admira-
tion and alarm in the face of the mysterious reality in which we are
immersed. To say God is to refuse to absolutize any one way as the
only way of justice, truth, and love. To say God is to speak of being
and nonbeing. To say God is to speak of the all without limits or the
all within limits; of the all on the basis of human perception, and of
images of nothingness, even if we do not know exactly how to
explain what nothingness is.
God is always the greatest reality, a hope that exceeds all our
expectations. God is the possibility of paths that open even when
some of the paths we hoped for have closed forever.
To say that God is my and our hope is to affirm that we do not
set our hopes on “chariots, horses, and horsemen.” It is to say that
neither political parties nor trade unions, national states, military
forces, speeches, countries, sciences, nor churches have the last
word on life. They are passing forms immersed in the flux of all
things. To say that God is our hope is to affirm that nothing that is
made by us can become our ruler, our master, or our tormentor.
“God is my hope” does not imply the infantile attitude of some-
one who expects everything to come from the all-powerful One,
from a being-in-itself that is distinct from all other beings. God is
my greatest hope, the mysterious reality that reveals that hope pours
forth from every direction: from persons, animals, and vegetables;
from the sun, the moon, and the stars; from love poems and loneli-
ness; from today and even from the garbage. . . . In fact, there will
always be a tomorrow, even though I as an individual will no longer
be here, even if I have never begotten a child or planted a tree.
In consonance with the whole of Christian tradition, we contin-
ue to affirm that God is our hope, because this truth relativizes our
projects, our judgments, our anthropocentrism, our androcentrism,
and our triumphalism. To say, according to Christian tradition, that
God is our hope is to open ourselves to the way of Jesus of
Nazareth, who drew close to the despised and abandoned and
affirmed their dignity far beyond the social conventions of his time.
And, grounded in his resurrected journey, he proclaims the need for
all things to be resurrected today, in our everyday lives. The prox-
imity of the oppressed to us reveals the crazy stupidity of our hearts,
 God: An Ecofeminist Approach 135

which are capable of rejection and of decreeing that some persons

are of value and others are not. The way of Jesus, the way of fool-
ish love, a way that is far from the logic of the established powers,
was the way of affirming the struggle for life, and especially for the
life of the oppressed—a way of resurrection, and the only way that
gives us the right to affirm that “God is our hope.”
God is our hope because our wager in this fragile life is a wager
against all hope. God is our hope because we want to go beyond the
terror, violence, and fear that crush us. God is our hope because we
often have no visible hope, because often the haze of fear that
envelops us and all things seems terrifying. God is our hope as the
ultimate cry for justice: a “no” to unjust killing, to arms and armies,
and a “yes” to a dignified life. God is our hope in our despair in the
presence of a dying child—of a loss that constitutes a “piece” being
torn from oneself—of the companion who has left us, of the soldier
who remains, of destruction, and of the fragments of a quilt that
needs to be restitched.
To go on hoping for some way out in life, even though it is not
the way out we had hoped for, is in a certain sense to continue to
affirm that God is our hope. But it is from within the abyss itself
that I live in myself, and it is from within the very terror that assails
me in the face of machine guns and tanks that I continue to cry out
for the Greatest of Mysteries. Therefore it cries out in me as a power
that is both within me and outside me, as a last hope even when I
perceive that there is no hope. This is “hoping against all hope.”
This apparent contradiction dethrones humanity from its
anthropocentrism and relocates us, on the basis of our very fragili-
ty, within the welcoming Mystery that envelops us and makes up
the being of all beings.
For this reason, within the mystery of our lives, God is our hope.
 a $a
pire
— me ol ee.
il >
oe
? 7 nan ide
, = roo
‘a
ohne5 a ald
Vs aa imap Aelelidaes iloke
a ease cae: bb gh a apap 2s énlenie it Tyo

a | aaa |ae aR : i

Atlan ta 9 ‘¢ |
pe8 svat eR a
- vid redPeape 3 eects Val iat boat jhils prgtla- i)
eweayets sage 14D at
a Pa oe Sipe), cerry wigh 4
; sae

naqoubond +: Amt ine? aa ale

aig ee a
¥
7 oe aay) Od. upshhh) ty area tor) Tet ich 03° tone aorts
ans i a Srnkitah. eit, a, mney 9y A, ollie 09.979
, 3. pit pi caeyagl PO bash pabeises 54, ape in bua{arBelial,BP -
tone “gh jae ee eet ge vi ats sapaliee) ua va

wit gas@rgt apt ng ON b=

A EN 286 (22
dp,
Latha, tac, Ride
ES BPM
pl
pine oe hs amie Raney mae
bp Lengel 2 i Stat ian, es YinRDY “oa ip Viaee ser 7

AD, ERIM,one LIQ. DEF of tiec=p cin

aaRuy
g a
dane
levee.Tesmvicn itmua a art
ea ht
= pe
Or ek e Roe ge
Loia
Murie OFmea, a8 Bo a: oct panod Bad 2a iH} w oi
ie 5 pears mee 2 96 7 a alee
aes Cir ae ty inw Tt oY,3 Bp bap “pe
a
mee aA Fe a lgas |
hia a 1 ‘said
de
G- 1 sae 339 pr 1aFAO re
= ers a al 4igh hy ute A the. baR a (yes
aan Me HEBD G28 a TiQod rehet | add 0 situ
a
uf 9) 099,Ponabesia09 »
a 7 an ae ;
a =~ at why ofeels Lay are ah et
of ai biden
he ae 1
4 de on
:
a % eer cia ary a aga ee

Re
: :

ane — Fn |
, : ee or i z

ae ptenneny jedy mur of Tonomentginn, ove andngcenigiéags

a AOD oie hing Faas a hag 1 ppiagencises aaa .
J Cpt tp ony Bite I Ee
Naerengil, ora is ‘oe j wpeonne ated
ve Ame, ok ot Te er en tr avdale peivencitnts
Aod, prosiaan 9) Seagtintaned pons be prods we
vl? henge Be npee re

conity cf theepaeenalaee
 4.
ECOFEMINISM AND
Dee RNle ye
—_—_E
—S——.
——

Human beings are a part of the whole we call the Universe; they
are a tiny fragment of time and space. However, they regard them-
selves, their ideas and their feelings, as separate and apart from all
the rest. It is something like an optical illusion in their conscious-
ness. This illusion is a sort of prison; it restricts us to our person-
al aspirations and limits our affective life to a few people very
close to us. Our task should be to free ourselves from this prison,
opening up our circle of compassion in order to embrace all living
creatures and all of nature in its beauty.
Albert Einstein

Feelings and Associations Related to the Trinity

When we hear the word “Trinity,” we immediately associate it with
an unfathomable mystery that is part of our faith but that we have
trouble relating to.* We have been told that our God is a Trinity
that has overcome all loneliness and isolation. We have also been
told that it is the communion among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
a very beautiful and perfect sharing we should imitate in our own
relationships. Today, this whole way of speaking seems more and

*This chapter reproduces parts of the author’s book on the Trinity and contains
modifications of other parts. See Ivone Gebara, Trindade, coisas velhas e novas:
Uma perspectiva ecofeminista (Sao Paulo, Brazil: Paulinas, 1993).

137
138 Longing
for Running Water

more difficult to understand. It seems to take place far from us, far
from our own flesh and concerns. And besides, it seems to be a
sharing among “persons” who are totally spiritual and perfect. It is,
after all, a divine communion that barely affects us.
For these reasons, many people find the idea of the Trinity to be
of no interest. We hear it mentioned as a relic of religious belief, but
one that has little bearing on our everyday lives. Maybe it is helpful
to members of religious communities, who have their basic needs
taken care of and can afford the luxury of thinking about these
things. In their world, there may be room for the search for perfec-
tion and for talk of impenetrable mysteries and “otherworldly”
things.
Thinking about the Trinity would appear to be superfluous,
hardly worth spending time on in the light of the anguished cries of
so many, many people threatened by hunger, disease, unemploy-
ment, war, and meaninglessness. The Trinity seems to have nothing
to do with abandoned children, landlessness, women’s oppression,
the neglect of indigenous people and blacks, and the extermination
of children and young people.
In one sense, people who express no interest in reflecting on the
Trinity are right—especially when we use obscure language that
refers to traditional, arcane notions unrelated to everyday life, |
notions that do nothing to help us survive or to build a spirituality
capable of sustaining and enlivening us. These seem to be notions
that hearken back to former times; they undoubtedly reflect the
doubts and struggles of other times and other historical contexts.
Despite our own difficulties with traditional understandings of
the Trinity, we also meet many people who are perfectly at ease with
the traditional religious notions they were taught as children. They
are apprehensive about questioning their faith and do not want to
be forever stirring up and rearranging their inner selves. They stick
to one tradition and treat it as an absolute; they do not reflect on
historical change or on the ways in which their own faith life might
need to change. They often identify the essence of the Christian
faith with certain religious and cultural practices that have been
handed down to them. I know such persons will have great difficul-
ty accepting a different kind of theological reflection, but despite
this I must continue to move forward, seeking alternative paths.
 Ecofeminism and the Trinity 139

I would like to begin experiencing and reflecting on the Trinity

by using a methodology that differs from the traditional one.
Although I always keep theological reflection in mind, my method-
ology has much in common with the philosophy of religion. For a
clear and engaging theological work that integrates feminism and
the formal theological tradition, see chapter ro of Elizabeth John-
son’s She Who Is.!
For my purposes here, I will not refer to a history of trinitarian
theology that begins with the church fathers and surveys later writ-
ings. Rather, I will explore the possibility of a different kind of
thinking that can stimulate reflection, a kind of thinking based on
what are regarded as “givens,” or basic assumptions, within our
tradition. For this exploration, I propose an itinerary to be pursued
using an investigative method that suits the kind of ecofeminism I
am developing in this book. The inquiry includes the following lines
of inquiry: exploring what, in human experience, is related to trini-
tarian language; examining religious language and its crystallization
in religious institutions; and reconstructing trinitarian meanings and
celebrating life.

What Human Experience Is Described

by Trinitarian Language?
In this part of my reflection, I would like to move discussion of the
Trinity beyond its christological significance within our tradition.
As we know, the creation of trinitarian theology is linked to the
affirmation of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth and the consequent
affirmation of one divine nature in three persons.* Consistent with
the ecofeminist epistemology, or way of knowing, and the reflec-
tions on the human person and God that I developed earlier, I pro-
pose that we seek a logical and existential form of reflection. I
would like to detheologize the issue of the Trinity as much as possi-
ble, so that we can understand the reasons that originally prompt-
ed us to speak of it at all. Nevertheless, the issue is undoubtedly the-
ological, because it touches on the very meaning of our lives. The
point is that we need to discover the Trinity’s relevance above and
beyond a theology based on eternal substances and essences.
140 Longing for Running Water

THE WONDER OF BEING HUMAN

Before I speak of the Trinity, I would like to offer a few words about
the wonder of being human. I want to remind readers that human
beings are a fruit of the long process in the evolution of life itself.
Life evolved for millions and millions of years before the creation of
the species to which we belong and which we call human. Within
humanity, life continues to be created. It develops, folds back, and
reveals itself in differing cultures and economic, political, social,
and cultural organizations. Life itself led humanity to arise from
within the whole creative evolutionary process, which is both earth-
ly and cosmic.
The human race itself carries on this creative expression of life,
both in itself and in its works. Participating in the creative evolution
of life, we re-create ourselves. This is manifested in our ability to
reflect and love, in our ethical behavior, and in all the other capa-
bilities that make us what we are.
For this reason, we must not be afraid to affirm that all we “pro-
duce,” whether it be knowledge, art, or relationships—even when it
is destructive or alienating—is part of our effort to understand our-
selves, to transform ourselves, and to respond as adequately as we
can to the challenges life places in our paths. In the final analysis,
these challenges are the very situations in which we find ourselves in
the course of our personal and collective history.
Living within the context of nature as a whole, we have gradual-
ly accumulated significant learnings. We have responded, for exam-
ple, to the challenge of rivers that stretched before us, separating one
place from another: We learned to build bridges. To move on water,
we built boats, then ships. To cross great distances, we built air-
planes, and so on. We learned to closely examine our human experi-
ence, as well as the lives of insects, animals, and plants; and thus we
found ways of living and developing our creativity as we responded
to the challenges posed by each new situation.
Our significant learnings led us to discover the social causes of
poverty among our peoples, and then to formulate hypotheses
aimed at explaining and interpreting history and responding with
concrete actions. Our significant learnings also led us to cultivate a
sense of wonder and perplexity in the face of the astounding order
 Ecofeminism and the Trinity 141

that marks all of reality, and to speak of creative and organizing

deities, of protective spirits. They prompted us to ponder the enig-
mas of evil, injustice, and hatred, and of the impunity of wrongdo-
ers, and to speak of devils and of hell. And as we very well know,
this process continues to unfold in different forms in different cul-
tures, contexts, and eras.
We ourselves continually re-create the life that is within us.
Human culture, in its multiple artistic and literary expressions,
bears witness to our admirable creativity. This creativity also exists,
albeit in a different form, in the vegetable and animal worlds. We
have often been taught, however, that these “other worlds” exercise
little creativity. The real reason for this attitude is that we always
think of creativity in human terms and judge everything else on that
basis. It would be helpful if human beings would stop once in a
while to reflect on the creativity that is manifest in, say, an orange
seed: the memory present in this small, vital center; its ability to
develop when conditions are favorable and to adapt to different
soils and situations, to become a tree and produce flowers and fruit,
and then, once again, seeds. Its creativity is surely not the same as
human creativity, but it clearly participates in the ongoing and awe-
some creativity of the universe.
Within this perspective, I would like to talk about what we
human beings are. We did not simply devise ways of better adapt-
ing to the environmental conditions surrounding us; we also created
belief systems—myths for explaining the universe; rituals, celebra-
tions, and organizations. What I am trying to say, very concretely, is
that it was not overnight that human beings came up with the idea
of a Supreme Being, or of, for example, the divinity of the sun.
These notions arose among various peoples and are the fruit of a
slow evolutionary process in which, little by little, human beings
thoughtfully worked out a sense of the meaning of their lives. They
began by offering tentative answers to questions about their origins,
and also began making sense of their fears, formulating explana-
tions for them and redirecting them. They began to seek the causes
of all things: They tried out hypotheses, confirming some and dis-
carding others. Our ideas about the things that surround us, about
ourselves and the universe, did not appear out of nowhere; they did
not drop miraculously out of the sky or spring up magically from
142 Longing for Running Water

the earth. They are the fruit of a slow maturation, of thousands of

years of gestation and continual transformation; in their many and
complex meanderings, they have often been invisible even to us.
The seed planted in the depths of the earth goes through a com-
plex process of transformation, of changes in life and in death,
before it breaks through the soil’s surface. And when we discover
that the seed has become a small plant, we do not remember the
long, arduous process it went through in the bowels of the earth and
in its own innermost recesses, nor do we remember its multiple
interactions with all the forces of nature.
The same is true of human beings. The things we produce, even
the most precious among them—sublime creations such as our reli-
gious beliefs—arise from a long maturation process in which our
concern for our immediate needs has always been present. Our
extraordinary creativity acquired the ability to produce meanings
capable of helping us live out this or that situation. But these mean-
ings are not static realities. They are part of the dynamism of life,
and thus they change as well. Of necessity, they undergo transfor-
mations in order to respond to life’s demands and adapt to new sit-
uations as they arise.
We do not always reflect on these things. Often we see only the
earth’s surface and the things it produces instead of pondering other,
more radical issues. We fail to reflect on roots: on the possible rea-
sons for this or that belief, this or that hope. At times it is as if we
were possessed by a fear of going farther, and we fail to see that if
we do not go deeper, if we do not dig into the earth, turn it over, and
fertilize it, not even the little plant that has appeared on the surface
will be able to sustain itself unaided.
It is important, then, to get a clear sense that the human mean-
ings of things come from ourselves, as does the human meaning of
the entire universe. It is we ourselves who construct our interpreta-
tions—our science, our wisdom, and our knowledge. It is we our-
selves who today affirm one thing and tomorrow correct what we
have said. It is we who affirm the image of God as warrior-avenger
or as tender and compassionate figure. It is we, through our ances-
tors and traditions, who have construed the Trinity as “three dif-
ferent persons in one God”; so, too, we can change our way of por-
traying it as we develop new perceptions.
 Ecofeminism ano the Trinity 143

We are beings who need meaning. We are like the inhabitants of

a continent called Meaning, except that this continent is made up
largely of constructs and interpretations that come from ourselves.
As my poet friend Rubem Alves says somewhere, “People weave the
hammocks they themselves lie in.”

HUMAN WONDER AND THE TRINITY

Within the perspective developed here, I am ever more convinced

that to begin a discussion of the Trinity by referring to the relation-
ships among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be pretentious and
would keep us in the realm of abstraction. In other words, to limit
the Trinity to its Christian meaning alone is to forget the uncount-
ed years of human history and the many cultural traditions that
went before it.
Almost always, our temptation is to repeat, with very few mod-
ifications, the things we have learned or been told. It is as if this par-
ticular way of speaking about God, which was undoubtedly helpful
for centuries and centuries, could not change today in the light of
the new challenges history offers us. The human experience of relat-
ing to God did not begin with the concocting of theologies about
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is much broader in scope,
and that scope should penetrate ever more intensely into every fiber
of our being.
Throughout our history, we have tied the symbol of the Trinity
to the Christian world, identified it with the one God (the One and
triune God), and regarded it as true both in its content and in its
forms of expression. We would do well to remember, however, that
other religious faiths use trinitarian symbols. The ancient Celts, for
example, recognized both a masculine and a feminine countenance
of God. The feminine image of God was for them a Trinity symbol-
ized by three women, each of whom represented an essential aspect
of human life.?
The Trinity, as well as the words “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,”
are like a secret code that needs to be broken and translated anew.
When I speak of them as a code, I mean that they do not refer us
immediately to our own world of experience; rather, they demand
an effort of interpretation and understanding. They are symbols
144 Longing for Running Water

that refer to life experiences, but their symbolism has grown hazy
and been absolutized within a closed, eminently masculine, and
more or less arcane theoretical system.
It is like a situation in which someone uses a word whose mean-
ing we do not understand because it is not part of the world of our
day-to-day experience. We need to find out what it means, what it
refers to, and what experience it attempts to communicate. When
we are able to break the code, we discover its meaning and under-
stand what it is trying to tell us. We break the code the way we open
a letter tightly sealed with beeswax; finally, we can read its con-
cealed message.
In the words of the Nard American theologian Sandra Schnei-
ders,* our religious imagination needs to be psychoanalyzed. It has
reduced the Trinity to “an old man, a young man, and a bird.” By
using this piece of androcentric irony, Schneiders is trying to evoke
a broader experience of God, one in which the metaphors we use
can be understood as limited and local expressions of our lived
experience. Symbol and metaphor are trying to express what we
experience directly or only vicariously. Direct experience is always
better than what we are told or have seen only in images.
Because the words “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” are symbols
specific to the Christian world’s discourse on the Trinity, they need
to be decoded. They must be continually reinterpreted so their
great richness and meaning can manifest themselves. We need to
grasp the fundamental experience that underlies the Christian
belief that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Moreover, we need
to ask whether these are the most useful expressions, the closest to
our own experience as the community of Jesus’ followers and the
closest to our own lived experience of the Divine Mystery. This
critical stance is not a denial of our Christian past, which did,
despite the limitations inherent in all human creations, attempt to
forge relationships embodying justice, love, and mercy among indi-
viduals and peoples.
According to Rosemary Radford Ruether’s deep intuition,5 the
problem seems to be rooted in western culture—especially in those
cultures built around a masculine and monotheistic image of God
and of that Creator God’s relationship with the cosmos and with all
that exists. According to Ruether, this image symbolically reinforces
 Ecofeminism and the Trinity 145

men’s dominant relationship with women, slaves, animals, and the

entire earth.
Today we are entering a new moment in human and cosmic his-
tory, and at this new moment we need to reexamine our experience
and reconstruct the meanings that are dear to us and help us live out
our lives. Once again, I propose that in talking about the Trinity we
start from our experience. For this reason, I ask, In our experience,
what does the number three (trinity) suggest? Or, again, of what
experience does it speak to us? These questions are important for
the process of detheologizing that I am proposing.
According to sociologists, the number three is the starting point
for social life.° In this sense, it makes sociology possible, because
sociology is the science of social phenomena. The number three indi-
cates plurality; it is the symbol of the inexhaustible richness and
multiplex universality that characterize life. It is a convention that
points to the fact that we are many, that life is many-sided and amaz-
ingly diversified. And there, in the exuberance of multiplicity, we
can grasp what we call creativity. If everything were similar, static,
and unmoving, we could not speak of creativity, evolution, or art.
The number three is unquestionably a symbolic convention. It
could have been four or seven, for example, but in our culture there
was an agreement to attribute to the number three the symbolism of
unity in multiplicity. When we speak out of our experience, we
speak from a starting point that is better known to us and more
accessible to our everyday observation. We all experience diversity
in our own lives. No flower is quite like any other; neither is any
animal exactly like another. No human being is the same as anoth-
er, and neither is any given behavior identical to any other. We are
unquestionably similar, but everyone has his or her own specific
traits, idiosyncrasies, and unique way of being and perceiving the
world.
This perception of the multiplicity of things is as ancient as
humanity; the pre-Socratic philosophers in Greece, who lived in
the sixth century B.C.E., spent a great deal of time reflecting on this.
They were amazed by the diversity and change found in every-
thing, and sought ways of understanding this reality, which seemed
to characterize all beings. For example, Heracleitus of Ephesus
was impressed by the incessant flow of all things, and even in the
146 Longing for Running Water

life of the knowing subject. “We step and do not step in the same
river twice; we are ourselves and are not.ourselves,” he said (Frag-
ment 49).’
My question about the Trinity, then, refers first of all to human
experience. I ask myself, What was or is the concrete human expe-
rience that leads me to speak of a Trinity? In other words, To what
human experience is the Trinity related?
I see how often, in Christian theology, we use words and expres-
sions that have very little to do with our everyday experience. Per-
haps they did relate to lived experience in other times, but now they
often seem meaningless. We mechanically repeat certain things we
have learned, but we have little sense of what they refer to, or how
and why they came into being.
In fact, we often find we have no adequate words to express our
religious experience, or else we simply go on using traditional
expressions we once were taught and are terribly afraid to give up.
We identify these expressions with our personal faith, never realizing
that the language of that faith also needs to be brought into harmo-
ny with our contemporary language and, above all, with our current,
lived experience. We use a rather abstract discourse that has nothing
to do with everyday speech or with day-to-day experience, as if reli-
gious experience always needed to be expressed in a specially coded
language like that used in the sciences. Through acquired habit, we
repeat things we do not understand, and we imagine that the things
we do not understand are somehow deeper, more religious, and
more trustworthy. It all might be part of what we have been told is
the “mystery of faith,” and this mystery of faith is something rather
obscure, which people accept without question.
I think the great challenge we, and above all we women, face
today is to achieve an existential understanding of what we are say-
ing: to express, in a simple way that is our own and yet intelligible,
the really significant experiences in our lives. We cannot go on being
afraid to speak for ourselves, to draw on our own thought and
experience, because it is in these that our faith is expressed and that
our loves, our commitments, and our solidarity make themselves
known. ;
Faith could be summed up as the essential values that support
life: the values we take risks for, values that, in the experience of
 Ecofeminism ano the Trinity 147

Jesus and of his socioreligious movement, are made flesh in behav-

iors such as solidarity with the poor, defending life in spite of the
many threats against it, condemning oppression, sharing, forgiving,
and expressing mercy and praise. These are behaviors that could be
called resurrection experiences, experiences of returning to life in
every sense of the word.
In his book Trinity, Society, and Liberation, Leonardo Boff pro-
poses a theological approach that begins with human community in
order to speak of the Trinity.’ In essence, he stays with classical
trinitarian theology; but he introduces new elements, such as the
feminine dimension within the Trinity. I think this is an important
step forward in renewing our theological formulations. Meanwhile,
using the ecofeminist perspective, I am setting out on a somewhat
different path.
First of all, I would like to recall that although the poor use
some religious expressions that refer to the Trinity, we cannot say,
except in a few places scattered around the world, that there exists
any special trinitarian understanding or devotion. People repeated-
ly make the sign of the cross, which is a trinitarian symbol, but there
is no real trinitarian reflection. It is like a kind of compulsive habit:
We make the sign of the cross as a protective gesture in certain spe-
cific situations—when we go by a church, for example, or when we
begin or end a meeting, approach a dead body, or sense that we are
in danger.
A more systematic reflection on the Trinity takes place among
members of religious orders and in the more intellectual sectors of
the various churches. Here we find a spiritual and theological con-
cern, as well as what we might call trinitarian religious experiences.
In these circles, the word “Trinity” is used more frequently.
As I suggested earlier, if we take the number three as a symbol of
multiplicity, we will find that, in their lived lives, people experience
the awesome multiplicity of things—of their plurality, the great dif-
ferences among them, their bewildering transformations, their
fragility and transience, and the blend of life and death, death and
life. This multiple divergence is Trinity: It is symbolized by the num-
ber three, by the “three” that means, in practice, thousands and mil-
lions—in other words, infinity.
148 Longing for Running Water

To become a part of society means to leave intrauterine life,

marked by osmosis with the mother (a kind of unified duality), and
to be faced with a multiform world, rife with differences, in which
each of us is one among very many. Our first life experiences, then,
are of multiplicity: of conflict among differences, of struggling to
adjust to the presence of individuals who cannot be reduced to one’s
own ego. And this experience is deeply marked by suffering, by the
pain of difference, by competitiveness, by the struggle for survival,
by the desire to be or have what others are or have, by the masks we
gradually put up in approaching our human relationships and
through which we create barriers of all kinds. This is our experi-
ence. And it is precisely on the basis of this experience that human
beings think of God as different, imagining the deity as superior to
all the relativity ingrained in our own makeup. And because we
experience plurality in pain, in interior division, in fear, in suffering,
and in the precariousness of joy, we look for one God who is above
the multiplicity that marks us, a God who unifies in one single being
all the diversity that is essential to our nature. We imagine that the
One is not subject to our painful limitations and is able to overcome
and integrate them.
And because we perceive God as God-for-us, or as starting from
us, in Christian experience, as well as in other religious experiences,
we speak of a Trinity or of divine triads. The Trinity is an expres-
sion of our history—of human history, which is both tragic and
challenging—but it is a unified Trinity, as if in that unity we were
expressing our own desire for harmony and communion with all
that exists. It is a communion to which we aspire in the midst of
tears, in the midst of the experience of pain and suffering. It is as if
that Holy Trinity of which we speak were the expression of a trans-
formed and harmonized plural world, one in which all suffering and
pain are overcome, in which separation and division are subdued, in
which every tear shall be wiped away; and in the end God, that is,
the One, Love, is all in all.
The experience of the Trinity brings multiplicity and the desire
for unity into a single and unique movement, as if they were phas-
es of the same breath. “Trinity” is the name we give ourselves, a
name that is the synthesis of our perception of our own-expanded
existence. “Trinity” is a language we build in an attempt to express
 Ecofemintsm ano the Trinity 149

our awareness of being a multitude and at the same time a unity.

“Trinity” is the word that points to our common origin, our shared
substance, our universal breathing within the immense diversity
that surrounds each and every one of us, each unique and original
creation, a path along the great road of life. “Trinity” is also a word
about ourselves—about what we know and live out in our own
flesh and our life stories.
For this reason, we need to turn to our everyday experience and
verify in it the ground of our image of God. God is the ideal of every
human person. To speak of God is to speak of every human being
both as identical to and as unlike his or her own being, as similar
and as different, as simultaneously in the self and outside the self. So
our images of God are also multiple; they vary from one human cul-
ture to another. Our efforts to express these images are always poor;
they are limited and metaphorical. Similarly, we need to see very
clearly that we are not a reflection of the Trinity, as if it were a well-
defined triune being up above us, existing in itself and for itself, in
which we discover qualities and perfection as best we can from our
position down below.
The Trinity is not a being in itself, to be portrayed by us as if we
were describing the qualities of an apple or a cashew. The Trinity we
worship lives in us and we live in it. The fact that we understand it
is born of our own human experience, of our own inner being, as if
the Trinity is infinitely greater than we are. It unfolds in an ideal of
perfection, in life’s aspirations, and in the search for meaning. In it,
we meet ourselves; in it, we see ourselves; and in it, we are all that
is. In speaking of it, we speak of ourselves. In attempting to describe
it, we describe ourselves. The Trinity is a language, a metaphor that
seeks to explain the unexplainable, the ineffable.
The thread of trinitarian experience and of the language that
attempts to express it is born, then, out of our own inner being, like
the web is born out of the spider. But unlike the spider, we have
become accustomed within patriarchal society to believe that the
web does not come from ourselves but exists in itself, outside of us,
and that it has revealed its inner pattern to us. To affirm the con-
trary—to say we are like spiders who weave their own webs and
then dwell in them—sounds like blasphemy, treason, a devaluing of
the mystery of God. It appears to bring with it a kind of autonomy
150 Longing
for Running Water

for which we could be blamed or even could blame ourselves. To

say we are spiders, and so is the rest of the universe, would, for
many people, be tantamount to falling into the pantheism that is so
harshly vilified and condemned in our religious tradition. “But we
are not God, and neither is the world God,” they vehemently argue.
They cannot see that we exist within that great Divine Mystery that
unfolds and is revealed in manifold ways, and that what we know
of it is only the fruit of our experience and our striving to interpret
it by seeking its meaning.
Some people would argue that trinitarian discourse has nothing
to do with Jesus’ experience, and that, as Christians, we should not
use it. Christian language is grounded in Jesus’ experience, as when
he cried, “Abba, Father,” or when he said he and the Father were
one, or when he promised to send the Holy Spirit. We might ask,
however, what aspect of Jesus’ experience coincides with that lan-
guage. What was the experience out of which he said what he
said—granting, also, that we are not sure he did in fact say it? Was
this, perhaps, what the disciples or the Gospel writers experienced
and what led them to express themselves as they did? They proba-
bly never considered the philosophical and theological refinements
that would be devised later on. In fact, it is hard to know what real-
ly happened; in talking about these experiences, all we have to go
on is a great number of hypotheses and interpretations.
We need to recognize that there is a very tenuous relationship
between Jesus’ experiences and our discourse about them. What we
surely understand better about Jesus is his merciful spirit, his com-
passion for human suffering and the paths to which he pointed,
leading us in the direction of sisterhood and brotherhood. And this
is what is most important in Christian life.
In this sense, it is not enough to quote a few of Jesus’ words in
order to formulate our statements on the Trinity. We need to rely on
our Own experience—on our personal and collective stories, on the
values we hold fast, on our tenderness and compassion, and on the
questions we ask ourselves today.
This path could open us to find ourselves, to a new birth or a
rebirth symbolized by baptism of fire or baptism in the Spirit. Bap-
tism of fire is what we go through as a result of our inner faithful-
ness to ourselves. It is a reality that envelops us by virtue of our
 Ecofeminism and the Trinity 15%

rediscovery of our deepest self. Within that rediscovery we are

reborn in God; we are reborn to the earth, to the cosmos, to histo-
ry, and to service to one another in the construction of human rela-
tionships grounded in justice and mutual respect.

Religious Language and Its Crystallization

in Institutions
I have suggested that the Trinity is also a language, a way of
expressing our characteristic inner and outer experience of unity
and multiplicity. Let us explore this idea further.

THE TRINITY AND LANGUAGE

To say the Trinity is a language means that through it we express

our shared experience of transcendence by means of our different
cultures and linguistic expressions. The Trinity is present to some
extent in various religious creeds, expressed in contrasting cultural
modalities but constantly embracing the theme of multiplicity and
unity. Perhaps this is one of the reasons we do not cast this expres-
sion aside, but instead try to give it a more comprehensive meaning.
In our religious formation we were not always trained to
respect pluralism or to perceive the similarities within different
experiences. It happens that the world of religion, in its organized
forms, is a world that looks for stability, that seeks to strengthen
itself by winning new converts and tries to impose its will using so-
called spiritual power. To some extent it fears change: It fears the
true relativity of things, their fragility, their finiteness, and the trans-
formations inherent in all life processes.
The world of patriarchal religion took symbolic language, which
expresses all that is deepest in human beings, and eliminated its
symbolic, musical, and poetic forms along with its language of
inference, of inflection, and of deep aspirations. It petrified this lan-
guage and went on to endorse the idea that what it says exists in the
most literal sense.
Those religious powers have then gone on to condemn or
declare among the saved those who are unfaithful or faithful to
their formal institutions and their discourse—that is, their formal
152 Longing for Running Water

expression of thought—both of which have become ossified or scle-

rotic because their language has stagnated. They blame, harass, and
torment those who have begun to come together in seeking the
unending changeability of life, its exhilarating richness and trans-
formations, and the astounding interrelatedness among all things.
In the world of patriarchal religion, we have turned our backs
on the richness of symbolism and seized upon well-defined con-
cepts. We have turned our backs on the present and held to doc-
trines that have no contemporary meaning. We have turned our
backs on the shifting and relational world that characterizes us and
defended the stability of ideas and dogmas. We have held back the
evolution of meanings, we have imprisoned symbols, and we have
tried to dominate the real. We cling to the illusion that, in this way,
we can defeat the powers of change, flexibility, and creativity that
are inherent in all vital processes.
We are slaves to language, and, above all, consecrated religious
language. We behave as if it were the only one all people should
adhere to in order to be faithful to God’s will. In my view, every
time we accept this kind of submission, we drift far from the
dynamic meaning of the Trinity. We fall into a kind of coded
monism—a view that all phenomena may be reduced to one princi-
ple. This monism proclaims domination by an Absolute that ignores
the situation of the earth, of history, and of ever-vigorous human
freedom.
Unfortunately, throughout Christian history, our faith in the
Trinity has been mainly a faith in three set entities, in three persons
who, despite their intercommunication, hold fast to their own
abstract independence and their enormous power over us. The Trin-
ity has been presented as the absolute, the totally different, the alto-
gether superior, independent, and perfect Being. This teaching is
unquestionably the fruit of a dualistic concept of the world and of
human beings that is ubiquitous in traditional Christian theology
and especially in catechetical teachings.
Today, if we are to recover the dynamism of the Trinity, we
need to recover the dynamism of our own existence—even at the
risk of not managing to formulate our ideas in clear and precise
terms. Our great challenge is to accept the insecurity involved in
discussing what is real. We must seek only the fragile security that
 Ecofeminism and the Trinity 153

comes from dealing with the here and now, with everyday life, with
our Own experience and with our questions, heeding that wise
phrase from the Hebrew world that tells us that sufficient to the
day is its own task.
From this perspective, then, the Trinity is not three different per-
sons living in a heaven we cannot point to. It is not three persons
different from one another the way we humans differ as persons.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not of divine stuff as opposed
to our human stuff; rather, they are relationships—relationships we
human beings experience and express in metaphorical rather than
metaphysical terms.
A simple example: We say that love is a relationship, but we do
not make love into a “person” or thing we call “love.” If we were
to say love is “a being,” we would be on the metaphysical level—on
the level of philosophical discussion about beings in themselves.
Thus we would have to stop thinking about love metaphorically or
symbolically.
However, if I should happen to call someone “my love,” it
would signify that my relationship with that person is tender, kind,
and loving, and that his or her actions showed solidarity, readiness
to serve, and so on.
Therefore we need to reaffirm that the Trinity is the expression
of the Mystery, both one and multiple, that envelops us, that has
made us what we are, and in which we participate ceaselessly. We
need to get beyond the idealistic and mechanistic thinking we habit-
ually fall into when we speak of the Trinity, thinking that operates
as if the Trinity were a kind of “being out there,” operating inde-
pendently of ourselves. The Trinity is relationship, after all: an exis-
tential experience in ourselves and in the world.

THE TRINITY: FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT

As we have said, the Trinity is a symbol, a metaphor—an image that

suggests something other than what literal language can offer. The
metaphor refers to a reality we call transcendent, that is, beyond
that which can be spoken of. The word “transcendence,” as I use it
here, is the affirmation that words cannot fully express what we
understand and live out.
154 Longing for Running Water

By using symbolic language and the images appreciated by the

ecofeminism we are developing, we can begin to broaden the
notions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I wish to point out that the
source of life is in all of us, that it is our common origin and
dwelling place (Father/Mother); that we are therefore daughters and
sons derived from that same source; and that it is out of this same
relational energy source that we are linked with all that exists (Spir-
it) and are able to stand in solidarity and be merciful, tender, just,
impassioned, and awestruck in the face of the wonder that has fash-
ioned us.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are symbolic expressions; as such
they are a language that bespeaks experience. They refer to the pro-
found intuition that all of us participate, along with everything that
exists, in the same Breath of Life. We have a common origin. We
participate in the same evolutionary process. In order to say that we
all share the same breath, it is not necessary to go on using a trini-
tarian language that is limited to masculine experience. For this rea-
son, we can open out or broaden our notion of Trinity and allow
other languages to emerge as the fruit of the experiences we are hav-
ing at present. I do not want to propose a new way of using the lan-
guage that speaks of our origins and of our everyday lives, but I do
want at least to open the possibility that we can say it using our
own style, within our own cultural idiom, and according to the way
we feel it.
Despite the undeniable benefits they have afforded us, centuries
of Christian catechesis have crystallized and petrified religious expe-
rience and its corresponding symbolic language, perhaps to the
point of sclerosis. As I use the expression, to crystallize something is
to make it rigid and difficult to rejuvenate, to protect it from change
and isolate it from our present experience. And it was this process
of crystallization, which is a common human phenomenon, that
influenced our trinitarian experience and reduced it to a conceptual
system dealing only with the relationships among three divine per-
sons in terms historically defined by males.
Today we are called to refashion the meanings of our lives: to
simplify them, democratize them, and allow them to be pluralistic.
This final reflection invites us to go on to the third step we proposed
at the beginning of our journey.
 Ecofeminism and the Trinity 155

Reconstructing Trinitarian Meanings

and Celebrating Life
We use the word “reconstruction” when a piece of land, a human
relationship, a city, or even a society needs to remake itself—to re-
create itself, to renew its relational life. This becomes necessary
because something has happened that has weakened an edifice, a
relationship, or a bond of friendship. Although the new construct
maintains something of the old, it should still be regarded as new,
the fruit of our present efforts and meaningful for our time. I would
like to offer you a somewhat tentative effort at rebuilding, in this
sense, trinitarian meanings—a reconstruction that is demanded by
our current historical situation.

RECONSTRUCTING MEANING

I want to remain on the level of concrete human experience, of our

everyday lives. On this basis I will try to offer a more adequate and
understandable account of things that are important in our lives.
Within this perspective, I would like to offer five reflections on this
reconstruction: the Trinity in the cosmos; the Trinity on earth; the
Trinity in relationships among peoples and cultures; the Trinity in
human relationships; and the Trinity in every person.
This list undoubtedly suggests that everything is Trinity, that all
things are part of that vital and intimate relationship between mul-
tiplicity and unity that marks both our character and our makeup.
This perspective opens us to realities beyond Christian experience.
We generally have tended to base our theories about the Holy Trin-
ity on the Bible, on ancient philosophies, on the debates surround-
ing heresies and religious conflicts, and on systems of established
power. Speaking from the point of view of the philosophy of reli-
gion, I cannot, as I explained before, limit my theological work to
the traditional trinitarian perspective. I want to carry out this reflec-
tion within a broader anthropological perspective that will allow us
to see how much the great variety of human groups have in com-
mon when they deal with the earth and with the universe. I think
this approach is fundamental in today’s world.
156 Longing for Running Water

I want to work toward a better understanding of our experience

and of the ways we interpret it, so we can.penetrate to the core of
human life’s religious dimension and quietly leave behind the tri-
umphalism that has characterized our theology and our Christian
behavior. For the sake of life’s survival and that of human groups
everywhere, we have to assume an attitude of humility and deep
respect for varying cultural forms and for the different ways in
which the mystery of life is articulated.
I am convinced of the importance of our personal and collective
experience in recovering our deepest beliefs and the values we hold
dear, values that underlie the meaning of our lives and are the foun-
dation for dialogue’among different peoples and cultures. I am also
convinced that, despite our obvious differences, when we make con-
tact with the deepest level of every human being’s experience we will
find it is grounded in a single, shared mystery that invites us all to
act in ways that express communion, equality, and reciprocity.

The Trinity in the Cosmos

“This universe is a single, multiform energetic unfolding of matter,
mind, intelligence and life.”? So says Brian Swimme, a United States
astrophysicist who has worked hard to tell the story of the universe
in empirical language. He tries to show that, as we approach the
end of this century, humanity has acquired the ability to tell the
story of the universe itself. This is a fundamental step in coming to
understand our shared history and in the effort to create a new rela-
tionship with the earth and the cosmos, and among all peoples.
At this point, I merely want to draw your attention to the unique
and multiform structure of the universe. In symbolic and metaphor-
ical terms, we could call it a trinitarian structure. By “trinitarian
structure” we mean the reality that constitutes the entire cosmos
and all life-forms—a reality marked simultaneously by multiplicity
and by unity, by the differences among all things, and by their artic-
ulated interdependence. Stars, galaxies, heavenly bodies, planets,
satellites, the atmosphere, the seas, rivers, winds, rain, snow, moun-
tains, volcanoes—all are expressions of the manifold creativity of
the universe. They are profoundly interdependent and interrelated.
They are diversity and unity, existing and interrelating in a unique
and single movement of continuing creativity.
 Ecofeminism ano the Trinity 157

This cosmic trinitarian structure is in a certain sense independent

of human beings; at the same time, we are the only ones able to
name it, to understand it, to stand in awe before it, and to recognize
ourselves as an integral part of it. Because of our awareness of our
great and extraordinary dependence on the cosmos, then, we are the
only living beings capable of calling our bodies cosmic bodies.

The Trinity on Earth

Plants, animals, forests, mountains, rivers, and seas form the most
diverse combinations in the most remote and varied places. They
attract one another, couple with one another, blend with one anoth-
er, destroy one another, and re-create themselves in pale or exuber-
ant colors. They grow and feed on one another’s lives, transforming
and adapting to one another, dying and rising in many ways within
the complex life process to which we all belong. In its stunning
mutations, the earth sometimes threatens us and sometimes awes
us, sometimes makes us shiver and at other times inspires shouts of
joy. Spinning around the sun and on its own axis, it creates days and
seasons and brings forth the most varied forms of life.
The earth as Trinity! The trinitarian earth is a movement of con-
tinuous creativity, unfolding processes of creation and destruction,
expressions of a single vital process. We need only think of the suc-
cession of geological eras, the birth of the continents, the transfor-
mation of seas into deserts, the flowering of forests, and the emer-
gence of manifold expressions of vegetable and animal life in order
to grasp the immense creative force in which we are immersed and
of which we are an integral part.
In the preceding section, we saw the trinitarian structure of the
cosmos; now, using strictly empirical observation, we have gone on
to detect the trinitarian structure of the planet earth. We can right-
ly call ourselves terrestrials, earth-beings. But in calling ourselves
terrestrials, we accept the responsibility of knowing and loving the
earth as a living being, and of refraining from manipulating its
secrets and destroying it.

The Trinity in Relationships among Peoples and Cultures

Whites and blacks, indigenous peoples, Asiatics and mestizos—all
with different languages, customs, statures, and sexes—make up
158 Longing for Running Water

the awesome and diverse human symphony in which, once again,

multiplicity and unity are constitutive expressions of the single vital
process that sustains us all.
In its complex process of evolution, life brings about the variety
of human groups and invites us to contemplate the exuberance of
our own diversity. If we accept this diversity as part of the trinitar-
ian structure itself, and take it seriously as the basic makeup of all
beings, there is no way to justify the idea of any being’s superiority
or inferiority. What we have now is cosmic citizenship. We are
merely “cosmics,” terrestrials, members of the cosmos and of the
earth; we need one another and can live only on the basis of a com-
munity of being and of interdependence among our differences.
I am convinced that if we were to try to develop this idea of cos-
mic and terrestrial citizenship, we could more easily overcome the
different strains of racism, antiracism, xenophobia, exclusion, vio-
lence, and sexism that are rife in our cultures. A new sense of citi-
zenship needs to be born and grow in us, without denying the
national affiliations that are still part of our history.
The era of national citizenship, understood here as adherence to
a specific nationality to the detriment of others, has not yet ended;
but it is already heralding the frightening consequences of looking
at human beings in terms of systems of mutual protection and
destruction. The plurality that makes us a human species is Trinity:
It is the symbolic expression of a single and multiple reality that is
an essential component of our living tissue. This plurality is essen-
tial if human life itself is to continue, and if the different races and
cultures are to develop, support one another, and enter into
communion.

The Trinity in Human Relationships

Human relationships are marked by the interaction among “I,”
“you,” and “he” or “she.” I would say that even in the experience
of solitude, my solitude is an interior “multitude,” an uproar, a
music made up of many tones. In this sense, even solitude becomes
a trinitarian metaphor. To understand the multiple solitude that is
part of our makeup is to better understand the biological, psycho-
logical, and religious processes that are part of our lives.
 Ecofeminism ano the Trinity 159

When monks seek solitude, they are really seeking an encounter

with their inner voice. Out of the babble of voices from within and
without, they endeavor to listen to their own true selves. They need
to be on an unending quest throughout their whole lives, because
their and our deepest personal reality is interior, fleeting, and virtu-
ally inexpressible. Just what is this reality we call “I”? In fact, the
“J” is an extraordinary conjunction of multiple meetings: of per-
sons, experiences, traditions, and stories, put together in more or
less unique form. We experience all this multiplicity in the unique
personal reality we call “I.”
Clearly, the search for our inner self is not the province of
monks or sages alone; historically and socially, however, and above
all in the past, these have been the people who remained mindful of
and symbolized in their lives the fundamental dimension of
encounter with oneself and with the whole.
We need to remember also that the feeling of solitude has many
meanings, and that a given meaning will have a positive or negative
impact on our psyche. Meanwhile, it seems true to say our solitude
still implies a certain communion with the air, the sun, the earth,
and the multitude of person who pass through—and have passed
through—our lives. This communion, which is not always con-
scious, is the very condition of the possibility of speaking about
solitude. Our solitude, then, is in this sense a trinitarian solitude, a
solitude beyond our individuality, a personal solitude inhabited by
multiplicity. Multiplicity, then, is the indispensable condition for
the affirmation of our personal solitude.
Our individualistic society insists on affirming the almost total
independence of the ego, and goes on cultivating in us the illusion of
our individual omnipotence. On this it bases all its systems of eco-
nomic competition and social exclusion. Today, many people are
beginning to discover the inadequacy of this view. As we know, life
is itself an open event. It only subsists when it is open to multiplic-
ity, to diversity; it is only creative and dynamic when its vital com-
ponents are allowed to come together. If we lacked any element—
air, water, heat, minerals, plants, persons, affection, and so on—life
could not continue within us.
The trinitarian mystery is also found in intimate, I-Thou rela-
tionships. We are I-Thou and mystery—the mystery of our presence
160 Longing
for Running Water

to the world, to the universe, and to ourselves. We are the mystery

of our stories, our traditions, and our questions. We are I, Thou,
and mystery, and therefore Trinity, in the closeness and allure of a
profound relationship that leads us to a deeper level of intimacy,
of desire to know one another, of tender sharing. For this reason,
knowing one another requires not only time, patience, and dia-
logue, but also a constant and challenging investment of ourselves.
We are challenged to enter into a process of shared self-revelation,
of unmasking ourselves, of manifesting an ever greater part of
ourselves. We will find that what we reveal is drawn from those
things that are known and unknown to ourselves, and therefore to
others.
To affirm the Trinity as a symbol of our own being, at the same
time one and multiple, is to allow diverse human groups and mys-
tical experiences to meet, open up to one another, listen to one
another, and discover the amazing similarity between our deepest
experiences, even when these experiences are expressed in various
languages and cultural contexts and by people who are entirely
different from one another. This is an ancient challenge that
humanity will have to keep on facing in the coming millennium.
And beyond any doubt, the way we accept this challenge will deter-
mine the new path taken by men and women of all races and
nations of the earth.

The Trinity in Every Person

On the basis of all we have said so far, we can easily see that for each
one of us, personal circumstances are related to those of others and
of the whole earth and the cosmos in a totally interdependent way. I
am I, but at the same time I am thousands of lives and circumstances
that have gone before me to weave and prepare for my personal life.
Iam myself, but I am also the countless lives that went before me. I
am my ancestors, with their personal histories; their voices and tra-
ditions run through my veins. I am I, but my being goes beyond my
individuality, beyond the personal story limited by the years of my
own life. This does not mean I cannot call myself “I,” as a person
who is to a certain extent free and autonomous, who loves and hates
and hopes. But it means that my personal reality, my autonomy, is
always relational, “dependent on...”
 Ecofeminism and the Trinity 161

For this reason, I can say that our own personal being is trinitar-
ian: It is mysteriously multiple and at the same time it is one. And,
most important, this extraordinary reality can be seen in the lives of
all peoples; it is present in all biological functions, in all cultural and
religious processes. This vision gives us a new worldview and a dif-
ferent anthropology, on the basis of which we see ourselves as per-
sons who are of the earth and of the cosmos, participants in the
extraordinary process of life’s evolution. “The new heavens and the
new earth” are always on the way: They were coming to be yester-
day, they are coming to be today, and they will be on the way tomor-
row. Heaven is not opposed to earth; it does not present itself as
something superior or as the final aim of our efforts, the place in
which we will at last enter into a state of divine peace and harmony.
This perspective opens us up to valuing our present life, and to
struggling for all living things’ right to realize, in themselves and in
others, the possibilities that are their due.
Life after death, as we are accustomed to calling it, is part of the
mysterious and sacred journey of life itself, a mystery that is beyond
ourselves. We can say very little about this. We can only report what
we deeply sense: that out of the dissolution of one living form there
arise thousands of others; that one life nourishes a sequence of oth-
ers; and that in the end our living is part of this process, part of the
dissolution and recomposition of life.
Some readers may be a bit disappointed that I have not spoken
more of heaven, of the angels, of the embrace of the Father who
awaits us at the gates of paradise, of that joyful reunion with those
we have loved or would like to have known. These dreams belong
to the present; they are the dreams of children or adults, dreams
drawn from our religious education, dreams that have at some
moment consoled or comforted us. But the mystery of life, in its
long and sacred journey, will not permit anyone to take possession
of its unfathomable ways, of its sequences of transformation or its
unforeseen courses of events. People can dream, as they do when
they take turns making up stories; but in the long run, very simply,
it will be what it will be. Human knowing cannot see beyond the
“cloud of unknowing” that envelops us.
Therefore we need to trust, to welcome this reality as a part of
the gift of being here, today, participating intensely in this greatest
162 Longing
for Running Water

of mysteries and struggling for the dignity of all persons’ lives today.
For this reason, the “ancient” newness we dimly foresee today
needs to gradually become flesh in us. It is like a collective preg-
nancy—we get a sense of the new life being generated within our
own flesh, and we welcome the fact that, on account of this life, the
world will never be the same again.

THE TRINITY, GOOD, AND EVIL

In traditional theological discourse on the Trinity, only its absolute

goodness was mentioned. Evil was never included: On the contrary,
it was inconceivable to juxtapose the goodness of the triune God
with human evil.
However, if we develop a more holistic reflection based on relat-
edness, we will be tempted to think differently. There is an inherent
logic in the reflection we are developing, even though culturally and
existentially we have been accustomed to thinking and feeling in a
different way.
If we say the Trinity envelops all as an expression of our single
and multiple reality, we will also have to include evil within it. I will
attempt to offer only a few thoughts on this, in the conviction that
we will have to return to this topic at another time. In this reflec-
tion, the issue of evil seems inevitable, not only when we speak of
the celebration of the Trinity but also because we are living in diffi-
cult times. The powers of evil, as we sometimes call them, appear to
have the most energy—and, in fact, to be winning out.
Human cultures have always been able to distinguish immedi-
ately between good and evil—to construct moral systems that
affirm the superiority of the good and identify it with a superior
power—and to see this power as present in the human or even as
transcending the human. In the Christian tradition, as we know,
evil has always been opposed to good. God made all things good,
and evil appeared as an accident. This is the case in all interpreta-
tions written, on the basis of Genesis and other biblical texts, of the
issueof evil.
ee, ea
The popular religious imagination even created the devil, a being
opposed to the infinite goodness of God, and hell, a place of loss
and punishment, as opposed to heaven, the place of salvation and
 Ecofeminism ano the Trinity 163

reward. Although they have always been present in human life, evil
and suffering have been unceasingly combated. It has never been
enough to identify evil; it has been necessary to fight against it.
We have always had difficulty reconciling the goodness of God
with suffering and injustice. What we might call ethical evil, the evil
committed by ourselves, is always reflected in the evil undergone by
others in an endless spiral of vengeance and suffering, much of it
unnecessary. The presence of evil has always been regarded as
absurd, and all moral systems sought ways not only of healing evil
and the suffering that flows from it but of preventing people from
committing it. Good and evil have their histories, or their sociocul-
tural conditioning, and the various forms of human behavior have
been organized on the basis of a certain consensus regarding them.
In the Christian tradition, God has always been on the side of
goodness. God is in fact the Supreme Good. Therefore, in those
dramatic and inscrutable situations in which evil seems to win out,
God is always “cleared” or exempted from any direct responsibili-
ty. In some situations, we have gone as far as to admit that God
could punish out of love, in order to teach us to follow the path of
goodness. This would be God’s instructive role, God’s task as a
good teacher. Meanwhile, the greatest responsibility is attributed to
human freedom and God generally remains “innocent.” We needed
this innocence so that God could still be God.
The ancient problem of evil is with us today as never before,
above all because, as I pointed out above, we see an increase in the
destruction of persons, of groups, and of the earth itself. Our soci-
ety seems ever less capable of devising formulas that permit digni-
fied human sharing and the possibility of survival on the earth. We
have the impression that our present world, despite its theories, its
analyses, and its designs, turns ever more often to violence and
exclusion in order to solve its problems. This in turn has brought
about a growing wave of destruction, one greater than at any other
time in history. No one can ignore the premeditated genocide, the
“death squads,” or the covert training of armies by great world
powers.
Our most usual problem-solving methods have been force,
weapons, brutal institutionalized violence, the murderous elimina-
tion of others, and an “every man for himself” attitude. Returning
164 Longing
for Running Water

evil for evil has become a virtual rule of life for many individuals
and social groups. Look, for example, at popular support for the
death penalty and, in Latin America, the systematic elimination of
prisoners or even delinquent youths. Look at the interventionist
behavior of large countries, which leave impoverished countries
without the slightest chance of survival with dignity. Look at the
encouragement of racism by very powerful white groups.
In this context, even as religions speak of God’s goodness and
mercy, or perhaps of the punishments of hell, they become ever less
capable of mitigating the wave of violence that subsists and seems
to grow within us. Our age-old discourse on good and evil no
longer touches hearts; it no longer offers the satisfying explanations
it once did, and it no longer sustains us in the face of growing
depravity. The benign will of God seems irrelevant to the struggle
for survival and the spirit of unrestrained profiteering. God “just
doesn’t help us the way God used to.” The rich appeal to God to
protect their riches. The wretched of the earth, the hungry, the land-
less, the unemployed—those who thirst for justice—feel ever more
acutely the silence of God even when, “hoping beyond all hope,”
they continue to speak of God’s justice.
Traditional religious discourse seems ever farther from daily
needs. Despite this, a variety of Pentecostal groups, mixing fakery
with naive credulity and keeping people captive and enslaved to so-
called divine powers (and above all to their own representatives),
gain more and more adherents among the poor.
An ecofeminist, trinitarian vision of the universe and of human-
ity does not identify evil, destruction, and suffering as realities that
are outside ourselves and need to be eliminated by the use of vio-
lence, nor does it say they should be accepted as “God’s will.”
Rather than pointing to “the other” as the source of evil, it recog-
nizes that what we call evil is in ourselves; in a certain sense, evil is
also our body. Evil is a relationship we ourselves construct. It leads
to the unraveling of the entire fabric of human life.
An ecofeminist, trinitarian view of the universe places us instead
at the very energy source of all that exists. At the same time, it makes
a distinction: On one hand is the creative-destructive process inher-
ent in the evolution of life itself; on the other is moral evil, evil
defined in ethical terms. The latter refers to human evil, the evil
 Ecofeminism ano the Trinity 165

worked by ourselves: actions that, when combined with our inherent

frailty, can make us murderers of life in all its multiple expressions.
When we speak of human beings, we always speak in terms of
good and evil. But when we speak of the cosmos, of the universe,
we need to speak of forces that are simultaneously creative and
destructive. This constitutive reality of the universe, these positive
and negative poles, so to speak (we use these terms with an aware-
ness of the limitations of our language), are inseparable in all the life
processes. The birth of our solar system, for example, required the
destruction of others. The appearance of a desert region may mean
the death of a river. The use of fish as food may require the destruc-
tion of many of them, and so on. The life of one animal depends on
the death of another on which it feeds.
It is we human beings who refer to the processes of creation
and destruction as good or evil, because we always speak in terms
of what is good or bad for ourselves. But seeking insight into this
essential aspect of life will help us better understand our own
human existence. For example, it is we who say a typhoon
brought about evil and destruction. It is we who speak of a mur-
derous flood or a death-dealing ray. It is we who say a drought
brought about disaster and caused an exodus from the countryside
to the large cities. It is we who say that a fox is bad because it ate
a chicken. It is we who call a cobra evil when its poison enters our
system.
We always speak of evil in human terms, even when we talk
about animals or of nature as a whole. The fact that we are the
“consciousness,” or the thinking process, of the universe leads us to
label things as good or evil according to the way they affect us.
These kinds of statements were made long ago by ancient Greek
philosophers and by many medieval Christian thinkers, although
their contexts were different from ours. Today we need to have
another look at these reflections in the light of our contemporary
historical situation and our more global and articulated sense of the
life processes.
Ethical evil, however, is evil wrought by human beings. On one
hand, it arises from the dynamics of life itself and from our human
condition, which includes weakness, dependence, and interdepen-
dence. On the other, the Christian tradition has always taught that
166 Longing for Running Water

evil actions arise out of our selfishness and the excesses of our pas-
sions; from our selfishness, greed, and arrogance.
But ethical evil also results from our very limited understanding
of ourselves, from our individualistic and anthropocentric relation-
ships with all other beings. We have acquired a highly developed
sense of our individuality—of our superiority or inferiority—but
we have very little sense of our collective nature, or of the way in
which our communion with everything else assures our survival and
shared happiness.
Because of our narrow affirmation of our personal, racial, reli-
gious, and even class identity, we have ended up creating systems to
protect ourselves from one another, systems based on greed or on
the perceived superiority of those who regard themselves as “the
strongest” or “the finest.” These systems have not allowed us to
perceive the ephemeral nature of our individual lives and projects.
Instead, we exalt the individual and regard the most powerful,
wealthy, or brilliant individuals as absolutes, as quasi divinities to
be protected against all the ebbs and flows of history. Human inter-
vention has produced imbalances in the whole network of our rela-
tionships with the earth, and in recent centuries it has guided our
evolutionary process toward a frightening catastrophe.
It is out of this perspective that we have developed the idea of a
person who is God above history and who presides over it. This in
turn led us to construct an image of a just divinity somewhere out-
side our world: a powerful deity often fashioned in the image of the
powerful of this world. This God, who is also an “individual,” is
always just, strong, and good—the very opposite of our fragility
and depravity. This is the God of theodicy, a God who is very diffi-
cult to reconcile with the tragic reality of human history. It is a God
whose goodness “in itself” must always be affirmed and defended,
as if in defending the goodness of a Supreme Being we could guar-
antee an escape from our own tragic iniquity.
The idea of this unfailingly good divinity prompts us to ask end-
less questions in the face of the variety of blind alleys into which it
seems to lead us. It makes us think of the book of Job and the
discussions of his friends, who seek possible explanations for his
suffering.
 Ecofeminism and the Trinity 167

In the final analysis, there are no convincing answers. Evil con-

tinues to be part of the human enigma and the enigma of all living
things, part of the enigma of the cosmos itself. In a way, the dra-
matic historical spectacle keeps repeating itself. The poor continue
to bend their knees before this deity (God), begging for mercy,
clemency, and help in satisfying their most basic needs, harboring
the spark of hope in the midst of their everyday lives. They act
toward this God much the way they act toward the powerful of this
world, hoping to be treated with consideration and to be left some
prospect of earning their livelihoods with dignity. The poor are
slaves of many masters, and, by analogy, also of a supreme Master.
Might it be possible to leave behind this crude and highly patri-
archal, hierarchical, materialistic, individualistic, dependent, and
class-biased understanding of God and of the Trinity? To answer in
the affirmative would seem to me an essential step both for the pre-
sent and for the sake of the future.
This is above all a wisdom path, a spiritual path, a personal and
collective empowerment that opens us to a wider and freer perspec-
tive. By “spiritual path,” I mean a path that transforms our inner
convictions, a demanding path that goes beyond adherence to a
political party’s program or obedience to a code of canon law. It is
a spiritual path because it is the path of the Spirit, which blows
freely where it will; no one can hamper its movement. It is a spiri-
tual path because it is the path of God as relatedness, the breath of
life in each and every one of us.
We are constantly being invited to return to our roots: to com-
mune with the earth, with all peoples, and with all living things, and
to realize that transcendence is not a reality “out there,” isolated,
“in itself,” superior to all that exists, but a transcendence within us,
among us; in the earth, in the cosmos, and everywhere. This is a
transcendence that is here and now, among those who are like us
and different from us, among plants and animals, rivers and seas.
This transcendence invites us to reach beyond the limits of our self-
ishness and respond to our call to a new collective ethical behavior
centered on saving all of life. This transcendence is a canticle, a
symphony unceasingly played by the infinite creativity of life.
What, then, is evil, in this traditional yet novel perspective? The
answer is no more than an approximation, one that involves all the
168 Longing
for Running Water

paradoxes that are inherent in this issue, paradoxes that have

always tormented us and forced us to reflect.
Within this perspective, what we call human evil is the unbal-
anced situation in which we find ourselves: our millennial thirst for
individual power and our millennial hunger to eat more and more
while preventing others from consuming their rightful share. Our
species’ evil is this excessive desire to take possession of life and
make it our own. It is the appropriation of goods—and also of other
persons, whom they regard to be of secondary importance—by indi-
viduals and groups, the self-appointed proprietors of the earth.
Evil is the growing dysfunctionality in both personal and social
life that leads me to the narcissistic cultivation of my own individu-
ality and my ecclesiastical, political, or business interests. Evil is the
excess or abundance that is held back and hoarded. Whether it be
food, land, power, knowledge, or pleasure, it remains in the hands
of the owners of capital: those who, with the support of their direct
and indirect AccoMmpliees) present themselves as veritable gods upon
the earth.
Evil is the idolatry ofthe individual, of the “pure” race, of the
messianic people, of the empire that dominates by insinuating itself
into everything—even into people’s inner beings—inducing them to
believe in their own inferiority. Evil is the ascendancy of one sex
over another, its domination over all personal, social, political, and
economic realms. Evil is the domination and exploitation of the
earth as a source of profit, as capital formation.
Evil is the proclamation and imposition of my gods as eternal
and exclusive, capable of saving all of humanity. Evil is the claim
that some people know the will of God and are commissioned to
teach it as irrefutable dogma, while others are obliged to humbly
recognize and accept their own ignorance.
Evil is plural and singular; present, past, and future.
Human evil is the evil that leaves us perplexed. It poses innu-
merable questions, many of them unanswerable. Cosmic “evil,” on
the other hand, is the creation-destruction process that is inherent in
the universe and frightens us only when we suffer its consequences.
This two-faced evil is part of the Trinity we are and of the
humanity and divinity we also are. This evil, then, is the negative
aspect, the flow of destruction, of death and life, found everywhere
 Ecofeminism and the Trinity 169

in the universe, on earth, and among human persons. But this evil,
which is perceived at the very heart of human experience, also bears
extraordinary creative possibilities for the unfolding of our sensi-
tivities and the opening of our inner being to that which is beyond
ourselves.
In some way too, things that appear negative are an energy that
is capable of developing within us the capacity for loving others:
for bending to those who have fallen on the road, for taking in an
abandoned child, for replanting a ravaged forest; for cleaning up a
polluted river, for feeding animals during a time of drought. Out of
the garbage we accumulate, a flower can bloom. Dry bones can
return to life; the horror of war can become a cradle of compas-
sion. We ourselves, and the whole universe, are made up of the
same energy—an energy that is both positively and negatively
charged. This very energy continually creates and re-creates the
earth and human life.
Human history bears witness to the fact that the great gestures
of mercy and tenderness have been born of dramatic, life-threaten-
ing situations. When another’s pain becomes unbearable, it becomes
my pain, and stimulates the birth of loving gestures. The Buddha,
Jesus, Mary, Mohammed, Fatima (the daughter of Mohammed); the
thousand Francises, Clares, and Teresas; the ever-present Severinas
and Antonios,!! the Bachs and Beethovens, the van Goghs and the
Picassos, turn pain into a source of compassion, mercy, and new
prospects for life.
This new vision, which is present in our reflection on the Trini-
ty, helps us leave behind the dualistic and confining anthropocen-
trism that has characterized our western Christian tradition, a dual-
ism that has not only opposed God and humanity, but also spirit
and matter, man and woman, good and evil; throughout the course
of our history, it has engendered a thousand and one antitheses.
For this reason we can sayevilis part of the Trinity. It is our task
to exorcise it and to struggle against its destructive power in order
to see that from it, we can learn something new about our own
being and about the life of the earth and of all living things. To wel-
come evil is not to rejoice over the fact that we commit it. Rather, it
is a way of appropriating this aspect of our being, of recognizing, in
a community setting, who we are, and of following the path to
170. 6.Longing for Running Water

abundant life for all living things. The evil we do comes from our-
selves, as does the struggle against it. This reality forms part of the
human paradox itself, of that lack of symmetry that dwells within
us and leads us to destroy that which oppresses us and build that
which gives us life. And this process of construction and destruc-
tion, of creation and elimination, is the very pattern of what we are:
It is integral to the fabric of our lives, to our everyday lived reality.
The maxim “Love your neighbor as yourself,” attributed to
Jesus of Nazareth, should be taken up by us and understood as the
way back to what we could call a trinitarian balance. If we have
excessive love for ourselves, we will fall into a seemingly unlimited
narcissism and the virtually implacable destruction of others. We
will continue to build empires of Nazism, fascism, racism, classism,
machismo, sexism, and all kinds of excesses that end up turning
back on us, and, above all, on the poor. Restoring a balance
between I and Thou, I and we, we and they, ourselves and the earth,
is the way to turn back and allow the human, as well as plants and
animals and all the creative energies of the earth, to flourish anew.
Of course, this new vision does not appear to solve our imme-
diate problems. Neither does it offer quick and easy solutions. It is
still like a new suit that has not yet adjusted to the contours of the
body. It is still being stitched and hemmed. In the meantime, this
vision insistently calls on us to see the universe as our body, the
earth as our body, the variety of human groups as our body. This
body is in evolution, in creative ecstasy, in the midst of destructive
and regenerative labor, of death and resurrection. Everything is our
body, our trinitarian body: it is a continual tension and commu-
nion of multiplicity and unity, all within the ecstatic and mysteri-
ous adventure of life.
Now, at the close of this millennium, we are beginning to work
together as peoples from many parts of the earth to build a new
spirituality. It looks, in fact, like a new Pentecost, but it is a slow-
moving Pentecost: patient, universal, and at times almost impercep-
tible. It is an inner and outer Pentecost that rends our religious
boundaries asunder, It begins not only to change our understanding
of the world and of ourselves but also to modify our behavior. All
this is spirituality—that is, an energy that puts order in our lives,
that gives meaning, that awakens in us the desire to help others to
 Ecofemintsm and the Trinity 17%

discover the “pearl of great price” hidden in our own bodies and in
Earth’s body. We know that when people find their personal and
collective “pearl,” they “sell all they have” in order to obtain it. The
pearl is the symbolic expression of the new, inclusive spirituality
that is growing in our own bodies and is nourished by our human
energies, by the earth, and by the cosmos—in the last analysis, by
the indissoluble, one and multiple trinitarian energy that is present
in all that exists.
Speaking of trinitarian energy makes me think of a beautiful
text by Joseph Campbell on the word “aum,” the sound that repre-
sents the mystery of the word:

AUM is a word that represents to our ears that sound of the ener-
gy of the Universe of which all things are manifestations. You
start in the back of the mouth “ahh,” and then “oo,” you fill the
mouth, and “mm” closes the mouth. When you pronounce this
properly, all vowel sounds are included in the pronunciation.
AUM. Consonants are here regarded simply as interruptions of
the essential vowel sound. All words are thus fragments of AUM,
just as all images are fragments of the Form of forms. AUM is a
symbolic sound that puts you in touch with that resounding being
that is the Universe. If you heard some of the recordings of
Tibetan monks chanting AUM, you would know what the word
means, all right. That’s the AUM of being in the world. To be in
touch with that and to get the sense of that is the peak experience
of all.12
 ig ecernepunietes
site Shove ya ee
hiner bord no cae Ngee
Baie ponmaa, ard yr yew
a Fe a ea), PS it?Finan

ae en na » outs ts 2c

= gas — _ .

‘c)
- i“aaaae ‘ia
ae SAE AH, ol) haetn mht fh

i
Se. pow avin baht ee
| Re eek
evpeetly ns citetior tinedinsew
ag sre i Ie rene. oovali ov
‘peat meaty osun Viabeow,are tegen
gst aa aes ai
DToh] ap ond) ett 4 Oe oR age
PaadtneR Neate
ia
eet
_
ee oo ine aie =
Ap: ay Hf Out ffvemve* Rory i de mnvdigh( aba a

aiionsiiyt
tip. 1 «kth ped eee hee ae
Ket OW ane tetra 4 ometat
bids. Sor ruicetinn
-

wean
a
i

~ts
ae
Alte te?esd (rgslc>
- aha) pehreoese oF |.'s * — dee :
1
ae Mew g: Geuhe: / ts oie eh '
PPR NLA een © tater ; teen veiht @ hs "
ets heWauks, vs SS) = Tat | eee P
oo
tar
7 drive Petter po. 2. ure pe ony >
an rx
nwa, WE PROAN Sad ‘9
rhs
 z
JESUS FROM AN
ECOFEMINIST PERSPECTIVE
——
==>.
—
Sa

There is a history of dogmas and speculations, just as there is a

history of States. Very old customs, legal systems and institutions
continue in existence long after they have lost their meaning. That
which once has been does not want to lose its right to eternity;
what was once a good thing wants to be so now and for time
immemorial.
Ludwig Feuerbach, VEssence du christianisme

Ludwig Feuerbach, who was no ecologist or feminist, prompts me

to speak of Jesus. He reminds me of the need to avoid eternalizing
our religious formulations as if they were requirements of life itself.
He invites me to keep alive the flame of the challenges and questions
that life offers us now, and to seek to express my relationship with
Jesus in the light of the challenges of our time.
How to speak of Jesus in light of the ecofeminist perspective I
am developing? How to speak of him not just with methodological
coherence, but out of my own relational life experience?
I would like to begin by sharing my own journey with Jesus. It
is easier for me to speak in the first person. At certain points in the
journey, questions and answers will appear as the moment calls for
them. There is nothing extraordinary about my story, but I think
that, along the way, some men (and perhaps many women) will
identify with my experiences. To speak of one’s own journey is sim-

173
174 Longing
for Running Water

ply to share some segments of the road one has walked, without try-
ing to construct a full-blown system of thought based on texts pub-
lished with a pretext of “scientific” rigor. My personal journey is an
expression of my own quest, of things I have experienced in every-
day life and of the questions and the need for answers that are part
of any human life. My personal journey is also marked by the ques-
tions of many people I encounter. In speaking of their experiences,
they share their own relationships with Jesus within a context far
removed from that of rigorous dogmatic formulations. I will, then,
move along my path of everyday faith life, with all the limitations
this kind of description brings with it.
After this discussion, I will reflect on some aspects of Jesus’ life
that seem important to me from an ecofeminist perspective. I want
to open up the possibility of a more thoughtful dialogue, one that
will help us see why it is necessary to speak of Jesus of Nazareth in
a new way.
In practice, these two moments—my everyday faith and an
ecofeminist perspective on Jesus—are not separate in my life, but I
need to distinguish between them methodologically in order to
understand them better. I will not attempt to offer you some new
Christology. Many works have been and are being published on
this subject, some of them within a feminist or an ecofeminist
perspective.!
My concern in this reflection is merely to show that logical and
existential coherence is required of us if we embrace the ecofeminist
perspective and identify ourselves as one Sacred Body with the
whole universe. This is not just another formulation we add to the
body of doctrines we have learned in the past. Rather, it requires a
broader understanding of the universe in which we live, a percep-
tion that demands of us the task of adjusting our beliefs to the chal-
lenges posed by this new moment in the history of life.
As I said, I have neither the desire nor the ambition to build a
new Christology to be discussed by professional theologians, nor do
I want to create a new ecofeminist theological treatise on Jesus. 1am
not seeking to weave still another garment in which to dress Jesus so
as to make him more compatible with the contemporary perspec-
tive. Rather, I will begin with the experience of people who seek to
remain within the “dialogue” among Jesus’ disciples, to share their
 Jesus from an Ecofeminist Perspective 175

current experience and to integrate it with the gospel tradition they

have inherited. I would especially like to deal with their discomfort
in the face of traditional dogmatic formulas, which they do not find
helpful in their deep search for the meaning of life or in their com-
mitment to continue within the discipleship of equals proposed by
the Jesus movement.
My question for the Christian faith, and especially for the gospel
of Jesus, has to do with the growth of our ecological sensibilities
and our struggle against society’s patriarchal structures. My ques-
tion for the gospel has to do with the devastation of the planet, the
elimination of so many species, and the destruction of so many
human groups, among whom the most directly affected are the
poorest of the economically poor. My question for the gospel of
Jesus has to do with the manner in which his “way” has been
locked within a rigid dogmatic structure that is prepared to exclude
those who have doubts or uncertainties and to repress freedom of
thought in the name of some monolithic truth. In the final analysis,
my questions have to do with the complicity of religious institutions
in social injustice and the use of the gospel of Jesus to serve the
interests of a privileged elite.
I believe that through simple dialogue, in the perspective of a life
of discipleship in which we come to learn from one another, we will
recognize one another as sisters and brothers engaged in the same
quest. I believe that in becoming aware of what unites us, even if it
happens to be the tragic destruction that surrounds us, we will be
able to discover once again the meaning of walking Jesus’ path,
which is pluralistic and welcomes the presence of a variety of dif-
ferent paths.
It is within this perspective that I share with you the first point
in my reflection.

The Road I Have Walked with Jesus

Jesus and his teachings have played a central and decisive role for
me during most of my life. The person of Jesus was the most basic
reference point for all my actions. The question “What would Jesus
have done in this situation?” was with me all the time. It was a
question I learned as a child, above all in Catholic school. But I soon
176 g Running Water
Longinfor

learned also that if I wanted to make it my guide, the starting point

was not always the Gospel itself. Often it was the church’s moral
teachings and its interpretation of Jesus’ life. And sometimes these
teachings required me to understand Jesus’ way as an arduous one,
a way that went against my will and prompted me to obey author-
ities even when their orders were questionable.
As you might expect, it was not always easy to get satisfactory
answers about my actions and choices. I was not always sure
whether what I was doing or thinking was in line with Jesus’ teach-
ings. But I gave myself over fully to the task. Iwanted to do it well,
and I often felt guilty as I learned how difficult it was to follow
Jesus’ will.
My entry into religious life at the age of twenty-two, and my
commitment to the struggle for a more just society, also found their
justification in my decision to follow Jesus’ teachings. Many years
later I was able to examine my personal motivations and discern
other elements beyond the following of Jesus that could also be
regarded as decisive in these choices.
For a long time in my life, when I had to face misunderstanding
and persecution (especially political and religious persecution), I
explained my suffering in terms of my adherence to Jesus’ teachings.
Referring to Jesus gave me the support and legitimation I needed to
justify my choices. It was as if I were following in the footsteps of
someone who, despite differences of space, time, and sex, had a
unique universality and an extraordinary ability to draw millions
and millions of lives into his own. Jesus’ life appeared to illuminate
the paths of other lives. His life was an example, a paradigm that
sustained those who opted to go through the “narrow gate” of jus-
tice and of “bearing one another’s burdens.”
During the last twenty-five years, in the light of liberation theol-
ogy, it became even clearer that, for me, there was no other path
than that of Jesus. In the last analysis, his stance in favor of the poor
and outcast, his firm resistance to oppressive powers, and his lack of
dogmatism appeared as fundamental touchstones, essential beacons
on my journey. All the values I regarded as fundamental I found in
him—in the reading of the Gospel texts and in the witness of the
first Christians. The value of the body, especially the bodies of the
poor and their basic needs, began to show me the degree to which
 Jesus from an Ecofeminist Perspective 177

the following of Jesus required a “religion” that started from the

body: an incarnated religion, one rooted in human flesh and in the
flesh of the earth. The body of the poor forced me to leave behind
metaphysical reflections on the mystery of the incarnation in order
to explore its material dimensions. I realized that, in my words and
in my life, I could deal only with physical incarnations, the joy and
pain made manifest in concrete and specific bodies. I came to real-
ize the degree to which suffering and oppressed bodies, silenced
bodies, and ostracized bodies had to do with my faith in God’s pres-
ence, in the relatedness of this unfathomable mystery which is so
timidly grasped by human flesh.
When I began to be interested in feminism and to criticize patri-
archy, I assumed a stance of systematic suspicion in dealing with
_ traditional theological texts. This sharpened my perceptions, and
\new questions arose within me. My questions were not specifically
about Jesus but about interpretations of his attitudes and behaviors
throughout the centuries. I had a problem with intransigent Chris-
tologies and dogmas, and with the authoritarian way in which
Jesus’ image was presented. I had a problem with disdain for bod-
ies, especially those of women and of the earth. Some bodies were
more severely battered than others, and some sexes were more
oppressed than others; there were persecuted races and “hearts”
that were disdained, belittled, and abused.
The option for the marginalized in no way disappeared in my
thinking, but it broadened and took on more precise forms. The
antidogmatic attitudes, openness to dialogue, and mercy I learned
as a follower of Jesus in no way disappeared. But I was still both-
ered by the triumphalism and dogmatism in which christological
reflections were couched. I was bothered by the excessive centrality
of Jesus, a centrality that gave little space for personal initiatives—
‘and especially for women’s initiatives. It was an exaggerated cen-
trality that ended up treating other religious expressions as sec-
ondary or as less important. This centrality was so idealistic in its
liberating language that it virtually ruled out alternative religious
expressions or contrasting discourses. However, I repeat, my issue
was not with Jesus but what they said about him, and what they
said often left me feeling suffocated. It oppressed me with its
grandiosity. It didn’t allow me to breathe deeply, it didn’t nourish
178 Longing
for Running Water

me, and it didn’t satisfy my hunger for meaning. I could make exis-
tential sense neither of what I read nor of what I had learned about
so many theories on the historical Jesus and on the Christ of faith;
on his divinity, his consubstantiality with God, and other such mat-
ters. My relationship with Jesus, my discourse on Jesus, and my
writings on Jesus began to change.
Today I find that the figure of Jesus still enjoys a special place,
but that it has to share that place with other figures. Jesus’ figure
does not lose its existential centrality, because that centrality in my
life has to do with my personal history in the Christian community
and the way I express my own hope. But Jesus is no longer the
absolute reference in a dogmatic sense, that is, in the way it was pre-
sented in the metaphysical Christology that characterized our dis-
course for centuries. It is a different kind of centrality, one that is
more participative, more dialogical, and more open.
. Touse an analogy, I think the way we refer to Jesus today is like
the way we recall favorite dishes of our childhood, those prepared
by our mothers or grandmothers. People don’t forget those dishes’
flavors, and they can always go back to them in their memories or
when they enjoy something similar.
“Jesus food” continues to nourish me, but it is the food I find in
the Gospels, free of dogmatic refinements. It is the food of the New
Testament parables and the stories used by very many human
groups. It is the unexpected good food people are served in their
friends’ and neighbors’ homes, or even on benches on busy street
corners. It is the food they receive in letters from friends. It is the
daily home-cooked meal in which canned goods are rarely used. I
seek this food that is free of dogmatic refinements because the chris-
tological dogmatics that have come down to us from Nicaea and
Chalcedon, along with their later “refinements,” took away the
good flavor of the Jesus-words, along with his sometimes irreverent,
disconcerting, daring, and tender behavior. Dogma took a conver-
sation by a well, a shared meal, a tender gesture, a protest against
injustice, an expression of gratitude, or a caress, and turned it into
“ordered reason,” “systematic reason,” and “science.” Dogma
made a prison out of an invitation to freedom, out of poetry; then
it added insult to injury by posting armed soldiers dressed as priests
at the doors of paradise so nobody could get out or think different-
 Jesus from an Ecofeminist Perspective 179

ly. Dogma appointed authorized teachers to tell the truth about

Jesus, and in this way it killed the creativity of moments of grace,
informal meetings, kitchen conversations, and walks along river-
banks. When its perspective was radicalized, dogma reduced broth-
erly and sisterly relationships to hierarchical obedience; it limited
the many paths to one path and the multiplicity of loving exchanges
to a single authorized discourse. It went about creating fear: fear of
disobeying, of mistaken thinking, of failing to reproduce exactly
the right word, the well-formulated doctrine, or the “authentic”
tradition handed down from Jesus.
Today I like to say that Jesus is both central and noncentral in
my life. I say that he has an open, inclusive, affectionate, dialogical,
and provocative centrality. I cannot close him into an absolute rela-
tionship, one that excludes others. At first glance, it would seem
that I live by an absurd or totally paradoxical logic, but this is
more or less my experience. Jesus is as central to me as my own life,
as my own aloneness, or as a good friendship; at the same time
there are other centers that, so to speak, revolve around my life, or
around which my life revolves. For example, if I take the Gospel
text in Luke 7:36-50, Jesus’ meeting with the so-called sinful
woman, I always try to put the central role of Jesus “in parenthe-
ses” and listen to the woman as well. How much of her own life
she has invested in love! This woman, who is called a sinner, shows
us the importance of investing in our own liberation and the
importance of loving ourselves, especially for women. We women
were trained, in the Christian tradition, to serve “others,” to seek
to please “others,” to deny ourselves for the sake of “others,” and
to obey authority figures—and we ended up forgetting the need to
live the two poles of love: love of oneself and love of one’s neigh-
bor. It was not Jesus who ordered the woman to seek him; it was
her initiative and her struggle, and the love that was born of her
own heart.
This brings to mind that, in Latin America, we are always
depending on somebody to do us a favor so that we can live with
dignity. We depend on politicians, bosses, priests, and God. A patri-
archal reading of the Gospels has always insisted that we center our
attention on Jesus: on his actions, his teachings, and the miracles he
worked. It said salvation, the most perfect love, and the solutions to
 180 Longing
for Running Water

our problems come from him. But why not pay attention to this sin-
ful and nameless woman; why not pay attention to the man with the
withered hand, to the paralytic, to the woman with an issue of
blood, to the children? Why not imagine instead that it was the
women themselves who brought along the bread of the “multipli-
cation,” especially since it is they, almost always, who every day
carry food for their children?
Why not pay attention to and honor the people’s resistance
struggles—their endless struggles for liberation and a life lived in
dignity? Why not shine spotlights on the insignificant actors, and
appreciate their daily struggle to survive and to maintain their dig-
nity? Why not open up our understanding of “salvation” to a
broader process, one that is going on consciously or unconsciously
in people’s daily lives, in the midst of the “ordinary” things that
make up the fabric of our lives?
If we do this, we introduce a logic that accents the roles of those
actors who are regarded as least important so that they can develop
their powers, their creative abilities, and their own style of seeking
the paths of salvation.
I would like to believe that this was Jesus’ logic, and that it was
for this that he was condemned and ostracized by the powerful of
his time. He always seemed to insist on the faith, the efforts, and the
persistence of ordinary people, and not on favors that the powerful
could concede. He seems to have insisted on satisfying the hunger
people feel today, on fulfilling the need for wine in today’s wedding
celebration, on curing the ills that afflict us at this moment—on
those very concrete ills that are not named in any existing code of
law or dealt with in purely formal intellectual analyses.
From this perspective, it seems that the centrality of Jesus opens
us to the centrality of persons, especially the outcast, and to the
need to invest in what we could call our “salvation” in the here and
now. Thus we move away from an excessive emphasis on the figure
of the savior, the hero, the martyr, the king, the saint—as well as the
» victorious warrior, the only Son of God. We come to speak of the
salvation we offer one another when our hearts open up in tender-
ness and mercy. We leave more room in our lives especially for those
oppressed by various ills, for women seeking their dignity, and for
children, in order to encourage them to discover in themselves the
 Jesud from an Ecofeminist Perspective 18%

roots of their own freedom. This is what I call relationships of open

centrality.
History is made in many centers, not only in power centers. In
this sense, I no longer want to identify Jesus as just one more power
center, even though I recognize that his style of acting was different
from that of the established powers. Rather, I would like to speak of
him as a center of loving energy among us. I prefer to speak of Jesus
as someone whose inclusive actions refused to allow his disciples to
engage in exclusionary practices, whether they involved sex, race, or
class. All can enter into the “wedding banquet,” as long as they
accept the rules of equal sharing, mercy, service, taking the last
place, and washing one another’s feet.
If we view the situation from this perspective, not all that was
said of Jesus in the past needs to be thrown out. This is our history,
our past, our very flesh. At the same time, if we speak of bringing
about a new era in our history—a new understanding of the histo-
ry of the universe and another moment in life of this Sacred Body—
then we are required to show a certain consistency.
More and more, we are discovering that imprisoning of Jesus of
Nazareth in a specific dogmatic system has done enormous damage
in the lives of persons and groups. All the emphasis on the obedience
of Jesus to his Father, for example, merely underlined a “culture of {| |

obedience” in which women, slaves, and children were always the }

primary victims. The oppressed were always told they must obey
their oppressors, since the latter had received the gift of authority
and been entrusted with the exercise of power. This theology of obe- '
dience continues to be passed along in our culture, often disguised as
freedom and democracy or even as the common good. According to
some interpretations, it was this obedience that led Jesus to accept
the cross, and it has led women and oppressed peoples to endure a
wide variety of holocausts. This obedience generated a complicity
with authoritarian regimes, with empires, and with a variety of
racist systems. Surely there are many people who would argue that
Jesus’ sacrifice was freely accepted and therefore cannot be analyzed
with the same categories as the so-called culture of obedience. I
believe that the obedience of Jesus is of the precise type that does not
allow itself to be controlled by any kind of authority system: It is an
obedience to the generative source of life within himself and his fel-
182 Longing
for Running Water

low human beings. This kind of obedience really requires disobedi-

ence to the system, and it is because Jesus disobeyed that he was cru-
cified and died. He was, literally, murdered.
Obedience and disobedience can be elements in the power
games of imperialist systems. Therefore it is always necessary to
ask ourselves about the meaning of obedience: obedience to whom,
and to what end? We need to ask the same things about disobedi-
ence. Are there some forms of disobedience that cannot be called
obedience to freedom, to love for our neighbors and ourselves? We
women are raising among ourselves ever greater suspicion about the
dogmas concerning Jesus of Nazareth and their flagrant complicity
with the processes of exclusion and destruction we all observe.
This whole situation moves me deeply, and leads me, along with
many others, to rethink the faith in terms that are more compatible
with the agenda of the impoverished, of feminists, and of the planet.

Ecofeminist Challenges to Our Relationship

with Jesus of Nazareth E
As we have seen in earlier chapters, the ecofeminist perspective I am
developing proposes a different way of knowing: a different under-
standing of the human person, and a different experience of and dis-
course concerning God. Thus, too, it opens us up to a different
understanding of our experience of Jesus and with Jesus. I often
insist on the word “experience” and speak of experience within the
confines of our bodies and our histories in order to underline the
fundamental importance of the physical moment in which we live.
To speak of experience is to speak of concrete realities that have to
do with our bodies. It is also to speak of our specific ills and pains—
and therefore of our need for <salvation, ” for remedies, and for
healing. . oF.
In sharing with readers my personal experience with Jesus, I
want to make it clear that I do not share the perspective that some
people call postchristian. I am not postchristian; rather, I am post-
dogmatic and postpatriarchal, even while I am able to understand
what traditional dogmatic formulations were trying to say. What
those formulations said had its own value and its own historical
context, but it cannot be absolutized.
 Jesus from an Ecofeminist Perspective 183

So, in the perspective I am developing, the idea is not to reaffirm

traditional dogmas regarding Jesus or to emphasize a salvation
beyond history. It is not a matter of rereading the councils of Nicaea
and Chalcedon in light of the needs of our own times. Nor is it a
matter of having another look at all the ancient christological con-
troversies so as to be able once again to reaffirm Jesus’ divinity in
patriarchal terms.? Rather, I would like to follow the logic of relat-
edness that we have been proposing throughout this reflection, and
to dare to free Jesus from the hierarchical and dogmatic apparel in
which the church has clothed him for so long.
Along these lines, I wouldtike to think-of Jesus-as-a-~man_who
wasextremely sensitive to human suffering, who was inspired by
the prophetic and sapiential tradition of the Jewish culture to which
he belonged, and who tried in various ways to respond to certain
forms of human suffering—especially pain, hunger, and varigus
kinds of marginalization. Jesus always insisted that people believe
in themselves, and taught that their belief in themselves was an
expression of faith in God’s power. Jesus’ actions were aimed at the
recovery of health and dignity, and the recovery of the physical
means to health and dignity: food and drink. His actions affirmed
that certain physical needs cannot be satisfied by promises or by the
future realization of some ideal world. It is this practical wisdom of
Jesus that needs to be rediscovered, lived out, and understood in the
context of the vital problems we face today. I agree with Sallie
McFague that it is precisely the perspective of body that will allow
us to introduce the issue of ecological salvation.* Our economic
exploitation projects have enslaved the earth and the powers of
nature and made them into an object to be used for unbridled prof-
iteering. It is our actions that have put the earth in bondage, that
have damaged it, polluted it, and impoverished it. For this reason,
it is the earth that is both the subject and the object of salvation. We
need to abandon a merely anthropocentric Christianity and open
ourselves up to a more biocentric understanding of salvation. To
Jesus’ humanistic perspective, we need to add an ecological per-
spective. This new way of doing things seems to me perfectly justi-
fied, because it maintains not only the most fundamental aspects of
Jesus’ perspective but also the understanding that we are a living
body in constant evolution.
 184 Longing
for Running Water

Theology has repeated many times that Jesus did not proclaim
himself; using an ecofeminist perspective, we could say that he pro-
claimed respect for the life of every being and abundant life for all.
We could say that Jesus’ attitudes and behaviors always point Chris-
tians toward the building of new relationships, and that today they
help us to build a positive relationship between human persons and
the earth. It is precisely this that we want to insist on ever more
strongly, in order to rebuild the web of human relationships in all its
dimensions.
| It seems that when we speak of Jesus as a human being—as pro-
| foundly human—the sometimes forbidding divine halo we have
| always attributed to him in Christian tradition seems to disappear.
But if we no longer speak of the salvific uniqueness of Jesus the
Christ, many feel we give up the power and uniqueness of our faith.
A Jesus who can no longer be affirmed as a superhuman being
seems to lose his power to move us. As Sallie McFague says,

The scandal of uniqueness is absolutized by Christianity into one

of its central doctrines, which claims that God is embodied in one
place and one place only: in the man Jesus of Nazareth. He and he
alone is “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). The source,
power and goal of the universe is known through and only
through a first-century Mediterranean carpenter. The creator and
redeemer of the fifteen-billion-year history of the universe with its
hundred billion galaxies (and their billions of stars and planets) is
available only in a thirty-year span of one human being’s life on
planet earth. The claim, when put in context of contemporary sci-
ence, seems skewed, to say the least. When the world consisted of
the Roman Empire (with “barbarians” at its frontiers), the limi-
tation of divine presence to Jesus of Nazareth had some plausibil-
ity while still being ethnocentric; but for many hundreds of years,
well before contemporary cosmology, the claims of other major
religious traditions have seriously challenged it.5

Along with McFague, I believe that-to affirm the incarnation, or

the bodiliness, of the divine does not necessarily require that Jesus
have some unique metaphysical character. Jesus is also “our Sacred
Body.” For this reason, the incarnation, the presence of the greatest
of mysteries in our flesh, is more than Jesus of Nazareth. In this
 Jesus from an Ecofeminist Perspective 185

sense, we could say that Jesus is for us a metaphor of the divine

presence, the unfathomable mystery, the unutterable in the human
flesh in which we all are included.
The incarnation refers to our own bodily reality. In other words,
we apprehend in our flesh, in our bodily experience, what we call
the divine. The place in which we apprehend the mystery that
underlies everything is our respective bodies. Therefore, we say we
are incarnate, we are beings in the flesh, although we know how
complex this affirmation is. In some Christian traditions, the incar-
nation has often been interpreted in idealistic terms—as if the divine
had entered human flesh only at one specific moment, and therefore
this moment is made into an absolute.
As we know, we have always been accustomed to thinking of the
divine as a being and a power radically different from our own
experience. Thus it might appear that “God-with-us,” or
“Immanuel,” who “pitched his tent among us” and “came down
from heaven,” could be diminished by this new interpretation.
However, to speak of Jesus as God’s “intermediary,” or to speak of
Jesus as the expression of the wisdom that dwells within us, is not
to deny Jesus’ concrete practice as it is set down in the Gospels.
The frame does not change the picture, even if it highlights dif-
ferent elements of it. The picture itself, Jesus’ life as it was lived out,
has its own integrity—despite the frames in which it has been placed
by his contemporaries, by the early Christian communities, by con-
flicts in the time of the Roman Empire, by later tradition, and by
ourselves today. Jesus’ actions on behalf of the oppressed, the out-
cast, the sick, and victims of all varieties are undeniable. That is
what shows up in the most vivid colors in the painting of Jesus’ life.
These actions, then, constitute the picture of Jesus’ mission, and for
this reason it is always present and always up to date. And this
underlying picture, this special painting, should always be dis-
played—whatever frame is used. Furthermore, the frame can never
be more important than the picture. I think this is precisely what
has happened in our theology. We have exaggerated the importance
of the frame, which is no more than a context, an accessory; often
we have forgotten the picture, the painting, the words of life, the
actions of Jesus.
186 Longing
for Running Water

Some people might even ask why we need to return today to the
figure of Jesus. Why not let it fade away, as any figure from the past
does, and seek new reference points for the present? Doing so could
even serve the purposes of some feminist and rationalist intellectu-
al groups who find the figure of Jesus to be a stumbling block.
The issue will not be resolved by elimination. We cannot simply
get rid of it if it inconveniences us, because our relationship with
Jesus.is not merely personal but also cultural. Besides (as I said ear-
lier, speaking out of my own experience), the problem is not with
Jesus but with what the power brokers have made of him.
In this sense, there are choices to be made. Although there are
different positions on this issue, I think we neither wish to nor are
able to separate ourselves in an absolute sense from our history.
Thus we do not want to stand apart from history or from Jesus of
Nazareth as a reference point, because he is woven into the fabric
this history. He is part of our personal and social body. Besides, we
still find in Christian experience, despite all its limitations, a way of
expressing our Own convictions.
A tradition only dies when none are left who place their faith in
it, when there are no more disciples to keep it alive. This is not the
case with the tradition that goes back to Jesus of Nazareth. In my
view, this tradition is of fundamental importance. To lose it would
be to lose part of an ancient human wisdom—part of its richness,
part of its extraordinary expressiveness and beauty.
The figure of Jesus has something profoundly alluring about it.
Since the days of our most ancient tradition, Jesus has been the
symbol of our hope, and this symbolism has been expressed in
many ways and many different languages. Jesus is the symbol of
what we seek, of the behaviors and attitudes we judge to be the
most fitting in human beings. I think it is in this sense that we could
speak metaphorically of Jesus as Savior. He is the Savior inasmuch °
as he is the symbol of those values that are best able to change our
lives, to lead us to goodness and justice. He is the Savior inasmuch
as he is a living example with which we identify, in order to con-
ceive of our own lives as salvific. It is the process of salvation he rep-
resents that can be assumed by women and men whose hearts are
filled with mercy and solidarity.
 Jesus from an Ecofeminist Perspective 187

It follows that, to paraphrase Saint Paul, in Jesus are men and

women, Greeks and Romans (Gal 3:27-28); there are white, black,
and Asiatic persons. In other words, differences are embraced and
respected, because, in Jesus’ perspective, it is not a matter of defend-
ing masculinity or femininity, or any other just demand. The issue is
not dogma but the world of values lived by Jesus and his disciples.
Christian culture has always made Jesus an inclusive symbol
who served slaves and free citizens, rulers and beggars, men and
women, old and young, prostitutes and public sinners. When we say
symbol, we mean a totality that is always open and inclusive, a real-
ity whose immense richness allows it to be continually reinterpret-
ed. Jesus as a symbol is more than a formal signifier with no sub-
stance of its own, as some people we meet every day seem to think.
They think that to speak of Jesus as a symbol is to diminish him, to
fail to recognize his historical character, and to reduce him to some-
thing less than real. Many ambiguities in this understanding—or,
rather, misunderstanding—need to be clarified.
To say that Jesus is symbol
a means that, although he is Jesus of «
Nazareth, he is really more than Jesus of Nazareth. He becomes the
possession of the community of his followers, a collective construct
representing a way of life, a path to the meaning of our existence.
Jesus as a symbol is in a certain sense greater than Jesus of Nazareth
as an individual, because in him millions and millions of persons are
encompassed.
When we say Jesus is the symbol who fulfills our dreams, this
does not mean that in him everything was worked out or fully
accomplished. It is to say we need to entrust our dreams to this man
because we need these dreams, and we hope that their fulfillment is
possible. We turn over to Jesus, a man, flesh of our flesh, the con-
crete possibility of a better world and of more just and equal rela-
tionships among people. Because of him, we throw in our lot for a
world that embodies greater solidarity—but all the while, we know
this decision is our own.
We also say that he has achieved what we would like to achieve,
although we know that within his concrete historical circumstances
he surely could not have accomplished all that has been attributed to
him. The word that expresses our dreams and hopes is always col-
ored by our own expectations and by our desire that they be realized.
188 Longing for Running Water

To use a strained analogy, we could say that when we are very

sick we like to know that others who have had the same illness
have been cured. When we are “down and out,” we like to know
that others in the same condition of struggle and suffering have
found a place to stay. When we are struggling against racism, we are
happy to know that in some other country the rights of the various
ethnic groups have been respected. Here, too, there are historical
limitations, and surely many of the things we imagine to have been
achieved really have not. But all these persons or groups have a real
power for us: they symbolize something we are looking for, some-
thing that gives meaning to our lives.
What we say of Jesus could be said of Mary as well, who is part
of the whole biblical tradition of strong women who were symbols
of resistance and of salvation for their people. In them, the life of
their people is included and expressed. The degree to which one or
another symbol is used will depend in great part on the history of
that symbol in this or that cultural community.
All this shows the mysterious power of the symbols and words
we use in describing our hope. In these words, we include ourselves
along with our ancestors. Through them we live and give life.
So too, Jesus was a person of his time, conditioned by his cul-
ture, able to respond only to certain questions; but he is also a sym-
bolic figure who can have meaning far beyond his historical and
temporal limitations. So we say that for us, in the Christian com-
munity, Jesus is a symbol: a symbol with which we dialogue and in
which we include ourselves. And this is so because, as communities
of disciples, we make Jesus a symbol of our lives’ ideals and values.
In this sense, the centrality of Jesus is not absolute or metaphys-
ical. As I have said before—and I am looking only at the Christian
world—other figures such as Mary and Mary Magdalene also have
symbolic power. These figures are being rediscovered by various
feminist movements, especially in recent years.
Meanwhile, as we know, the patriarchal Christian culture in
which we live has placed a greater accent on Jesus. Just how help-
ful is it to remind ourselves, once again, that our theological culture
is not only anthropocentric but also androcentric? The centrality of
Jesus cannot be invoked to dismiss prominent figures and symbols
from other religious traditions. The ways of justice and love are
 Jesus from an Ecofeminist Perspective 189

multiple and varied. Our Sacred Body includes many different

expressions of love, mercy, and salvation.
I agree with the words of Sri Lankan theologian Tissa
Balasuriya:

The uniqueness of Jesus is in the depth of his personality; in his

total self-giving love that helps fulfill others, and in his message
that is uniquely salvific for all who live it. We can think of him as
a guru par excellence, who first trod the difficult path up to his
death on the cross. He was a humble person who was not con-
cerned about his own greatness but wanted to serve all in truth
and in love.®

We know that cultural change does not come about in response

to decrees, or even as a result of this or that school of thought. It
takes time to assimilate not only new values but also new ways of
dealing with them. Furthermore, a position that embodies respect
for various religious expressions should facilitate the coexistence of
different groups that interpret the “Jesus event” in different ways.
At this time, it seems, from an ecofeminist perspective, that what
is most important for Christian communities, or communities of
followers of Jesus, is neither to try to save christological dogmas out
of formal faithfulness to a certain tradition, nor to impose their
own interpretations as the only “way” and the only truth about
Jesus. These would be attempts to hold on to the same old hierar-
chical and dualistic perspective in a world that can no longer toler-
ate dualism or the destruction wrought by the practice of hierarchi-
cal exclusion. When we try to hold on to traditional dogma, we also
to fail to see the direct or indirect complicity of patriarchal Chris-
tologies with the maintenance of an exclusivist system. Many writ-
ings have shown the negative effects of imperialist Christologies
that present Jesus’ lordship in the image of the great lords of this
world—not to mention the sacrificial Christologies that insist on the
immolation of Jesus, and that are indirect accomplices of the immo-
lation of many different human groups.
It seems to me that the actions and teachings of Jesus can be
rediscovered as clues, or as attempts at a response, to the great chal-
lenges of today’s world. My conviction is shared by all those who
190 6.Longing
for Running Water

work within an ecofeminist perspective. In this perspective, we can

speak once again of the openness of Jesus to dialogue, of his mercy,
his criticism of oppressive powers, his concern for the sharing of
bread and wine, and his delight in the flowers of the countryside. I
think these values, which are present in some sense in all humanis-
tic traditions, can be revived in a nondogmatic way by the Christian
community.
For the Christian community, Jesus is a symbol of members’
dreams, and of their greatest aspirations for humanity and for the
earth. But the community of Jesus’ followers has changed these
aspirations to some degree, as it has responded to the various situ-
ations and contexts of human history. We could say that Jesus is not
the savior of all humanity in the traditional, triumphalistic sense
that has characterized the discourseof the Christian churches. He is
not the powerful Son of God who dies on the cross and becomes the
“king” who morally dominates the great variety of human cultures.
Rather, he is the symbol of the vulnerability of love, which in order
to remain alive ends up being murdered, killed . . . and which then
rises again in those who love him, in order to revive the vital cycle
of love.
Within this perspective, Jesus does not come to us in the name of
a “superior will” that sent him; rather, he comes from here: from
this earth, this body, this flesh, from the evolutionary process that is
present both yesterday and today in this Sacred Body within which
love resides. It continues in him beyond that, and it is turned into
passion for life, into mercy and justice. In this sense, I am saying
that Jesus as an individual person is not superior to any other
human being. This is because he is made of the same earth, the
same bodily reality that constitutes us all. Meanwhile, on account of
his moral qualities, his openness, and his sensitivity, he has come to
represent, in a certain sense, the perfection of our dreams and the
ideal realization of our desires. And it is precisely this quality that
makes the difference. To put it in another way: The difference is not
metaphysical or ontological (related to the nature of being) but eth-
ical and aesthetic, because the difference is manifest in his humani-
ty, in the great beauty of the attitudes he expressed and evoked in
others. Once again, we can say that Jesus is the symbol of all that
we most love. Within this perspective, Jesus can no longer be
 Jesus from an Ecofeminist Perspective 19%

regarded as the justification for hierarchical power; rather, he is a

model of the fraternal and sororal power of communion with all
those who claim to belong to his tradition.
Some people will probably argue that you cannot change a hier-
archical and patriarchal symbol this way, making it into something
democratic, inclusive, and nonsexist. They will say that such an
endeavor would be pretentious, because it would offer an image of
Jesus that falls outside the patterns to which we have become accus-
tomed over the centuries. But we know very well that all traditions
have had their beginnings, even if these beginnings were confused
and sometimes unclear. And if they had a beginning, then they also
evolved: They are subject to constant transformations. They also
appropriate, in their own ways, the life experience of Jesus of
Nazareth. They have transformed it, conceptualized it, and turned
it into a science and a doctrine. I cannot, therefore, accept positions
that refuse to welcome the changes inherent in every tradition,
above all when we face, every day, in contact with persons and in
the complexities of cultures, the many sufferings and the multiple
transformations inherent in life. I cannot accept the idea that we
have no authority to speak in our own way of our relationships
with Jesus without cutting ourselves off from history. I do not
understand why the antiquity of certain dogmatic and conciliar
statements or their proximity to Jesus’ historical times need to be
regarded as the only criteria for the truth of statements about Jesus
of Nazareth. I don’t want to go into the classical arguments over the
Christ of faith and the Jesus of history. My only purpose is to show
the possibility of reinterpreting the gospel tradition in the light of
the vital issues we are raising today.
Within the ecofeminist perspective I am developing, the criteria
of “giving life” and of fostering the “flowering” of life in dignity,
diversity, and respect are quite enough to give us the collective
authority to speak in different way of our experience as partners of
Jesus.
The purist spirit of academia, the universities, and dogma is not
a part of concrete, everyday life. The logical coherence of doctrines
is constantly undermined by the need to survive, or simply to live.
Radical breaks in our basic ways of knowing are only possible in
the world of theory. The real world in which we live and share life
192 Longing
for Running Water

is always mixed, imprecise, impure, and unexpected. And it is pre-

cisely its “mixed” character that allows for the creativity and unpre-
dictability that are able to generate life where there appears to be no
more hope.
I want to recall that liberation theology in Latin America insist-
ed for a very long time that the most important thing is not “ortho-
doxy” but “orthopraxis”: acting correctly, with justice and mercy.
And it is this acting, feeling, and thinking on the basis of our own
experience that has the power and authority to change some aspects
of our ancient tradition.
For this reason, the symbol of Jesus can be transformed and is
gradually being transformed in Latin American Christian commu-
nities, especially among groups of women and among those who are
working in ecumenism and ecology. If religious powers impede this
vital transformation in our understanding, they surely will be show-
ing little faithfulness to the figure who taught his disciples to take
notice of the many occurrences in daily life, of the suffering of mar-
ginalized bodies, of the communion among all beings, and of the
mystery of life itself.
Jesus is a symbol and an inspiration for the community of his
followers, a symbol that is capable of widening its meaning to
respond to the needs of our historical moment. It is these not-
always-clear paths that ecofeminist insights about Jesus of Nazareth
find themselves treading. And it is through them, in the light and
darkness of life, that people are learning to understand, within the
limitations of our own time, the greatness and simplicity of the life
and ethical code of Jesus of Nazareth.
 6
THAT ALL MAY HAVE LIFE:
THE WAY TO A NEW
UNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION
——_—_—~
————
SS

We are called to affirm the integrity of our personal center of

being, in mutuality with the personal centers of all other beings
across species and, at the same time, accept the transience of these
personal selves.
Rosemary Radford Ruether

Rosemary Radford Ruether’s words call our attention to the need to

rethink our lives’ religious dimension on the basis of relational
behaviors, and this in turn locates us within the ecofeminist per-
spective we are developing.!

The Issue That Concerns Us

In this chapter following the chapters on Jesus and God, I would
like to open an informal conversation on religion. I am not inter-
ested in initiating yet another debate among specialists; I want only
to share some of my own concerns, which flow in large part from
my Latin American ecofeminist convictions.
Some might expect this conversation to be presented as a pre-
liminary reflection to use in defining what religion is, but Iam using
a different kind of logic—one aimed at looking at everyday life and
examining the issue of religion from that perspective. I want to ask,
after reflecting on all the issues we’ve discussed, how we arrive at a

193
194 Longing
for Running Water

new understanding of religion as a personal experience and as a

social institution.
Beyond this, I would like to examine some meanings of our
daily, informal, noninstitutional religiosity. This requires us to
understand religion outside the context of religious institutions, on
the basis of behaviors that appear to be beyond the control of those
who exercise religious power. I do not want to offer some facile cri-
tique of the religions we find in Latin America. Today the idea is not
merely to criticize errors or become voices crying in the wilderness,
but rather to find ways of humbly acknowledging that there are
errors. Then the most urgent task is to seek alternatives that can
restore joy and meaning to our lives.
In this light, I have asked myself whether what we have tradi-
tionally called “religion,” taken even in its broadest accepted mean-
ing, has really played the role of creating relationships, of “relink-
ing” people with one another, with the earth, and with the powers
of nature. I ask whether that which we call “religion” has in fact
brought about behaviors that are consoling, tender, and merciful;
whether it has helped people live their everyday lives with greater
dignity. If we take the examples of certain specific individuals, we
can, of course, say that it has; but if we speak of religions as social
institutions, the answer might be closer to the negative.
In The Future of an Illusion, Sigmund Freud spoke of a triple
function of the “gods”: to exorcise our fear of nature, to reconcile
us with the cruelty of our destiny, and to compensate for the suffer-
ings and privations imposed on us by living life within a given cul-
ture.” In Freud’s view, human beings create religious images in order
to make life in society more bearable. That is why we so easily
declare that we live this life keeping in mind the next one, in which
perfection is promised. Thus, in light of this higher form of life, even
death is justified. It is part of the just design of divine providence, or,
simply, of God.
The dualistically and patriarchally structured religion described
by Freud today seems to be unfolding in so many ways that it is dif-
ficult to follow all itscontours. But it seems to me important at least
to trace the outlines of a phenomenon visible to us today and which
some specialists have pointed out from other perspectives. What I
am referring to is this: I suspect that there now exists a religion that
 That All May Have Life 195

stands in opposition to Christian humanist religion, and that is tak-

ing on an ever more important role in the life of society. In some
senses, it sticks to the old dualistic mentality, and its discourse
appears to ape the values of humanistic religion. However, this
other religion, which pervades all our behaviors and which is being
sold by the communications media, does not always awaken com-
passion, justice, or love for our neighbors. It is a “religion” without
religion, without mutuality, and without effective or affective mercy.
My suspicion is based on the conviction that forces much more
powerful than the religious values preached by Christianity moti-
vate societies that are still called Christian. There is a kind of appar-
ent adhesion to religious values, but in fact we can observe person-
al and social behaviors that are ever more distant from respect for
all persons, solidarity, justice, and the search for equality.
I find myself asking what complex blend of feelings moves the
purveyors of organized violence, whether they be major or minor
actors. Iam shocked at the virtually uncontrollable growth of vio-
lence and individualism, not only in the world of the rich but also
among the poorest strata of society. Every group uses violence in its
own way to protect itself from other groups. And the “gods” are
usefl in offering an ideological justification for this system, in
which some are always defending themselves against others. In the
last analysis, each group has its own particular “god,” even if all are
addressed by one generic name.
In Brazil, for example, the campaign to enact the death penalty
for common criminals is gaining increasing support among groups
that call themselves Christian. Nevertheless, the commandment
“Thou shalt not kill” continues to be taught in our schools and
churches, and the value of life continues to be proclaimed in a mul-
tiplicity of human rights declarations! In the meantime, what is
happening to our religious principles? Where do we see people liv-
ing out the values associated with our deepest beliefs?
I repeat, once more, that the purpose of these remarks is not to
point a finger of blame at those alleged to be responsible for this
destructive system, but rather to show how it is presented as virtu-
ally the only way of living and surviving. Keeping this in mind, I
want to ask how we can find practical solutions that promote
respect for the life of all. Beyond this, I want to underline the fact
196 Longing
for Running Water

that the various religious systems are all, to one degree or another,
accomplices, legitimators, or critics of these systems.
We know it is increasingly true that in order to live, or even just
survive, we have to become part of the violent logic of the system.
In many parts of the world, religions seem to follow the same vio-
lent logic, and in a certain sense they appear to be betraying the
basic principles on which their organizations were founded. As
institutions, they play the system’s power games. They fail to speak
out publicly and say what they think if their interests, power, or sur-
vival is at stake. The separation in religious institutions between the
private and the public spheres continues, despite these institutions’
proclamations of support for the struggle against systems that fos-
ter injustice. The world of institutionalized religion seems to follow
the same hypocritical norms as do other institutions, despite its
attempts to present itself as a defender, in God’s name, of law and
justice.
At this moment I prefer not to mention exceptions to this rule.
Exceptions always exist, and still are able to nourish our hope and
solidarity, but, as a general rule, religious teachings in Latin Amer-
ica seem ever more ineffectual, ever less able to avert the growing
tide of violence. Our religious talk seems more and more distant
from the real situations that current social models are imposing on
us. One has the impression that the churches propose solutions
drawn from a world that is ever more foreign to us, and courses of
action that are ever less feasible for the great majority of their mem-
bers. The churches’ recommendations are not being followed even
within religious institutions themselves. They invalidate their own
solutions by almost inevitably participating in the system’s logic. It
seems that the difficulties are to be found not only on the level of
language or of the messages transmitted by the mass media. Some-
thing in contemporary culture quite simply has more power than
our sincere will to do good. Something virtually obliges us to accept
what we do not want in order to get by as best we can. We are
becoming increasingly aware that we are immersed in a kind of
“evil” that we have not chosen, or have chosen only indirectly, and
that we have no idea how to get out of it. How can we come to an
understanding of this problem and the dilemmas it raises? And how
can we imagine ways out?
 That All May Have Life 197

The Destruction of Green Things, of Diversity,

and of Our Symbols
Our original religious-symbolic world was constructed on a base
that used reference points that communicated something we were
already living out deeply and existentially. When we spoke of lilies,
flowers, and green things, or of the animals in the jungles, the beau-
ty of rivers, or the breaking of bread, these were all realities that
pointed to a certain existential truth, to more or less concrete expe-
riences that all of us were familiar with.
Today, in many places, the “lilies of the field” barely even exist,
and we do not often see the blue of the sky. We hardly ever find
springs of pure water or breathe air that invigorates us. Pollution
and the destruction of plant life are taking over in cities and even in
the countryside.
We hardly remember anymore what it is like to break bread in
community or to tremble with joy. Many people have almost no
bread, and others no longer know what it means to share, to “break
bread together.” We have virtually forgotten what it means to “be
like little children.” Today we fear children, those who crowd the
streets watching for the chance to violently snatch a crust of bread
from us. We live in a society that is afraid of children! This is the
most absurd of all absurdities! In Latin American cities, when we
pull up at a stoplight and see a group of kids in the distance, we
immediately roll up the windows. They frighten us, attack us, and
are even capable of killing us. And this is because they themselves
are being attacked and killed by the hundreds and thousands by an
exclusionary society that prepares a future only for the privileged
elites.
Our values and symbols are no longer grounded in concrete,
lived experience. They appear to have been reduced to empty phras-
es, or perhaps to the nostalgic words we still use in order to recall
situations that are barely even part of our experience. This is a
social problem, but it is also a deeply religious one. The symbols we
use to name our dreams have been defiled and are too feeble to
impart energy to our lives. The symbols we use to refer to the things
that are important to us have become worn out, bankrupt.
198 Longing for Running Water

How can the truth make us free and allow us to survive if we are
forced continually to lie? Almost everything in our world is based
on lies. In order to sell our product, we say it’s the best, even though
we know it’s really one of the worst. In order to keep our jobs, we
curry favor by praising an incompetent boss. We teach our children
not to lie, but we know we need to lie again and again in this soci-
ety shot through with hypocrisy, manifold futilities, and contempt
for those who fail to heed its ways.
Many teachers repeat things they no longer believe, and are
afraid to teach out of their deepest convictions, because they would
risk losing their jobs or the social recognition they enjoy. We cover
our ears to corruption at all levels and in every institution, pretend-
ing that it hardly exists in order to hold on to our positions. Cheat-
ing, competition, lying, backstabbing, and shameless robbery are
the law that governs market morality—and, to some extent, that of
the churches as well. All our lands seem to be saturated with the
same poison, and all peoples are lumped together in a kind of
“gospel of perdition,” to use the words of Edgar Morin.*
Could this shared perdition, this shared historical destiny, per-
haps be the tragic beginning of a new path of solidarity? Religions
of instant salvation are growing; they offer miraculous cures,
promise jobs, do exorcisms, appear to give people an identity, and
generate moments of shared euphoria. But even as these religions
play into the hands of the established system, they seem not to see
the logic of destruction that is growing visibly in our economically
globalized society. They blame all evils on occult powers, demonic
possession, and other things that have virtually nothing to do with
our collective, historical responsibility.
There is a growing complicity with the dominant political pow-
ers on the part of the oldest and most traditional churches. The
alliances between “temporal” and “spiritual” powers still have not
disappeared, despite the growing autonomy of national govern-
ments. Silence, collusion, conniving, and trade-offs seem to be stan-
dard institutional behaviors.
And what religion prevails? What is the religion that “recon-
nects” our world and our relationships? What kind of “reconnec-
tion” is going on among us?> Are we not dealing with a kind of
metareligion, a religion handed down and institutionalized by the
international economic market?
 That All May Have Life 199

This is the religion with which a salvific “new covenant” is being

sealed in order to guarantee our survival. The representatives of
these divinities are the new “priesthood” with whom we have to
conduct our religious sharing. It has all the earmarks of a violent,
“warrior” religion that dominates us and governs our relationships.
To all appearances, this is the religion we practice in our daily strug-
gle to survive, by means of deceitful relationships, the environmen-
tal pollution that makes our air unbreathable, and the overarching
lie that envelops us all.
Religion is no longer the “sigh of the oppressed” or the “heart
of a world without a heart,” as Feuerbach said, because it itself has
been absorbed by the consumer market, it itself legitimates political
deals, it itself has lost its “essence” and its salvific power, and it
itself has ended up with no heart. I feel we are being called to a new
kind of reflection, one that leads us to ask ourselves what we mean
by “religion.” This is a most urgent task, for it is tied to the very
survival of the human species on this planet.

Religion and Community Life

Another very practical matter, one that directly concerns the life of
women in various parts of Brazil and Latin America, is the issue of
community life. How can we build community in the midst of the
anonymity of life in big cities? How can we live in community when
the TV beckons us to shut ourselves inside with our favorite pro-
gram? How can we live in community when suspicion and fear
begin to threaten our relationships in the neighborhood and on the
block?
Various groups with whom I have reflected on ecofeminist the-
ology manifest growing discontent not only with traditional theo-
logical content and traditional religious symbols but also with the
absence of alternative spaces in which they can express themselves
or create alternative celebrations that manifest their deepest beliefs.
Such spaces, or communities, would help us discover meaning in
our lives and would also support us in reflecting on what to tell our
children.
Only rarely can churches and chapels continue to be regarded as
alternative community spaces, for they continue to be dominated by
200 Longing for Running Water

the established powers. Besides that, they seem too big, too roomy,
and too cold. Yet our homes are too small to serve this purpose.
I have often heard concerned mothers ask how they can speak to
their children of God. “What God should I speak of?” they ask.
“Will my children grow up in a world without religion?” “Who will
offer them guidance so they can behave ethically?”
“The religion taught in Christian schools and parishes is more
and more foreign to our children’s aspirations and concerns,” they
go on. “It fails to encourage more loving and merciful attitudes.”
“Where and how can we live out the more open and integral per-
spective we dream of?”
Many of these questions reflect the insecurity of mothers who
are dissatisfied with traditional Christian ways. These mothers have
no new or secure guidelines, nor do they have a human community
that supports and upholds them in exploring their incipient ques-
tioning and in building new convictions.
The crisis in traditional religious teachings, not to mention the
profound crisis in the society in which we live, is being felt in the
most diverse groups. And those who are going through this crisis
want not to deny it, but to take it on as a challenge for the present
and for the future.
I think the most fundamental need many women are feeling is to
have a “place,” a small community in which their questions and
convictions can be shared; a place to which they can, little by little,
introduce their children. I believe this felt need expresses the age-old
need to live out faith in community. Community appears as a con-
structive and creative place that not only supports us in living our
lives but affirms our convictions, sustains us in moments of doubt,
and gives us the energy to persevere. The model of the early Chris-
tian communities might be inspiring in some ways, but it has been
used so often by the patriarchal world that it is no longer able to
generate much enthusiasm for nourishing new communities. Besides
that, the ideal they propose seems ever more distant from our real
ability to live out the kind of sharing that can ensure that none
among us are hungry or needy. Still, in the light of the real problems
we face, surely we can salvage these texts and understand the con-
crete guidelines for action that they offer us.
 That All May Have life 201

We could also have a look at the Christian base communities

that are so widespread—and so much talked about—in Latin Amer-
ica. It is important to remember, however, that although in some
places they retain their organizational (but not doctrinal or liturgi-
cal) autonomy, in other places they are totally dependent on the
parochial model and are directly or indirectly controlled by priests.
What to do? How to create something that is really the fruit of
our dreams, of our wombs, and of the space we need in order to live
with greater dignity? These questions haunt us because the answers
we have are still not very helpful. Here and there, we witness
attempts at the creation of small communities, but what we see so
far is that they will require a great deal more work before what
most groups are looking for can become even a partial reality.
What we can affirm is that in many groups there is an uneasiness
with the traditional Christian theological framework and a felt need
for new community settings. At the same time—and this is impor-
tant—the feelings I have described cannot be said to be widespread.
Many groups that call themselves Christian are satisfied with tradi-
tional settings and traditional symbolic expressions. For many peo-
ple, the traditional framework still works, as do parish communities
and traditional religious movements. It is not possible to speak of a
widespread crisis in the Christian perspective in this sense.
In fact, when examining the situation of religion, we always
need to ask ourselves specific questions. For example, Who is in cri-
sis? Who is talking about a crisis, and why? What religion seems to
be in crisis? What language is in crisis? and What are people’s
unspoken hopes?
It is tempting to conclude that the groups suffering the most
intense crisis are intellectuals, and especially left intellectuals: par-
ticipants in social movements who originally got into them through
their religious faith. Women are also in crisis, especially those who,
prompted by patriarchal Christianity, have participated for years in
a variety of social organizations. Today, with the growth of the fem-
inist movement and with increasing criticism of patriarchy, there
has been a loss of traditional frameworks alongside an attempt to
recover the meaning of life through the struggle to affirm women’s
dignity.
202 Longing
for Running Water

However, a number of doubts could also be raised regarding the

existence of more widespread crisis. We are witnessing an impres-
sive growth throughout Latin America of fundamentalist, Pente-
costal, and charismatic religious movements. Worshipers crowd
into enormous stadiums, seeking catharsis by loudly praising God,
speaking in tongues, wailing, shouting, and so on. Salvation-orient-
ed TV programs are growing by leaps and bounds, and are broad-
cast not only on Sundays but on weekdays as well. Healings in the
name of Jesus, exorcisms (especially of women), and the resolution
of economic and emotional problems are “daily bread” on these TV
programs and in the various places of worship used by these reli-
gions. With all this, how can anyone speak of a crisis in religion, or
even of secularization? New gods and new demons struggle in the
public forum to separate the damned from the elect, the impure
from the pure, and the masters from the slaves.

A Religion That Isn’t in Crisis

Never has the Latin American world been so religious, and never
has it been so dependent on and enslaved to a model of society that
behaves like a “religion” and from which there seems, at first
glance, to be no escape. For some people, it seems contradictory to
speak of a religious crisis in the very midst of so much religious fer-
vor. It seems absurd to be questioning traditional patriarchal the-
ologies when religions without formal theologies are springing up
everywhere. I am referring to the various religious groups that have
large media audiences, and that do not begin with doctrinal content,
character formation, or a framework of articulated values. Rather,
these groups begin with addressing immediate felt needs, the pain
that throbs right now: intense emotions, the worries that upset an
apparently harmonious life, and the lack of full citizenship that is
felt by so many people in our countries.
Religions such as this with no formal theology are growing by
leaps and bounds. By responding to immediate needs, they are offer-
ing what the state and other social institutions have been unable to
provide. At the same time, they reinforce the hierarchical model of
society, in which only a few privileged people have the right to a
dignified life. For example, the new “media religions” play a role in
 That All May Have Life 203

offering spurious citizenship. For an hour or a day, the individual

feels esteemed, has the sense of being the center of attention, or
feels that the community is praying for him or her. Orphans have a
sense of being sons or daughters; the anonymous, as members of a
church, experience the feeling of being known; and the despised
enjoy a momentary sense of highly regarded personhood. Instead of
abandonment, there is a sense of being a child of God and a mem-
ber of a paternalistic tradition, and one can anticipate the harmony
of heaven.
The social structures upheld by the powerful are not questioned.
Indeed, the world of religion seems to take care of just about every-
thing. Solutions to personal problems come from extraterrestrial
beings, ahistorical entities who respond only if they are invoked
with fervor and insistence.
I am struck by the fact that I see unemployed men in my neigh-
borhood, some of whom are marginalized even within their own
families, who dress up in suits and ties on Sundays and go off to
worship. They are transformed. For a moment, they are no longer
“Joe Blow” but “Mr. Blow.” They enjoy an ephemeral taste of dig-
nity and feel like candidates for full citizenship. Later on, the daily
grind will return and very little will have changed for the better. But
at that moment, something has happened. At that moment, they
experience something positive, and perhaps this will be the impetus
for some future personal change that we, with our intellectual
analysis, are unable to perceive.
I'd like to point out, by way of contrast, that in these religious
movements women retain their subordinate social roles. They are
not even allowed the opportunity to raise critical questions. Also,
because some churches have cautioned women to avoid public scan-
dal and remain silent, situations of conjugal violence cannot be pub-
licly aired.
The search for social identity, full citizenship, and recognition,
which is ubiquitous among the impoverished, prompts us to recon-
sider the feminist or ecofeminist theology project. We see the limi-
tations of our work and of our movements, but still we believe in
them. Our effort to deconstruct patriarchal discourse and unmask
its ideological and exclusivist character has few supporters, at least
in the numerical sense. Is our work, our effort to build a new
204 Longing
for Running Water

theological content and to discover new principles in a variety of

traditions, threatened by religions with no formal theology? That
question is hard to answer.
What we know, in any case, is that there are small groups here
and there that believe in our work and are acting in ways that carry
through on our convictions. And we want to go on. We have no
idea what the future results of our efforts will be. All we know is
that these convictions and efforts are fundamental for our own lives
in the present, and that, despite all our difficulties, they have helped
a number of groups.
Another position that is very common among poor and working
people—one that does not appear to be suffering any crisis, least of
all in Brazil—is the de facto combination of different creeds or even
different ecclesial bodies within a single religious institution. Some
groups show a spontaneous attitude of inclusiveness, and members
make use of whatever elements they find useful. One can be a prac-
titioner of candomblé, and at the same time a member of the
Catholic fraternity of the Lord of Bonfim, of the Franciscan Third
Order, or of the charismatic movement. Or one can be a member of
the Catholic church, study theology with the Lutherans, and have a
guru in the spiritist tradition. These examples show the complexity
of religious phenomena in our day, as well as our inability to make
absolute and definite statements.
When you come right down to it, the origins and reasoning of
the different traditions are of interest only to researchers. The gen-
eral public has another way of reasoning, on the basis of which it
perceives reality and constructs meanings. The central point of this
reasoning has to do, on one hand, with the diversity of the tradi-
tions that lie at the roots of our culture,.and on the other with var-
ious sorts of needs, especially those that have to do with economic
survival. As we know, political and religious groups are very famil-
iar with our people’s problems and are capable of manipulating
people’s good faith for the sake of elite interests.
In our hour of need, we are likely to call upon anyone who
seems able to help us. We also can knock on different doors and get
different kinds of help. For this reason, it is ever more necessary to
welcome the diversity of groups and the diversity of their needs,
expressed or unexpressed. All this makes it still more difficult to
 That All May Have Life 205

understand all religious phenomena within a single analytical frame

of reference.
For me, these concrete concerns are one of the signs that we
need to rethink religion on the basis of new frames of reference. I
make no pretense of offering persuasive answers of my own, but I
am convinced that we must not avoid the task of reflecting on them
or endeavoring to take new steps, even at the risk of making
mistakes.

Religious Biodiversity:
A Path in Need of Rediscovery
What, exactly, is religion? This question always returns to haunt us,
above all when we struggle to rediscover the meaning of our lives
and pursue new forms of action. This question becomes ever more
important as religions are recruited into the service of established
powers and when they promote alienation or dull our consciousness.
Rubem Alves says that, unlike animals, human beings have
refused to be what the past suggested they should be.

They became inventors of worlds. They planted gardens and built

huts, houses, and palaces. They constructed drums, flutes, and
harps. They transformed their bodies, covering them with inks,
metals, marks, and textiles. They invented flags and erected altars.
They buried their dead and prepared them for the journey; and in
their absence they intoned laments day and night.”

This text inspires me to speak of the biodiversity of religions,

which goes along with the biodiversity of the cosmos and the earth,
and with the diversity of cultures. This is a biodiversity of “rebind-
ing” (re-ligare), of being re-linked or re-bound! Respect for biodi-
versity and for the organization of life according to the characteris-
tics of every region is an integral component of the ecological creed.
If we really believe our lives are related to the places and times in
which we live, then there are many conclusions to be drawn.
To speak of the biodiversity of religions is, first of all, to cultivate
in ourselves an attitude of respect fordiversity among the languages
that depict the meaning ‘of life. In this sense, religion is a language. It
206 Longing
for Running Water

does not matter whether the meaning has been written down or not.
The important thing is to recognize that human beings, men and
women, are incapable of simply obeying their biological program-
ming; they seek the meaning of the world though their bodies and
beyond them. Biology becomes culture; it is transformed by the great
variety of human groups and organized according to the needs of
each. In other words, our lives are always more than our own
boundaries and always less than the unlimited character we would
like to give them. This is simply the paradox that we are.
This vital diversity of meanings has always been present in
human history. However, we know how much human groups resist
recognizing this reality and tend to absolutize their own truths,
attempting to impose them as supreme verities. Religion ends up
playing the games of proselytism and power tactics. But religion
also appears in our history as an expression of human ingenuity, as
a style of “building” worlds and meanings that relate to daily life
and give it direction—as well as flavors and colors of its own.
Although they have arisen in specific contexts in answer to specific
questions, religions have often tended to take on an absolutist, impe-
rialist character. The temptation to dismiss religious languages that
are different from our own has become a commonplace behavior.
When a religious language shows signs of claiming imperialist
universality and struggles to impose itself and eliminate others, it is
guilty of obstructing the flow of biodiversity. It closes itself off with-
in its own truth and can become destructive. And the breakdown of
biodiversity affects not only the most immediate human relation-
ships but also social groups: It ends up impinging on physical spaces,
which become objects of religious aggression. History has shown us
many examples of this. When they appropriated a given territory,
colonial systems took over the people as well, destroying traditional
beliefs and seeking to impose their own. The destruction of the earth
is accompanied by the destruction of the belief systems that link this
particular people with this particular geographical area.
Although it takes different forms today, the same process of
destruction continues. What is most disturbing is the subtle and
aggressive way it is presented in the communications media: people
are prevented from asking questions about their hopes, their deep-
est beliefs, and the directions they want their lives to take. The new
 That All May Have Life 207

divinity, in the image of the “consumer market,” seduces us; we

allow ourselves to be guided by its dreams and the paradise of hap-
piness it promises. The new divinity demands constant sacrifices,
especially on the part of certain groups of people, in order to be
allowed to approach its altars from afar, and smell, from the same
distance, the aroma of its incense. As we have noted, the new divin-
ity and its priesthood award prizes to some and punish others, sub-
tly reproducing the ancient patterns of dualistic religion.
To speak of religious biodiversity is to open the door to another
set of considerations, even though we are aware of their inherent
limitations. Biodiversity exists not only among totally different reli-
gious traditions, but also within each individual confession. Within
confessions, we find not the drama of differing religions, but that of
shared human living, with all its joys and adversities. Thus we also
find the need to begin weaving qualitative ties among people
through small communities with shared interests.
I believe we ought to reflect deeply on the scientific, biological
notion of biodiversity, but not, as it might seem, in order to create
some new reductionism. This is not a matter of reducing the rela-
tionships among humans and the various branches of human knowl-
edge to a biological-ecological paradigm of the diversity of life. We
have had enough reductionism! Rather, we need to be aware of the
extent to which the universalistic, imperialist attitudes so deeply
rooted in the patriarchal world make it hard for us to understand
why there is no single, overarching theory that can explain the whole
universe and all the situations and relationships within it.
To speak of biodiversity is not, first and foremost, to offer a the-
ory, but rather to call attention to the empirical reality of natural
systems, of the arts, of the sciences, of the history of cultures, and of
religions. To speak of religious and cultural biodiversity is to
attempt to give the human community a structure that will once
again allow it to live out relationships that are more personal, clos-
er to nature, and in deeper contact with the dreams and hopes of the
great variety of human groups.
Biodiversity can obviously be observed within every family, in
the way each child is different, in the variety of likes and dislikes in
food, in affinities, in temperaments, and so on. Nothing can be
reduced to a single form of expression without incurring the danger
208 Longing
for Running Water

that insistence on this single form of expression will kill life itself.
To speak of biodiversity is to affirm the fact of process, of the evo-
lution of the cosmos, of the earth, and of all beings—and their need
to organize their shared living in a variety of ways. This evolution-
ary and process-oriented quality also marks our deepest and most
ancient beliefs. So, to bring biodiversity into theological reflection is
to open ourselves up to pluralism in the expressions of Christian
experience, and therefore to change our understanding of what
“unity” is. It is not a matter, as some people think, of losing our
identity; rather, we seek to make this identity as authentic as possi-
ble, as close as possible to the way we in fact live our lives, as close
as possible to the domains in which our lives unfold. Thus, biodi-
versity requires a new effort to form small faith communities that
can develop a common language capable of duly respecting every
group. What unites us is the desire to reconstruct our human rela-
tionships and to develop in ourselves the values of sharing and
mercy that are so often forgotten by the current system. What unites
us is the need to feel, once again, the warmth of bodies around a
common table, the need to be persons and not just numbers among
so many others. What unites us is the desire to create a common
language, to reclaim symbols that are connected to our history and
that evoke the noblest things in us.
As Rubem Alves says in the poetic opening of his book, O sus-
piro dos oprimidos,

Did you know that religion is a language?

A style of speaking about the world...
In everything, the presence of hope and meaning...
Religion is the tapestry hope weaves with words.
And upon these webbings people lie down and sleep.
And they rest on words interlaced with one another.
How does one intertwine words?
Simple words.
Like desire.
I know that sometimes the webbings of love turn into shrouds of
fear. :
They are webbings that could speak of life or of death.
And all this is done with words and desire.
So in order to understand religion, we must understand the ways
of language.®
 That All May Have Life 209

And the ways of speaking about the world, of weaving webs,

are so varied—and so beautiful in their variety! Why not take this
art seriously when we want to give expression to our religious con-
victions, to our relationship with Jesus, and to all that in fact cre-
ates meaning for us? Why not take advantage of the various spaces
we still have and propose alternative languages, meanings, and
friendships?
Patriarchal religions weave not only shrouds of fear, but also
shrouds of death. The extremes of anthropocentrism and andro-
centrism, which are especially present in Christianity, become
accomplices and legitimators of the destruction that is taking place
in our midst.
Religious biodiversity gives a heartfelt welcome to the diversity
of tapestries. It is an exercise of going beyond our striving to make
one single group the herald of a one-and-only truth, the self-
appointed bearer of salvific formulas for everybody. Religious bio-
diversity implies an attitude of humility, which means that there
cannot be absolute powers that regulate and dictate the meaning of
life, or of the art of weaving meaning, or of the art of evoking pres-
ences that are dear to us.
Besides, a tapestry cannot be eternal, atemporal, or valid forev-
er. It will lose its beauty and its aesthetic qualities. Ephemeral things
enjoy the eternity of the present moment, and in this resides their
evocative and inspirational task. Often the tapestry has to be rewo-
ven, even if some of the old designs are copies—or even though we
can manage to reuse some threads that have not decayed. This is re-
creation, religious biodiversity, respect for new moments, creative
inspiration, and the welcoming of new hands prepared to weave
marvelous designs.
Some people may object that not all religions are acceptable,
because some of them have been created on the basis of a destructive
mentality. They systematically exclude and kill those they judge to be
enemies of their beliefs. But barbarity, too, is a de facto characteris-
tic of religions. This observation has been verified throughout this
planet, in all times and places. These are the excesses of religion, and
when religion begins to generate excesses it no longer preserves its
original religious meaning. It becomes dictatorial politics, or imperi-
alism arrayed in the garments of goodness, mercy, and religion.
210 Longing
for Running Water

To respect religious biodiversity is not the same as saying that

anything at all is acceptable or that we should give up our struggle
against the powers of destruction that make themselves manifest in
the religious domain. But who gives us the authority to say that
such and such a religious behavior is destructive? I think there is a
consensus among the various human groups, a kind of fundamen-
tal intuition, that leads us to affirm, despite our disagreements, that
certain behaviors cannot be said to promote life. We say this in the
awareness that we are always in danger of being in error, of deceiv-
ing ourselves, and of failing to exercise wisdom in discerning our
chosen paths. However, we have no way of discerning and knowing
our world other than our fragile human process. ;
We are led, on account of this, to admit the paradoxical charac-
ter of human life. Our certainties are always limited, and so they
always need to be contextualized. Our “salvific” efforts are always
precarious and limited. Therefore, we need to make bargains in
order to live, in order to discern what the common good is; and, in
this way, to construct an ethics on the basis of which shared life and
solidarity extending beyond my people or my own small group
become possible. And this prospect of a wider ethic can begin with
a simple reflection on what our bodies need.
As Umberto Eco says in an interview published in the Folha de
Sao Paulo,

[i]t is possible to build an ethics based on respect for the activities

of our bodies: drinking, urinating, defecating, sleeping, making
love, speaking, listening, etc. . . To force someone to live upside
down is an intolerable form of torture . . . Rape fails to respect
another’s body. All forms of racism and exclusion constitute, in
the last analysis, ways of denying the body of another. We could
re-read the entire history of ethics in light of the rights of bodies
and the relationship between our bodies and the world.?

It is in this sense that to accept religious biodiversity is also to

accept a common framework to which all traditions ought to
adhere. This common framework is the sole foundation upon which
all religions and creeds are born and subsist. This shared framework
has to do with the shared responsibility we all need to take upon
 That All May Have Life 211

ourselves in caring for nature, for all human groups, and, in the last
analysis, for the living body that evolves and to which we belong.
As Eugen Drewermann says, “It is not enough merely to remember
that the world is God’s creation, or even to speak out, as some
politicians do, in favor of or against nuclear energy. We need a fun-
damental new religious reflection that is able to break with tradi-
tional Judeo-Christian anthropocentrism in order to recover a sense
of unity and a shared religious experience of the world—notions
that in the history of Western ideas have always been combated as
anti-Christian, pantheist, or even atheist.”1°
This challenge will open us up to an understanding not only of
the Christian experience but of others as well, based on a frame of
reference that incorporates a broader understanding of universal
brotherhood/sisterhood and a devotion to all the manifestations of
this one and multiform Sacred Body.
As Thomas Berry says,

[t]he ecological age fosters the deep awareness of the sacred pres-
ence within every reality of the Universe. There is an awe and a
reverence due to the stars in the heavens, the sun, and all heaven-
ly bodies; to the seas and the continents; to all living forms of trees
and flowers; to the myriad expressions of life in the sea; to the ani-
mals of the forests and the birds of the air . . . Our primary need
for the various life-forms of the planet is a psychic, rather than a
physical, contact.!!

It is in this last phrase that we find the great challenge to our-

selves: the challenge of educating ourselves and the coming genera-
tions for the building of a subjective bonding with all beings, a link-
age that is capable of halting the process of exploitation and
destruction of the planet and its population. We still have not man-
aged to break away from our anthropocentrism, our androcentrism,
and, above all, our exaggerated fascination with consumerism. This
attitude has in a certain sense become our body, our psyche, and our
way of organizing the world.
We have a long road ahead; we cannot lag behind without
appreciating the high cost in lives that our position brings about,
for, as John Cobb says, it may already be too late.!? Religions have
212 Longing
for Running Water

an undeniable social role in helping us to develop the sensibilities

we need in order to love the earth and the human community in the
light of the indissoluble communion among all beings.
Although we need to recognize that the various churches and
religions have taken few steps toward the necessary and urgent
rethinking of their dogmatic pronouncements, we can also affirm
that in all of them there are small groups that are increasingly sen-
sitive to these challenges and are opening up alternative ways of liv-
ing. This growing sensitivity is at the same time nourishing the hope
that within patriarchal religions themselves there can be alternative
spaces that allow us to avoid complicity with worldwide devasta-
tion, spaces that open a way to lives of effective and affective com-
munion. I believe that this is the way in which we will find a new
meaning for religion and a new inspiration for our hope.
Alice Walker, the extraordinary U.S. novelist, invites us to think
about the beatitudes, or “helpings” (realities that can in fact help
us), on the basis of our religious communion, which is related to the
earth and to all living things. Her inspiration remains as a “pro-
vocation” to a religious faith that is beyond all religions:

Helped are those who love the Earth, their mother, and who will-
ingly suffer that she may not die; in their grief over her pain they
will weep rivers of blood, and in their joy in her lively response to
love, they will converse with trees .. .
Helped are those who find the courage to do at least one small
thing each day to help the existence of another—plant, animal,
river, human being. They shall be joined by multitude of the timid.
Helped are those who lose their fear of death; theirs is the power
to envision the future in a blade of grass.
Helped are those who love and actively support the diversity of
life; they shall be secure in their differentness.
Helped are those who know.!3
 4 ear ap
AS THE DEER LONGS
FOR RUNNING WATERS
—_~_E—~
See
—

This epilogue returns to the psalm that inspired its title. Its purpose
is to say that there is much left to say. Its purpose is to say that many
things I have said could have been said in other, perhaps more “gra-
cious,” ways. I conclude by pointing to the tentative character of
this song of hope marked by pain and perplexity.
It is the song of an exile who longs for return to her land, to her
God, and to her loves.
Let us make this song/lament into our final song as exiles on our
own earth, which is divided and plagued by boundaries and by pro-
hibitions on entering and leaving. A strange song of exile, sung
within our own body and feeling that it barely belongs to itself. . .
the song of one who seeks answers and knows that the few she will
find are fragile and ephemeral.
It is the stubborn song of one who seeks, despite everything, the
beauty of the ephemeral, of that “something” that always escapes
us, even when we insist on trying to hold it fast. It is the song of one
who seeks to rediscover arms and embraces, love poems, and rea-
sons for beginning to hope once again. It is the song that is born of
the body, and born of the earth... .
An earth where the number of displaced persons increases . . . of
refugees, prisoners, and the homeless, of those who are hungry for
love and for bread. An earth that is burned, robbed, exhausted,
asa
214 Longing
for Running Water

devastated, divided up, and poorly loved. It is our land and a for-
eign land! A land of friends and enemies! A hostile earth and a
mother earth, a homeland earth, a brother earth and a sister earth.
A land of pain and hopeful longings . . .
Our longings are expressions of our hope. And when we long
for hope, it is because our own ability to hope has fallen ill. Despite
this we still have the strength to hope once again.
In the blind darkness of our days, we have little idea how to
hope for what we hope for, how to heal our wounds, restore our
strength, or quench our thirst. This is why we say that our hope is
ailing, that our Sacred Body is ailing.
This is surely not a fatal illness, one that is bound to end in
death; rather, it is a serious ailment that brings with it the gravest of
risks. It is a sickness that threatens us, because it has already killed
part of our Sacred Body. It is an ailment that we ourselves have in a
certain sense created, one that is born of ourselves, of our excesses
and our violence.
This affliction is both good and bad for us. It is the fruit of our
wombs. . . . It began as something good and turned into something
evil. It is an affliction that is part of our being, of our daily lives, of
our relationships, and of the entire earth.
Our hope is as diseased as we ourselves are! From where shall
our salvation come? Who will drag us out of the filth that we our-
selves have produced? Who will rescue us from the foul odor that
obliterates our sense of smell, from the corruption we unceasingly
breathe? Who will put an end to the endless violence in which we
have become entangled?
Who will save us from unlimited progress, from the idols of
money and power? Who will save us from our own prejudices, from
our inability to look for change?
On what doors can we knock in seeking help? Before what
altars can we pray? What gods will be willing to lend us a hand?
Even the green things we eat have been poisoned as they grew!
Where shall we go? Who will come to our aid?
Bewildered, we wander about like someone who no longer has
a sense of being diseased. Drunken, we no longer sense the excess of
drink in which we are awash. Drugged, we no longer recognize our
condition or muster the will to drag ourselves away from its stupe-
 Epilogue 215

fying effects. Fascinated by our false images, we no longer know

who we are.
And yet the flowers go on budding, and birds and children still
come forth. ... The sun shines again today, and last night the moon
swept the sky with its silvery light. . . . Once again, I smell the
tempting aroma of the kitchen, and the hope of tender meetings per-
vades my body.
To seek living waters is to prefigure our hope. . . . And the living
water is life itself since its very beginning, since its primordial reali-
ty, since its origins still present in ourselves.
To seek living waters is to seek an atmosphere that is propitious
for life, and to respectfully permit the development of all forms of
life.
This book is no more than an “aspiration,” a “con-spiracy,” a
“breathing with” by one who wants “a new heaven and a new
earth” to spring from this very ground.
“As the deer longs for running waters,” so we join our longing
with hers.
Hungry and thirsty, we expect to see hope spring up once again
in our own womb, in the womb of the earth, out of our entrails,
out of the Divine that lives within us and renews us. Like the deer,
we move forward seeking what will bring us to life, what will enliv-
en our Sacred Body with its thousand and one lives. Like the deer,
we have sensed the “living waters” from afar; and now we run
toward them, but with no certitudes . . . barely allowing our goal
to keep us alive, to keep us dreaming and to prepare us for the next
step on the way.
“As the deer longs for living waters,” we live in thankfulness for
those who carry within them the fragile stubbornness of seeking, of
ceaseless searching.

My body is thirsty for this water...

For the water of life...
the life of water...
When will we go to drink it?
And to tremble with joy with the multitude of the poor,
With the trees and flowers,
With the fishes and birds,
216 Longing
for Running Water

With the stars and the moon,

With the rain and the wind,
With the snow and the dew,
With the sun and the entire earth.
“As the deer longs for running waters. . .”
 NOTES

PROLOGUE
1. As Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva say, the word “ecofemi-
nism” is a new term for an ancient wisdom. It was introduced at the
end of the 1970s or the beginning of the 1980s. It was first used by
Francoise d’Eaubonne and became popular in the context of femi-
nist struggles against the destruction of the environment. Cf. Maria
Mies and Vandana Shiva, Ecofeminism (Halifax, N.S.: Fernwood
Publications; London; Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Zed Books, 1993),
Res

INTRODUCTION
1. Leila da Costa Ferreira, “A politica ambiental no Brasil,” in
Mulier e meio ambiente, ed. Centro Informacao Mulher, S40 Paulo
(CIM) and Centro Ecuménico de Documentagao e Informagao
(CEDI), March 1992, 20, 21.
2. Marcel Gauchet, Le désenchantement du monde: Une his-
toire politique de la religion (Paris: Gallimard, 1985).
3. Leonardo Boff, Ecologia, mundializagao, espiritualidade (Sao
Paulo: Ed. Atica, 1993); Frei Betto, A obra do artista: Uma visao
holistica do Universo (Sao Paulo: Ed. Atica, 1995).
4. See O rostro indio de Deus (Sao Paulo: Colegado Teologia e
Libertacao, 1989).
5. Rosiska Darcy de Oliveira, Elogio da Diferenga: o feminino
emergente (Sao Paulo: Ed. Brasiliense, 1991), 103.
6. Bila Sorj, “O Feminino como metafora da natureza,” Revista
de Estudos Feministas, CIEC, Escola de Comunicagao UFRJ o
(1992), 149.
pe 4
218 Longing
for Running Water

7. Nicole Claude Mathieu, “Questions a |’eco-féminisme,”

Ecologia, Feminismo, Desenvolvimento, ed. Maria Inacia d’ Avila e
Naumi de Vasconcelos, EICOS-UFRJ 1 (1993): 129.
8. Maria Mies and Vadana Shiva, Ecofeminism (Halifax, N.S.:
Fernwood Publications; London; Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Zed
Books, 1993), 160.
9. Carolyn Merchant, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology,
and Scientific Revolution (San Francisco: Harper, 1980), 2.
10. Con-spirando, revista latinoamericana de ecofeminismo,
espiritualidad y teologia, Santiago, Chile, 1 (March 1992): 1.
11. Con-spirando 4 (June 1993): I.
12. Rosa Domingo Trapasso, “Ecofeminismo: revisando nuestra
conexion con la naturaleza,” Con-spirando 4 (June 1993): 3.

CHAPTER 1. KNOWING OUR KNOWING

1. Eduardo Galeano, The Book of Embraces, trans. Cedric Bel-
frage (New York: Norton, 1991), 73.
2. Carlos Mesters, Paraiso, saudade ou esperanca (Petropolis,
Brazil: Vozes, 1971), 31.
3. Cullen Murphy, “Women and the Bible,” Atlantic Monthly
(August 1993): 50.
4. Ronaldo Mufioz, O Deus dos cristaos (Petrépolis, Brazil:
Vozes, 1986), 26.
5. Jon Sobrino, Cristologia desde América Latina (Mexico City:
Centro de Reflexién Teolégica, 1977).
6. Gustavo Gutiérrez, Teologia de la liberacién (Madrid:
Sigueme, 1970), 250. Cf. A Theology of Liberation: History, Poli-
tics, and Salvation, trans. Sr. Caridad Inda and John Eagleson
(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1973), 193-94.
7. Gustavo Gutiérrez, “La opcién preferencial por los pobres,”
in La religion en los albores del siglo XXI (Bilbao, Spain: Universi-
dad de Deusto, 1994), 116.
8. Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist
Theology of Earth Healing (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1992),
250.
9. Ibid., 33-34.
10. Seyla Benhabib, Situating the Self (New York: Routledge,
Chapman, and Hall, 1992), 213.
 Notes 219

CHAPTER 2. THE HUMAN PERSON FROM AN

ECOFEMINIST PERSPECTIVE
1. Paul Ricoeur, Histoire et vérité (Paris: Seuil, 1955), 118.
2. Emmanuel Mounier, O Personalismo, 2d ed. (Lisbon: Livraria
Morais Editora, 1964).
3. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City: Libreria
Editrice Vaticana, 1994).
4. [The Portuguese language uses the same word to designate
both “conscience” and “consciousness.” —Trans.]
5. Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry, The Universe Story (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992).
6. Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gaia and God (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 31.
7. Jean Ladriére, “Le probléme de l’Ame et du corps dans la con-
ception classique,” in B. Feltz and D. Lambert, Entre le corps et l’es-
prit (Liége: Mardaga,1995), 14.
8. Brian Swimme, The Universe Is a Green Dragon (Santa Fe:
Bear and Co., 1984).

CHAPTER 3. GOD: AN ECOFEMINIST APPROACH

1. Sallie McFague, The Body of God: An Ecological Theology
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 20.
2. Emmanuel Levinas, Le temps et l'autre (Paris: PUK, 1979).
3. Edgar Morin and Anne Brigitte Kern, Terre-Patrie (Paris:
Seuil, 1993), 198.
4. Levinas, Le temps et l’autre, 28.
5. Julia Esquivel, “Elecci6n,” in Florescerds Guatemala (Mexico
City: Ediciones CUPSA, 1989), 12.
6. McFague, The Body of God, 149-50.
7. Ernesto Cardenal, “Cantiga 5: Stars and Fireflies,” in Cosmic
Canticle (Willimantic, Conn.: Curbstone Press, 1993), 39.
8. Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva, Ecofeminism (Halifax, N.S.:
Fernwood Publications; London; Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Zed
Books, 1993), 15.
g. Carol J. Adams, ed., Ecofeminism and the Sacred (New York:
Continuum, 1993).
220 Longing
for Running Water

to. See, for example, Coca Trillini, De la piramide al arco iris,

Cuaderno de trabajo sobre mujer y biblia (Buenos Aires: Paulinas,
1995).
11. Sallie McFague, Models of God: A Theology for a Nuclear
Age (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987).
12. McFague, The Body of God, 152.

CHAPTER 4. ECOFEMINISM AND THE TRINITY

1. Elisabeth Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Fem-
inist Theological Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 1993).
2. Karl Rahner, The Trinity (London: Burns and Oates/Herder
and Herder), 1970.
3. Robert Lentz, “The Celtic Trinity,” Creation Spirituality (Jan-
uary—February 1991).
4. Sandra Schneiders, “God Is More than Two Men and a Bird:
An Interview with Sister Sandra Schneiders,” U.S. Catholic (May
1990): 20-27.
5. Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gaia and God (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992).
6. Michel Maffiesoli, Le temps des tribus (Paris: Ed. Méridiens
Klincksieck, 1988).
7. Rodolfo Mondolfo, El pensamiento antiguo, desde los ori-
genes hasta Platon, 4th ed. (Buenos Aires: Editorial Losada, 1959),
47.
8. Leonardo Boff, A trindade, a sociedade e a libertacao
(Petrépolis, Brazil: Vozes, 1986).
9. Brian Swimme, The Universe Is a Green Dragon (Santa Fe:
Bear and Co., 1984), 28.
to. See Paul Ricoeur, Finitude et culpabilité II: La symbolique
du mal (Paris: Aubier, 1960); Adolphe Gesché, Le mal (Paris: Cerf,
1993).
rr. [“Severinas and Antonios” refers to poor people who are
able to turn their suffering into compassion, love, mercy, poetry,
and social action. Severina is the heroine of Morte e Vida Severina,
a well-known Brazilian poem/novel by Jodo Cabral de Mello Neto,
which describes the suffering of poor peasants in northeastern
Brazil; Severina and Antonio are very common names among the
poor. —Trans. |
 Noted 221

12. Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth (New York: Double-

day, 1988), 230-31.

CHAPTER 5. JESUS FROM AN

ECOFEMINIST PERSPECTIVE
1. Ivone Gebara, “Cristologia Fundamental,” Revista Eclesias-
tica Brasileira 48 (1988): 259-72.
2. The Council of Nicaea, held in 325 during the pontificate of
Pope Silvester I, proclaimed the Nicene Creed in opposition to the
teachings of the heretic Arius. It affirmed the consubstantiality of
the Son with the Father. The Council of Chalcedon, held in 451 dur-
ing the pontificate of Celestine I, proclaimed that Christ had two
natures, one divine and one human, in a single person. See Hubert
Jedin, Bréve histoire des conciles (Tournai, Belgium: Desclée, 1960).
3. Louis Bouyer, Le fils éternel: Théologie de la parole de Dieu
et christologie (Paris: Cerf, 1974); Joseph Moingt, L Homme qui
venait de Dieu (Paris: Cerf, 1994); Jon Sobrino, Cristologia desde
América Latina (Mexico City: Centro de Reflexion Teoldgica,
1977).
4. Sallie McFague, The Body of God (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1993).
5. Ibid., 159.
6. Tissa Balasuriya, “Right Relationships: The De-routing and
Re-routing of Christian Theology,” Logos 30 (September—Decem-
ber 1991): 204. (published by the Center for Society and Religion,
Colombo, Sri Lanka).

CHAPTER 6. THAT ALL MAY HAVE LIFE

1. Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gaia and God (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 251.
2. Sigmund Freud, L’avenir d’une illusion (Paris: Quadrige/
Presses Universitaires de France, 1995), 18. E.T.: The Future of an
Illusion, ed. James Strachey (New York: Norton, 1989).
3. Hugo Assmann and Franz Hinkelammert, A idolatria do mer-
cado: Ensaio sobre economia e Teologia (Petrépolis, Brazil: Vozes,
1989).
4. Edgar Morin, Terre-Patrie (Paris: Seuil, 1993).
222 Longing for Running Water

5. [In Portuguese, the term re-ligar means to re-bind or recon-

nect. The author makes a play on words here, calling attention to
the original Latin etymology of the word “religion.” —Trans.]
6. Ludwig Feuerbach, L’Essence du Christianisme (Paris:
Maspero, 1982).
7. Rubem Alves, O que é a religiGo? 2nd ed. (Sao Paulo:
Brasiliense, 1981), 17.
8. Rubem Alves, O suspiro dos oprimidos (Sao Paulo, Brazil:
Paulinas, 1984), 16.
9. Humberto Eco, interview, Folha de Sao Paulo (Brazil) (April
1994): sec: 6, pi'7.
to. Eugen Drewermann, Le progres meurtrier (Paris: Stock,
1993), 86.
11. Thomas Berry, The Dream of the Earth (San Francisco: Sier-
ra Club, 1988), 46.
12. John B. Cobb, Is It Too Late? A Theology of Ecology (Bev-
erly Hills, Calif.: Bruce; 1972).
13. Alice Walker, “The Gospel according to Shug,” in The Tem-
ple of My Familiar (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989), 288-89.
Quoted in Sallie McFague, The Body of God: An Ecological Theol-
ogy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 212.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

I cannot offer a complete bibliography of works that deal directly

with ecofeminism. This list merely complements the reference notes,
offering a few more books that were present, in one way or anoth-
er, in my thinking as I wrote this reflection.

Adams, Carol, ed. Ecofeminism and the Sacred. New York: Con-
tinuum, 1993.
Alves, Rubem. O enigma da religiao. Petrépolis, Brazil: Vozes,
1975.
. O suspiro dos oprimidos. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Paulinas, 1984.
Berry, Thomas, with Thomas Clarke. Befriending the Earth: A The-
ology of Reconciliation between Humans and the Earth. Mystic,
Conn.: Twenty-third Publications, 1991.
Boff, Leonardo. Ecologia, Mundializacgado, Espiritualidade. Sao
Paulo: Atica, 1993. (Available in English as Ecology and Liber-
ation: A New Paradigm. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1995.)
. O rosto materno de Deus: Ensaio Interdisciplinar sobre o
feminino e suas formas religiosas. Petropolis: Vozes, 1979.
(Available in English as The Maternal Face of God: The Femi-
nine and Its Religious Espressions. San Francisco: Harper and
Row, 1987.)
. Paixado de Cristo, Paixado do Mundo: O fato, as interpre-
tacdes e o significado ontem e hoje. Petropolis: Vozes, 1977.
(Available in English as Passion of Christ, Passion of the World:
The Facts, Their Interpretation, and Their Meaning Yesterday
and Today. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1987.)
Boff, Leonardo, and Aloysius Pieris, eds. Poverty and Ecology. Con-
cilium 5 (1995). English edition from Orbis Books, Maryknoll,
N.Y.; French edition from Beauchesne, Paris.
Brown, Joanne Carlson, and Carole R. Bohn, eds. Christianity,
Patriarchy, and Abuse. Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 1989.

223
224 Longing
for Running Water

Chung Hyun Kyung. Struggle to Be the Sun Again: Introducing

Asian Women’s Theology. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1990.
Clifford, Anne M. “An Ecofeminist Proposal for Solidarity,” in In
the Embrace of God: Feminist Approaches to Theological
Anthropology, ed. Ann O’Hara Graff. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis
Books, 1995.
Daly, Mary. Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of
Women’s Liberation. Boston: Beacon Press, 1973.
d’Eaubonne, Francoise. “Feminism or Death,” in New French Fem-
inisms: An Anthology, ed. Elaine Marks and Isabelle de
Courtvron. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1980.
Facio, Alda. “Cuando el género suena, cambios trae.” GAIA, Cen-
tro de las Mujeres. Caracas, Venezuela: Fondo Editorial “La
Escarcha Azul,” 1995.
Feuerbach, Ludwig. L’Essence du christianisme. Paris: Maspero,
1982. (Available in English as The Essence of Christianity. New
York: Harper, 1957.)
Gassner, John. Mestres do teatro, trans. Alberto Guzik and J. Guins-
burg. Sao Paulo: Perspectiva, 1974.
Gebara, Ivone, and Maria Clara Bingemer. Maria Mae de Deus e
Mae dos Pobres. Petropolis: Vozes, 1987. (Available in English
as Mary: Mother of God, Mother of the Poor. Maryknoll, N.Y.:
Orbis Books, 1989.)
Gesché, Adolphe. Le cosmos. Paris: Cerf, 1994.
. Le mal. Paris: Cerf, 1993.
. homme. Paris: Cerf, 1993.
Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and
Women’s Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1982.
Girard, René. La violence et le sacré. Paris: Grasset, 1972. (Avail-
able in English as Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1977.) ~
. Des choses cachées depuis la fondation du monde. Paris:
Grasset, 1978. (Available in English as Things Hidden since the
Foundation of the World. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University
Press, 1987.)
Gounelle, André. Le Christ et Jésus. Paris: Desclée, 1 990.
Grant, Jacqueline. White Women’s Christ and Black Women’s Jesus.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
Habermas, Jiirgen. La technique et la science comme idéologie.
Paris: Gallimard, 1973.
 Bibliography 225

Hinkelammert, Franz. Sacrificios humanos y sociedad occidental:

Lucifer y la Bestia. San José, Costa Rica: DEI, 1991.
Hunt, Mary. Fierce Tenderness: A Feminist Theology of Friendship.
New York: Crossroad, r991.
Isasi-Diaz, Ada Maria, “Elements of a Mujerista Anthropology.” In
In the Embrace of God: Feminist Approaches to Theological
Anthropology, ed. Ann O’Hara Graff. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis
Books, 1995.
Johnson, Elisabeth. Women, Earth, and Creator Spirit. New York:
Paulist Press, 1993.
Kant, Emmanuel. Critique de la raison pure, 4th ed. Paris:
Quadrige/Presses Universitaires de France, 1993. (Available in
English as The Critique of Pure Reason. Chicago: Encyclopedia
Britannica, 1989.)
Kolakowski, Lezek. Modernity on Endless Trial (Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1990).
Lovelock, J. E. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1979. _
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Explained. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1993.
Maffesoli, Michel. Au creux des apparences: Pour une éthique de
Pesthétique. Paris: Plon, 1990.
“Meio Ambiente,” in Tempo e Presenca, Revista Bimestral do
CEDI. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (January-February 1992): 261.
Merchant, Carolyn. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and
the Scientific Revolution. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1980.
Mies, Maria. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale:
Women in the International Division of Labour. London: Zed
Books, 1986.
Mies, Maria, Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, and Claudia Von
Werlhof. Women: The Last Colony. London: Zed Books, 1988.
Moltmann, Jiirgen. Deus na Criacgao: Doutrina Ecologica da Cri-
aco. Petrépolis, Brazil: Vozes, 1993. (Available in English as
God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of
God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985.)
Moser, Antonio. O problema ecoldgico e suas implicagées éticas.
Petrépolis, Brazil: Vozes, 1983.
Rae, Eleanor. Women, the Earth, the Divine. Maryknoll, N.Y.:
Orbis Books, 1994.
226 Longing
for Running Water

Ress, Mary Judith, Ute Seibert-Cuadra, and Lene Sjorup, eds. Del
cielo a la tierra: Una antologia de teologia feminista. Santiago,
Chile: Sello Azul, 1994.
Ruether, Rosemary Radford. New Woman, New Earth. New York:
Seabury Press, 1975.
. Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology.
Boston: Beacon Press, 1983.
Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. London:
Unwin Paperbacks, 1987.
Russell, Peter. O despertar da terra, O cérebro global. Sao Paulo,
Brazil: Cultrix, 1991.
Salisbury, Joyce S. Padres de la iglesia, virgenes independientes.
Bogota: TM Editores, 1994.
Schiissler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theo-
logical Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Cross-
road, 1983.
. Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Introduction. New
York: Crossroad, 1993.
Shiva, Vandana. Abrazar la vida: Mujer, ecologia y supervivencia.
Montevideo: Instituto del Tercer Mundo, 1991.
Sjoo, Monica, and Barbara Mor. The Great Cosmic Mother: Redis-
covering the Religion of the Earth. San Francisco: Harper and
Row, 1987.
Sdlle, Dorothee. Teologia politica: Confrontacién con Rudolf Bult-
mann. Salamanca: Sigueme, 1972.
. The Window of Vulnerability: A Political Spirituality.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
Tamez, Elsa, ed. Through Her Eyes: Women’s Theology from Latin
America. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1989.
Thompson, William Irwin, ed. GAIA: Uma teoria do Conhecimen-
to. Sao Paulo: Gaia, 1987.
Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1978.
. Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical
Narratives. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and the Modern World. New
York: Free Press, 1967.
Williams, Delores. Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of
Womanist God-Talk. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1993.
 INDEX

Adams, Carol, 132 Cartesian philosophy, 62, 112

Affectivity, 63-64 Children, 197-98
Africa, 9, 58, 60 Christian base communities, 201
Alves, Rubem, vii, 143, 205, 208 Christianity,
6-7, 9,30, 68, 71-72,
Androcentrism, vi, 22, 25, 27, 78-79, 89, 99, 194-95
35-36, 38-39, 46, 116 Christology, 174, 177, 178, 181,
Anthropocentrism, vi, 8, 22, 27, 183, 189, 221 n.2. See also Jesus
46, 113, 114, 115, 128, 129, Christ .
169, 211. See also Person, divine Cities. See Urban environment
Anthropology, theological, 56-57, Citizenship, 68
82-92, 155. See also Human Cobb, John, 211
being; Person Community, religious, 199-202
Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy, Con-spirando Collective, 14, 132
42, 47, 99, 112 Conflict, 92
Aristotle, 42 Consciousness, 85-87, 165
Atheism, 102, 211 Contextuality,
55, 61-62, 82, 109,
Authority, 113, 114, 131, 151, 182
176, 177, 181 Cosmology, 22, 51, 53, 92, 97-99,
Autonomy, human, 71-76 103, 116, 124, 156-57, 158, 168
Creation, I/9 7, 60, Lz
Balasuriya, Tissa, 189 Culture,
55-56, 140-41, 205-6
Benhabib, Seyla, 58
Berry, Thomas, 92, 211 Darcy de Oliveira, Rosiska, 10-11
Bible, 31, 3-33, 35-37, 38-39, 91, Difference, 13. See Essentialism
120, 131-32, 176 Divine milieu, 123, 129-30
Biodiversity, religious, 205-10 Doctrines, 7, 39, 44, 50, 112, 175,
Body, vi, 6, 49, 56-57, 103, 120, 177, 178, 181, 182, 189, 191,
170, 177, 183, 185, 210. See also 212. See also Truth
Sacred body Dogma. See Doctrines
Boff, Leonardo, 147 Domination, 26, 115
Brazil, v, 2, 10, 61, 68, 132 Drewermann, Eugen, 211
Buddha, Gautama, 169 Dualism, 44, 56, 88, 104, 106,
110, 117, 169, 194
Campbell, Joseph, 171
Capitalism, 3, 16, 54, 67-68, 73, Earth, 18, 89-90, 157, 197
183, 198-99 Eco, Umberto, 210

237
228 Longing
for Running Water

Ecofeminism, vi, 2, 3, 5-6, 9-12, Hierarchy, 4, 25, 26, 50, 81,

14, 21, 48-64, 76, 82, 96, 128, 113-14, 191. See also Patriarchy
129, 191, 199, 217 n.1 Human Being, 13, 25, 31, 67-99,
Ecological movement, 4 103, 140-43, 158-62
Ecology, vi, 1, 22, 211 Human rights, 58
Economic factors, vi, 73, 82, 183
Einstein, Albert, 137 Images of God, 126-27, 133, 141,
Environment, vi, 16 143, 149, 153
Epistemology, 8, 19-64 Incarnation, 184-85. See also
Esquivel, Julia, 120-21 Christology; Jesus Christ
Essentialism, 10, 13, 30-34,:59 Indigenous peoples, 9, 16, 26, 60,
Ethics, 23-25, 29, 90-91, 97, 164, 157-58
165-66, 210 Individualism, 71-76, 83, 159, 168
Evil, 95-96, 106, 162-71, 196. See Interdependence, 51-54
also Sin
Evolution,
93-94, 128, 140, 141, Jesus Christ, 8, 40, 42, 43, 97, 99,
208 107, 120, 134-35,
139, 150,
Experience, 48-51, 139, 145, 148, 169, 170, 173-92, 209
156, 182 Johnson, Elizabeth, 139

Feminism, vi, 4, 13, 22, 132, 177 Kant, Immanuel, 34

Feuerbach, Ludwig, 173 Knowing. See Epistemology
Francis of Assisi, 16 Kolakowski, Lezek, 19
Freire, Paulo, 21
Freud, Sigmund, 194 Ladriére, Jean, 93-94
Fundamentalism, 32, 33, 202 Language, religious, 146, 151-53,
Fatima, 169 206. See also Symbol
Latin America, viii, 1, 4, 5, 7,
Galeano, Eduardo, 26 9-11, 14-18, 27, 60, 75, 96, 121,
Gauchet, Marcel, 7 125, 794965207
Gender, 3, 11, 26, 57-61 Levinas, Emmanuel, 112
Genesis, Book of, 33, 35-36, 80, Liberation theology, 44-48
162
Globalization, vi, 82 Male gender privilege, 35, 37, 58,
God, 8, 17, 34-38, 40, 46, 79, 81, 59, 63, 75, 81. See also Andro-
97, 101-34, 148, 149, 166, 215. centrism
See also Images of God; Person, Market. See Capitalism
divine; Trinity Marx, Karl, 73
God, absence of, 106 Mary, the Mother of Jesus, 43,
Gospels, 176, 178, 179 118, 125, 169, 188
Gutiérrez, Gustavo,
46, 47 Mary Magdalene, 188
Mathieu, Nicole Claude, 12
Heaven,
96, 98, 161, 162 McFague, Sallie, 104, 123-24,
Hegel, G. W. FE, 58 132-33, 183, 184
Heraclitus, 145-46 Mechanism, 23, 53-54, 62
 Index 229

Mediations, 57-58 Rain forests, 4

Merchant, Carolyn, 13 Reality, concept of, 22, 71, 108
Mesters, Carlos, 33 Relatedness, 83-93, 102-6, 108,
Mies, Maria, 12 119, 155, 158-60,
162, 167,
Mohammed, 169 177, 183
Morin, Edgar, 106, 202 Religion,
6-8, 54, 92, 120, 142,
Moses, 36-37, 38 193-212, 222 n.5
Mounier, Emmanuel, 78 Religious experience, 65, 91-92,
Murphy, Cullen, 38 146, 154, 159, 160
Munoz, Ronaldo, 40 Resurrection, 41
Mystery, 97-99, 101, 107, 116, Revelation, 42-43, 47, 93-95,
13351355153, 160 112) 128
Ricoeur, Paul, 72
Nature, 11, 13, 27-28, 29, 197 Roman Catholicism, 23, 39, 42,
Nonpersons, 69, 74 43, 80, 119,
125
North/South dynamic, vii—viii Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 95, 96
North America, vii, 9, 15 Ruether, Rosemary Radford, 51,
56, 93, 144,
193
O rostro indio de Deus, 9
Obedience, 181-82 Sacred body, 53, 57, 82, 87, 91,
Original sin, 95-96, 97 97, 112, 123, 127, 129, 174,
181, 184, 211, 214, 215
Panentheism, 123 Salvation, 180-84, 186, 190
Pantheism, 121-24, 211 Schneiders, Sandra, 144
Patriarchy, 3, 7, 16, 26, 27, 30-34, Science, 6, 23, 25, 60, 87-88
59, 76-78, 84, 113, 151-52, 188, Scripture, Christian. See Bible
194, 209 Second Vatican Council, 44
Paul the Apostle, 32, 91, 187 Sin, 31, 93, 95-96
Pentecostal groups, 164, 202 Solitude, 159
Person, concept of, 8, 67-99 Sorj, Bila, 11, 12
Person, divine, 105-6, 110-17, Swimme, Brian, 92, 99, 156
138. See also Trinity Symbol,143-45, 147, 153-54,
Personalist philosophers, 75—76, 184, 186, 187, 188, 197. See also
78-80 Language, religious
Philosophy, 8, 25, 29-30, 53,
75-76, 88, 93, 112, 139 Talitha Cumi group, 16
Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy, Theology, Christian, 7, 12, 16,
41, 99 30-34, 35, 43, 93, 112-13, 146,
Poor, poverty, 3, 5, 12, 26, 69, 85, 184, 185
124-27,
167, 177 Thomas Aquinas, 42, 112, 115
Prayer, 117-21 Transcendence, 7, 36, 79-80, 104,
Public/private, 59 122,124, 153, 167
Trapasso, Rosa Dominga, 16
Race, 11 Trible, Phyllis, 38
Racism, 5, 16, 164 Trinity, 42, 137-71
230 ©Longing
for Running Water

Truth, 39-44, 49, 96, 111, 191 Walker, Alice, 212

War, 27-28
United Nations, 10 Waste, 3, 18
Universalization, 58, 62 Wisdom tradition, 91
Urban environment, v, vii, 2 Women, vi, vii, 5, 10, 11, 25, 28,
36-39, 58, 130, 179, 200, 201,
Violence, 92, 95-96, 102, 163-64, 203
195-96

BRARY
FHEOLOGYNT LICA
APARTMO LIF
 RELIGION/ECOLOGY
VISIONING THE COSMOS THROUGH A LIBERATION LENS
_“Ivone Gebara is unquestionably the most original theologian
working from an ecofeminist liberation perspective from Latin
America today, Her theology does not begin with absolutes
from on high, but with daily life among poor women of Latin
America for whom the interconnected dominations of race,
class, gender, and the earth are not a theory but a concrete real-
ity. It is from this context that Gebara reflects on the themes of
theology, on epistemology, the nature of the human person,
aoe, Jesus, and redemptive hope.”
. —Rosemary Radford Ruether
A a aes
S=—=

Gebara’s profound and moving statement ‘principles of

ecofeminism shows how intertwined are the tarnished environ- —
ment around her and the poverty that afflicts her neighbors.
From her experiences with the Brazilian poor-women’s move-
‘ment she develops a gritty urban ecofeminism and indeed
articulates a whole worldview. She shows how the connections
_between Western thought, patriarchal Christianity, and environ-
mental destruction necessitate personal conversion to “a —
|felationship with the earth and with the entire cosmos.’
' Alongside her stern critique of our consumer mentality, Gebaes
cultivates a rich garden of insights into our relatedness, God’s
sacred presence in the universe, and our daily experience - fhe |
deepest longings of the human heart.
ee

Ivone Gebara is one of Latin America’s lead-

ing theologians. A Brazilian Sister of Our
Lady (Canoneses of St. Augustine), she fm
holds doctorates in philosophy and religious
Studies and taught for many years at the |
- Theology Institute of Recife (ITER). Among |,
her half-dozen books are Trinity: A Word
on Things New and Old (1995) and Mary:
- Mother of God, Mother a the Poorea

—o

eo 1-3183
www.augsburgfortress.org