The Green Seminary Initiative - Lessons from TEMEC

LESSONS FROM TEMEC
by Dieter T. Hessel

The massive patterns of eco-injustice that dominate our near future in a historically unique way require theological education to meet the environmental challenge. Such education must be redesigned to explore and foster experiences, beliefs and actions consistent with “a vision in which all forms of life have their place and receive respect and care.”1 Theological educators and teachers of religious studies can do a lot more to join in this “great work” (Tom Berry’s term) by inspiring and equipping students to become more earth-friendly, justice-seeking, and community-sustaining.

Theological Education to Meet the Environmental Challenge (TEMEC) was designed to foster real movement in that direction. Over a 12-year period, the Program on Ecology, Justice and Faith (PEJF), that I directed, and the Center for Respect of Life and Environment (CRLE), directed by Richard (Rick) Clugston, teamed up to foster theological education / religious studies focusing on eco-justice – i.e. the quest for ecological sustainability in linkage with socio-economic justice. (N.B. It’s a double “eco”.) Our activity through this deeply ecumenical project focusing on reform of theological and religious studies expressed the commitment of the eco-justice movement2 to serve earth community and its most vulnerable inhabitants of everykind.

What TEMEC Did

With program funds raised from the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts, and CRLE’s in-kind administrative support, TEMEC engaged key professors at “lead institutions,” to co-plan and host eight major conferences across the U.S. Our conferences attracted the participation of nearly 1,000 faculty, students, clergy, and lay religious leaders, plus a few theological school administrators from across North America. (Six of these major professional development conferences were hosted by and co-planned with Lead Institutions, about which I say more below.) The conferences occurred at Stony Point, NY, Chicago, IL (2), Dubuque, IA Seattle, WA, Claremont CA, Union, NYC, & Washington, DC.

Several of these conferences concentrated on particular subjects: e.g., state of the art research in particular theological fields of study, rural and urban eco-justice ministry, educational method (pedagogy), earth friendly liturgy, sustainable practices, faith-based public policy advocacy, and earthier ecclesiology -- what it means to be the church ecologically reformed.

We also teamed up with the Earth Charter Initiative to involve interested members of our growing theological educators’ network in two international seminars: one on The Earth Charter and the Ecumenical Movement, held at the Bossey Ecumenical Institute in Switzerland, and the other on Earth Charter Ethics, held at Pocantico Conference Center, NY. We co-sponsored some other major conferences in Toronto and in the Boston area. On behalf of TEMEC, I also participated in a gathering of evangelical environmental studies professors at Gordon College, MA, and a conference of Roman Catholics teaching at university religion departments held in Portland, OR. Yes, we got around, resourced quite a few educators, fostered linkages, and produced five books:

Ecology, Justice and Christian Faith: A Critical Guide to the Literature, by Peter Bakken, Joan Gibb Engel & J. Ronal Engel 3(Greenwood Press, 1995);

Theology for Earth Community: A Field Guide (Orbis, 1996), ed. D. Hessel;

“The Ethics of Population, Consumption, and Environment: Essays and Cases, Theology and Public Policy, Vol 8, 1 & 2 (1996), ed. James Nash;

Christianity and Ecology: Seeking the Well-being of Earth and Humans (Harvard, 2000), eds. D. Hessel and Rosemary Radford Reuther;

Earth Habitat: Eco-Injustice and the Church’s Response (Fortress, 2001), eds. D. Hessel and Larry Rasmussen.

A significant proportion of the professors and graduate students who came to the initial Stony Point conference were stimulated to pursue teaching and research on the environmental challenge. We highlighted the importance of theological students studying courses and doing field education concentrating on eco-justice and care for creation. We encouraged a new generation of graduate students to do scholarly research and teaching in this subject area. And we supported a cadre of interested schools to engage, at least for awhile, with some continuing effect. In the words of one participant, TEMEC helped create the conditions for movement toward theological education focused on earth community.

But did Theological Education move much beyond Business as Usual?

Along with the conference program summarized above, TEMEC pursued a modestly funded, innovative strategy of working with Lead Institutions. By offering small grants and technical support, we persuaded some creative, interested faculty in a few theological schools and religion departments -- among the 1500 that exist in North America -- to take the lead by committing to threeaspects of education for just and sustainable community:

to give eco-justice themes and issues cross-disciplinary attention at the curriculum’s core (here we want to encourage praxis-based learning as well as better core courses);

to embody just, sustainable, and humane community in campus operations including energy use, grounds keeping, recycling, purchasing products and food, and other institutional habits. (Campus-based initiatives need to foster community lifestyle changes that really matter, while avoiding green Pharisaism); &

to join the global, regional and local struggle for sustainable community in the public arena (partnering with engaged NGO’s and participating in larger eco-justice networks to express spirited earth citizenship).

[Case examples of what four lead institutions associated with TEMEC did to move in this direction are incorporated in my concluding chapter to Earth Habitat, 2001), pp. 200–202. Note the range of their creative engagement.]

The lead institutions took some substantive steps of intrinsic value to the participants. But few of the Lead Institutions sustained their three-fold commitment, mostly because: a) their involvement was so dependent on one or two key professors who retired and were not replaced by equally committed faculty; b) their administrators still viewed the eco-crisis as just another important issue, rather than being the pivotal historic reality of our time; c) TEMEC could not raise significant funding to undergird the lead institution strategy for another decade.

In contrast to those hampering factors, notice the following positive contributors to movement toward Eco-Justice or Care for Creation in theological education: theological-ethical vision, the support of key administrators, involvement of energized faculty across the departments, appealing and academically important course offerings, institutional participation in sustainable practices, links with green sciences and NGOs, availability and use of special educational or financial resources.4

Basic Goals for Theological Education

Below, I want to focus on the mission of theological education that we have tried to foster, instead of the details of a program that ran its course. The TEMEC program may be “remaindered” now, but the concept holds, deserving on-going attention.

The overall goal has been and is to make eco-justice a central focus of faith commitment, of scholarly work and learning, and of ethically coherent action at personal, institutional, and political levels of moral agency. The point, after all, is for all of us to become competent, faithful earth citizens.

Four related aims are to:

1) Explore new dimensions of research and teaching on ecology, justice and faith; and to foster professional development of scholars and religious leaders in ways that cross the fields of theology and connect with cognate disciplines in the humanities and sciences. (In this respect, eco-justice is to theological education as human ecology is to environmental studies.)

2) Engage theological educators in critical reflection on what most needs to be learned and how it is taught, as well as what is still being ignored. (Warning: don’t proliferate this list of basics; focus on and integrate core content and pedagogy!)

3) Assist religious studies and theological education to reform course work (including field education), institutional practices, and public engagement so as to equip students for earth community citizenship as they lead religious communities, pursue green studies, or enter business and professional life.

4) Prepare the ground for regional cooperation in graduate education that “weaves” a tapestry of environmental and religious studies, and that provides public continuing education on ecology, justice and faith.

The overall goal and related aims just listed continue to be quite pertinent for theological schools and religion departments that would take the environmental challenge seriously. Articulating these or similar aims is a crucial step for theological educators to take. (One caution: what you project and how you name it communicates a lot, or not. E.g. It is quite inadequate to name such an initiative “Green” or “Sustainable” Theological Education in a culture with corporations that have co-opted both words for mere profit.)

Eight Pitfalls for theological educators to avoid (or climb out of):

a) Reliance on elective course work with an interested professor or two.

(When a key prof. leaves or retires, the emphasis will fade, unless it is basic to the schools mission statement, core curriculum and faculty appointments.)

b)Course work offered in one theological field of study but not the others.

c) Lack of integrative learning opportunities that have theological-ethical depth and are informed by green sciences or NGO’s working for eco-justice.

d) Disinterest in field education /internships and cross-cultural studies that connect theological students with ecology and justice organizations in civil society.

e) Indifference to this subject matter in the faculty appointment process, in accrediting standards, and in denominational expectations for ordination.

f) At upper levels of graduate study, instead of clarifying a solid core, a tendency to proliferate or fragment the subject-matter for research and dissertations, leading this new area of religious studies to self-dissipate.

g) Preoccupation with green practices and buildings (even the Gentiles do the same, and they often do it much better), instead of pursuing the three-fold commitment expected of lead institutions.

h) Failure to foster practices that matter most in a scorching world. (What is the single most important practice? Surprise answer: eating local food.)

Obviously, participating in an eco-justice future hasn’t yet become important enough to theological educators, parish pastors, or denominational leaders to result in most congregations and seminaries institutionalizing it. Few schools offer more than a couple of elective courses and some pale green practices, while barely becoming publicly engaged. Even in 2007, when public environmental concern has reached a tipping point, the need for ecological reformation still is not widely perceived as central to the mission of theological education; and few professors comprehend that the deepening environmental crisis actually shifts the axis of theology, ethics and ministry.

NB. When the axis does shift, we think and talk differently about what God is doing in the world and what the human vocation is today. The model of ministry also changes. Theological education that equips participants to undertake the great work of caring for creation, guided by eco-justice vision and values, expects an alternative emphasis to the prevailing model of pastoral ministry. The popular emphasis on therapeutic chaplaincy of church members and application of congregational development techniques has been indifferent to earth community. Emphasis now shifts toward appreciating existence in the oikos (earth as home), and ministering to vulnerable places 5 as well as people experiencing eco-injustice.

Scholarship and teaching in religion and ethics must illumine/undergird earth citizenship in this pivotal century. But without special intervention or mobilization, few theological schools will adequately equip their students to meet this priority moral assignment of our time, and not enough faculty members will reexamine what/how they teach and venture into cross-disciplinary inquiry beyond the ubiquitous, academic laissez faire box that has confined theological research and teaching to their specialized field.

Next Steps

So what shall we do now to foster theological education that explores God’s love for creation and participates in an eco-justice future? I suggest taking the following next steps, (none of which depend on still hesitant theological schools to reform, but all of which require special funding and creative planning by theological educators acting cooperatively):

First, continue to foster lead institutions that commit to the 3-fold emphasis on curriculum transformation, institutional or community practices, and publicly engaged earth citizenship. Each of the three commitments needs to be thought through deeply and pursued with creative energy.

Second, offer interested faculty professional development in a revolving annual institute hosted by one of several theological schools and departments of religion that are participating in the ecological reformation.

Third, bring highly motivated students to those rare locales where several seminary or religious studies professors teach subject matter that equips us to join in the great work of seeking the well-being of both Earth and people.

Fourth, reach out to the environmentally-engaged community beyond seminary and church, e.g., through continuing education courses on the spirituality and ethics of eco-justice taught by a cross-disciplinary team.

We are in a time of turning, as the late Bill Gibson,6 my good friend and co- leader in the eco-justice movement, began saying over 25 years ago. To discern how urgent this has become, ask yourself, as I often ask classes or audiences: What is the turn-around time for North American culture to engage the environmental challenge of rapid global warming, deteriorating eco-systems, increasing poverty, vanishing species and inappropriate techno-remedies? Two decades? One decade? The realistic and eschatological answer is: Not long. Our time for repentance has come.

This paper was delivered at a preliminary session of the American Academy of Religion meeting in San Diego, November 16, 2007. Dieter T. Hessel, Ph.D. is a Presbyterian minister specializing in social ethics who resides in Cape Elizabeth, ME, where he is director of the ecumenical Program on Ecology, Justice and Faith, and, in 2007, taught a course on eco-justice ethics at Bangor Theological Seminary. From 1965-1990, he was the social education coordinator and social policy director of the Presbyterian Church (USA). His recent books include: Earth Habitat: Eco-Injustice and the Church’s response (Fortress, 2001); Christianity & Ecology: Seeking the Well-Being of Earth and Humans (Harvard, 2000); Theology for Earth Community: A Field Guide (Orbis, 1996).

APPENDIX: SURVEY of Religious Studies Departments and Theological Schools (format compressed to make this a 2 pager) [May, 2002]

Name: Position:

Institution:

Address: E-mail:

1. Curriculum: To what extent does your religious studies department or theological school address issues of ecology, justice and sustainability or explore developments in eco-theology, environmental ethics, religion and ecology, etc.
(don’t know) 1 (none) 2 (a little) 3 (quite a bit) 4 (a great deal)

What are some examples of courses required or offered?

How many of these are core courses (not just electives)? ___

Taught by regular faculty? ____ Taught by Adjuncts ____

2. Faculty Development: To what extent does your university department or theological school provide significant faculty and staff development opportunities and rewards to enhance understanding, teaching, and research in ecology and religion?