Ecological perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer

 

Ernst M. Conradie, University of the Western Cape

 

Introduction

In a helpful essay on the Lord’s Prayer in the Earth Bible series, Vicky Balabanski describes a number of features of the cosmological assumptions reflected in this prayer.[i] From a point of departure in her analysis one may identify the following tensions in the structure and implied cosmology of the Lord’s Prayer:

a) The prayer is structured around a tension between God’s presence in heaven and our presence on earth. The prayer may be read as a plea that the distance between heaven and earth be reduced: God’s will needs to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Like heaven, the earth too has to reflect God’s name, God reign and God’s will.

b) The first word of the prayer is “father” and the last word is “evil”. The prayer is therefore situated in the tension between a loving and nourishing parent and the reality of evil, between God’s grace and the impact of human sin in society. This tension gives the prayer a soteriological orientation and focus.

c) There is an underlying tension between the already of God’s reign and the not yet of the coming of God’s reign, between an unacceptable present and a longed-for future.

d) There is another tension between those who are praying the prayer and those who may overhear the prayer. Who is the “us” who is praying here? In this “us” the needs of the world and the tensions which may exist between “us” and “others” (those who have bread and those who haven’t, the indebted and their debtors, the tempters and the tempted, those who are evil and their victims) are brought before God in prayer. In a remarkable but complex way the Lord’s Prayer intertwines the relationship between the disciples of Jesus and the outsiders (e.g. the Pharisees), between the church which prays and the world which overhears the prayer. (It should also be noted that, in the early church, the Lord’s Prayer was prayed in secret during the liturgy. All non-members had to leave the liturgy before the prayer. The prayer was considered so radical, so dangerous, so undermining that it could only be prayed in secret: It called for the radically new world of God’s reign.[ii])

e) Perhaps the deepest tension underlying the Lord’s Prayer is that between human responsibility and God’s responsibility. This is evident from the relationship between the first and the second set of petitions. The first set of petitions is formulated in the form of “Thou petitions”. They could be read as being related to “spiritual” matters (perhaps “evangelisation”). They focus on God’s Name, God’s reign and God’s will. Yet the form of the verbs that are used here (“let your … be …”) begs the question whose responsibility it would be to carry out what these petitions ask for. It is not difficult to gather that human beings (the church) would be involved in this process. This does not include only those who are praying (otherwise the prayer would be little more than a self-exhorta­tion to do one’s duty), but is certainly includes at least those who are praying. The movement in the first set of petitions is therefore from God’s presence in heaven towards the earth, from God’s work to our work.

By contrast the second set of petitions speaks about concrete daily life here on earth. They speak about bread, about indebtedness (not sin towards God) and the many temptations that the poor are typically subjected to (one may say “develop­ment” agendas). These petitions are brought in prayer to the Father. Presumably, humans have in each case done what they could to address their predica­ment. Of course, it is our own responsibility to ensure that we have bread to eat, to seek reconcilia­tion with other, to offer forgiveness to those who have done something against us and to avoid trouble as far as possible. However, the prayer is apparently born from a situation where the one who prays has done whatever could be done, but realises that the situation is beyond her or his locus of control. After all, if the one who prays could have done something to remedy the situation, it would not have been necessary to pray for that (unless the prayer is again little more than an act of self-exhortation). One would scarcely ask God for bread if one has been too lazy to work for bread for one’s own family. The prayer is directed to God because it expresses a trust that it is only God who can still help to address the situation. These observations lead to the somewhat paradoxical conclu­sion that the second set of petitions shifts the focus onto God’s responsibility, whereas the first set of petitions assumes the church’s responsibility. The second set of petitions is therefore deeply spiritual (or evangelical) even when the petitions describe material (or developmental) needs. The petitions cry from the earth for God’s help.

These observations indicate that to be praying the Lord’s Prayer is to be situated within a tension between heaven and earth, God and the world, God’s responsibility and our responsibility, grace and gratitude. A life of prayer cannot be separated from a life of gratitude and a life of service to others. One cannot pray these petitions without a willingness to be God’s instrument to bring about what has been prayed for. And one cannot work for that which one has not prayed for. This is the deepest secret of the classic Christian motto: Ora et labora.

Following these observations, the second set of petitions in the Lord’s Prayer may help us somewhat further in order to integrate the concerns that are typically expressed with the category of “development” with the concern of “evangelism”. In the discussion below several layers of meaning of the symbols of bread, debt and temptation will be analysed. These layers of meaning indicate the inner dialectic between material needs (“development”?) and spiritual needs (“evangelism”?). If one takes one’s point of departure in people’s more immediate material needs, one would soon have to address to their spiritual needs as well. The opposite would also be true. For the sake of the illustration, only the first approach will be discussed here with reference to the second set of petitions in the Lord’s Prayer.

 

a) A spiritualised interpretation

There is a widespread tendency to spiritualise the meaning of the symbols of bread, debt, tempta­tion and evil. Accordingly, “bread” refers here to our need for Jesus, the “bread of life”, or for the bread of the Holy Communion or the feast of eternal life. Similarly, debt is understood as our guilt before God that God is requested to forgive. Temptation is understood as the danger of apostasy, of losing one’s faith, especially in the age of the expected “great tribulation.” If so, there is a need to be rescued from the diabolic power of Satan.

 

b) A material layer of meaning

In response to such a spiritualising of these symbols one may need to emphasise their concreteness within everyday life, especially within the context of poverty. Accordingly, the prayer addresses our bodily need for bread (or rice or maize but not for cake). Many exegetes have noted that the elusive temporal indication epiousios may be translated with “eternal”, with “daily” (the minimum that is necessary for today) but also with “for tomorrow.” In the last case, the prayer expresses the uncer­tainty of a father who simply does not know where he will find food for his family tomorrow.[iii] It is at least clear that the prayer assumes a context of poverty. Jesus and his disciples travelled around without a home, belongings, basic provisions or a regular income. The early Christians who prayed this prayer were typically poor folk, many of whom were slaves, impover­ished peasants, fishermen or day-labourers who were standing around in the market-place hoping for employment for the day.

Several exegetes suggest that the Greek term ta opheilemata is probably a translation of the Aramaic choba which is used in the context of trade and therefore has financial connotations. It does not refer primarily to guilt, also not guilt before God, but to financial indebtedness. The Greek verb aphieimi which is typically translated as “forgive” literally means “to take away”, “to wipe out”. The metaphor therefore suggests the need for a cancellation of debts, the need to be released from the burden of debts that have accumulated to the point that one cannot escape from permanent indebtedness. Accordingly, the indebtedness does not refer to guilt in our relationship with God (this is not mentioned in the text), but to the burden financial indebtedness to other people – which God is called upon to help cancel.

In a context of hunger and indebtedness there are many all too real temptations (peirasmos) to secure bread and money in one’s pocket. Those who are hungry may easily be tempted to resort to begging, stealing, prostitution, gangsterism, drug trafficking, or alcohol in order to secure bread. But this will trap them even further in the structures of evil that lurk around them. Indeed, evil would be lurking everywhere and many could be easily trapped in a spiral of increasing violence. The prayer to be protected and delivered from evil makes perfect sense in such a context.

This material layer of meaning does not necessarily exclude a more symbolic meaning. It may be helpful here to remember that a symbol (unlike a metaphor or a sign) always participates in that which it symbolises. A road sign “Cape Town 460km” does not form part of Cape Town, although it does refer to Cape Town. By contrast, the bread that the disciples shared with Jesus during the last supper before his death did fill their stomach but also “fed” them in ways that they could scarcely imagine at that time.

 

c) A social layer of meaning

The connotations of the symbols of bread, debt and temptation should not be extended too quickly. To suggest that bread is a symbol for all our material needs may easily become an excuse to justify one’s desires for luxuries in the name of basic needs. There are nevertheless indications in the text that “bread” is a symbol for more than just food (but certainly including bread). It may be helpful to gain more clarity on the question who are included in the “us” who are praying here. One may assume that the “us” would include at least the nuclear family. An impoverished father is praying to the heavenly father to provide food for his family since he is unable to do so himself. A family does not need only food though. Luther was probably correct in suggesting that “bread” is a symbol for everything that is necessary to sustain life: food, something to drink, clothes, shoes, bodily health, good weather with sufficient sun and rains, chickens, goats, sheep or cattle, land, housing, a good husband or wife, pious children, good friends, reliable neighbours, good governance and peace.[iv] Although there may be some debate about “basic human needs” it is clear that the temptation to add luxuries has to be resisted here. The most basic of needs include food, clean drinking water, unpolluted air and warm clothing in cold climates.

In the same way, one may extend the meaning of indebtedness. We do not only owe others money. We owe our spouses, children, family members and neighbours numerous other things: a helping hand, time, borrowed items, a favour in return, opportunities and friendship. These duties towards others do not necessarily suggest ways in which we have been guilty in our thoughts, attitudes, body language, words or actions towards others. However, the boundary between being a victim of indebtedness and being guilty in any of these ways is easily crossed. Often our sense of guilt towards others has piled up to such an extent that we do not know where to start rectifying soured relation­ships. The quickest route to souring relationships probably remains financial indebtedness though. Likewise, the temptations and evil that surround us apply not only to individuals. One also has to address the temptations that a married couple, a family and a community may have to face.

 

d) A collective layer of meaning

It is not difficult to extend the meaning of these symbols much further. Bread can function as a symbol for the entire global economy. There is an urgent need for an economic dispensation that can address unemployment, the gap between the rich and the poor, fair trade, just labour practices, access to education and training, provisions for health care, basic social services, etcetera. Likewise, indebtedness is a function of economic dispensations, as the biblical texts also indicate, for example with reference to the sabbatical year and the Jubilee year in Leviticus 23, Isaiah 61 and Luke 4. This indebtedness may easily be extended to the contemporary problem of the crippling debts of already impoverished countries. In many cases such countries are forced to plant cash crops in order to earn foreign income, instead of using their lands to ensure an adequate production of food for their own inhabitants. In the midst of the air raids on Stuttgart in 1945, Helmut Thielicke preached about collective guilt, the whole mountain of guilt associated with the first and second world wars. The German audience would have gathered that they are both guilty and the victims of such “debts”.[v] One may also extend the predicament of indebtedness to the victims of slavery, imperialism, colonialism, patriarchal oppression, nationalism, fascism, apartheid and globalised capitalism. Numerous impoverished economies find themselves unable to participate in the global market given their handicap in terms of infrastructure, development, education, training, technology and market opportu­nities. There are many contemporary manifestations of temptation and evil as well. Here one may consider the major ideologies of our times: colonialism, racism, sexism, classism, anthro­pocentrism and consumerism. Since each of these ideologies provides an easy classification mechanism they continue to offer tempting ways of addressing societal conflict.

 

e) An ecological layer of meaning

A collective layer of meaning for the symbols of bread, debt and temptation may also include an ecological layer of meaning. Here we are faced with numerous problems: Will we may able to provide sufficient bread, rice and maize for the world’s still increasing population? Will we be able to adopt sustainable forms of agriculture? Will our grandchildren be able to cope with the legacy of the long-term impact of waste and ecological destruction? How will impoverished countries be able to escape from the ecological consequences of the debt that they find themselves entrapped in? How can we avoid the temptation to exploit renewable and non-renewable natural resources for economic benefit? What if shortages in oil, water and food would lead to increasing regional and international conflict and inter­mittent wars? Will we be able to avoid the use of nuclear weapons in war and through terrorism for the remainder of human history?[vi]

 

f) A moral layer of meaning

The above mentioned layers of meaning (b-e) focus on the very real needs of poor, marginalised and vulnerable people. The prayer is not meant for those who are overfed or for those who follow or support, directly or indirectly, economic practices that may disadvantage the ability of others to secure bread for themselves. It is certainly not meant for those who have an insatiable demand for more and more luxury consumer goods. It is not aimed at those who cunningly impoverish others through demanding housing rent, interest on loans, or through the sale of products to people who simply cannot afford it. The prayer is not meant for those who tempt others (through advertising?) to possess more and more, but for those who do not want to be tempted in the first place. It is not aimed at the perpetrators of evil but for those who long to be delivered from evil. The overfed, ruthless creditors, tempters and evil doers who dare to pray the Lord’s Prayer expose themselves to be judged by this prayer.

Who on earth may then dare to pray this prayer? Who may be included in the “us” of the prayer? There are indications in the text that it may not be all that easy to distinguish between those who are guilty and their victims. Although the prayer articulates the needs of victims, such victims may easily be guilty, at least partially, of causing their own predicaments. There are beggars who are too lazy to work for their own bread, those who take foolish economic decisions, who borrow money all too easily, perhaps because of greed, who swiftly yield to temptations and who are complicit in doing evil. We sometimes suffer because of our own sins (e.g. through the abuse of alcohol) and sometimes because of the sins of others (most notably through rape), but we often suffer from a situation for which we are at least partially, if not equally, responsible (e.g. marriage conflict, trouble with the neighbours or business feuds).

 

g) A theological layer of meaning

The most remarkable layer of meaning is perhaps also the most obvious, namely that these petitions form part of prayer in which something is requested from God. The prayer faithfully awaits a response from God. As I have argued above, such a prayer is born from a realisation that something is beyond one’s own locus of control. One would only pray for something if one has done one’s own duty. One cannot ask for bread if one is too lazy to work for bread. One cannot ask for bread for others if one is unwilling to help them to obtain bread honourably. One cannot ask for a cancel­lation of one’s debts if one refuses to cancel the minor debts of others that may be within one’s own locus of control. One can only pray to be shielded from temptation and evil if one does not surround oneself with such temptations and evil.

If, however, one has attended to one’s responsibilities but still finds oneself unable to secure bread or trapped in unmanageable debt, then the only way out of such a predicament may be to pray for God’s help. What is remarkable about the second set of petitions is that the responsibility is shifted here to God. Jesus taught his disciples that they may come to the heavenly Father when they find themselves in such a predicament. They may approach the Father with confidence because this is a Father who created them and cares for them and for the whole earth community.

 

h) A Christological layer of meaning

There may be those who would remain sceptical. May we actually expect a response from God to our prayers? Is the distance between God in heaven and our earthly lives not too great (especially after Copernicus and Darwin)? Those who do not know where tomorrow’s bread will come from may well wonder whether and how God will provide them with bread. Likewise, those who are concerned with bread for others who are hungry, who are faced with food shortages and realise the need for sustainable forms of agriculture may not be sure what kind of response they may expect from God, if any. For some, praying for bread may be little more than a soliloquy in which they call on themselves and others to work towards a just distribution of food. What, one may ask, can the Father in heaven really do to help us?

Although some may think that the onus will revert to human responsibility here, this would under­estimate the scope of the predicament and would not do justice to the nature of the prayer as prayer. Perhaps the deepest layer of meaning in the Lord’s Prayer is to discern the ways in which the Father has already helped us. Those who doubt whether God will do something tomorrow may find comfort in what God has done yesterday. The clue here is to reflect on the One who has taught us the payer: the life, ministry, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ. Perhaps those who spiritualise the meaning of the symbols of bread, debt and temptation have retained an element of truth in this regard. Elsewhere the gospels proclaim that Jesus Christ is indeed the bread of life, that Jesus carried our debts and guilt before God and the world, that Jesus faced severe temptations on our behalf, and that Jesus conquered evil in the most unlikely and unimaginable way, the way of the cross.

This suggests that spiritual (evangelisation?) and material (development?) needs can be distinguish­ed but not separated from one another. In the Lord’s Prayer there is a movement from the one to the other.