Centrado en Gobiernos Locales (Enfoque público)

Having discussed the economic and ecological worldviews of Sallie McFague’s Planetary Theology, at this juncture it is important to offer some critique. It was noted that the economic worldview has shaped our culture and how we interpreted life. The economic worldview influences our lifestyle leading to consumerism seeing earth’s resources and commodities for personal aggrandisement. Consumerism is not sustainable with regards to the planet earth and its resources. On the other hand, the ecological worldview is based on relationships that work well. It promotes community, interdependence and sharing. This worldview believes in distributive justice in the community. Its goal is to ensure all citizens have access to basic human needs such as food, shelter, clothing, quality education, and the security or safety of lives and property.

The first thing to critique is the idea of the good life proposed by Sallie McFague; which means having basic needs such as food, clothing, education, shelter and healthcare. From the American context this may be achieved, but from the African context and especially Nigeria this is far from being achievable. This is because the majority of the population are poor (Jacobs 2016; Adedayo et al. 2017). People depend so much on the available resources to survive. For instance, in Nigeria there is no stable electricity supply which people may use for cooking and not many can afford cooking gas for domestic use. This has put a lot of pressure on the trees in some forests leading to deforestation (Ajibade, Sunday and Okeke 2017d). Secondly, Nigeria is a rich country in

65

terms of its oil, but the wealth of the nation is in the hands of a few individuals. Corruption is like a canker worm eating deep into the economic and political fabric of the country. This is evident in the amount of money being retrieved from some past government officials and some business moguls by the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (Eyoboka and Latona 2017; Ononchie and Onyekwere 2017; Prinewill 2017 and Shiklam 2017). Having the “good life” and having “enough” therefore may not be attainable in Nigeria at the moment because the government does not give any social grants as a welfare package to its citizens.

Having a good life with all its ramifications in Nigeria could be a nightmare. An example of this problem is the lack of healthcare. The President of the country himself had to travel to the United Kingdom for his medical treatment where he spent three months, which is something the ordinary citizen would not be able to do (Ehikioya 2017; Mojeed 2017). This proved that the public healthcare sector in the country cannot handle referral cases such as that of President Muhammadu Buhari (Sotunde 2017). If the number one citizen of the country had to travel overseas for treatment, I wonder what would take for an ordinary citizen to have access to a good health care delivery in Nigeria. I will insist on the premise above that the idea of good life proposed by McFague may not be achievable in the Nigerian context. This is because Nigeria and other southern countries are trapped in poverty and inequality because of the way the global economic system works. Coloniality and capitalism created an imbalanced geopolitical organisation in which southern countries have their riches exploited for the well-being of those in the centre of capitalism system (Haddad 2015: 106).

Another key theme in McFague’s Planetary Theology is sustainability. If someone for instance does not have money to buy food and the only commodity available is a tree which could be felled for firewood or to make charcoal for sale, how can that person live sustainably without utilising what seems to be the only option? If the elephants and the rhinos are the only potential commodities available that the person can poach and exchange their ivory for financial benefit, how can such a person resist such an opportunity? This can be compared to a biblical story which in Israel there was a time

66

when they were under a siege for a long time and it resulted in a severe famine; and the elderly people resorted to killing their babies for food (2 Kings 6: 24–33). The Nigerian forestry laws are weak, leaving room for citizens to be involved in the illegal trade of timber (Nweke 2017, Ijaiya and Joseph 2014; Odoma et al. 2017). From the above premise, living sustainably in Nigeria is still far from reality, except if a strong political will is put in place for a radical re-orientation on its values with regards to ecological issues.

Furthermore, Sallie McFague states that the good life is not having “more and more” but it is an idea of having “enough” (2001: 111). According to John Fox (2009) the “theology of enough” emerged in the 1970s from two publications: 1) Enough is Enough by John Taylor and 2) Habitat for Humanity by Millard and Linda Fuller. The former is built on the concept of shalom in Israel where every member of the community is expected to enjoy safety of mind, body and estate (Hershey 2017: 1). It portrays completeness or a sense of wholeness that encourages every Israeli to give back generously something in some way so that his/her fellow Israeli will not lack. The latter publication is based on the Christian understanding of needs and wants. Fox (2009: 1) notes “there are sufficient resources in the world for the needs of everybody, but not enough for the greed of even a significant minority”. From the Christian perspective, believers are not supposed to have people among them who lack because they are expected to share with others so that all will have enough of their basic needs met. However, David Waters (2009) noted that many people in the world today have put their wants above their needs, so, they are unable to meet their own wants and neither are they able to support others. Ksarant (2017: 1) concurs and states: “We live in a time of unbridled greed. There seems to be no limit to how rich a rich person wants to be”.

Therefore, in the Nigerian context, the idea of the “theology of enough” may be realised only if Christians adheres to Paul’s teaching on contentment (Philippians 4: 10-13). But substantial reports filtering from Nigeria indicates that poverty, corruption, human trafficking, poor nutrition, kidnapping, unemployment, and the selling of human parts seems to be on the increase (Obi 2017; Mudashir and Krishi 2017; Ajayi 2017; Shittu

67

2017; Ewepu 2017; Aliyu 2017; Ramon 2017; Atoyebi 2017). The recent case of human trafficking in Libya where several Nigerians are perpetrators and victims is a good example that speaks about the situation in the country (Joseph 2017; Ojeme and UNICEF 2017; Mba 2015). Therefore, proposing a “theology of enough” for the Nigerian context may be a matter of theory but in practical terms, I conclude that Nigeria is still far from it. The church in Nigeria especially COCIN, in order to make more impact in the context of environmental degradation with special reference to deforestation, will have to re-examine its approach to ecological issues affecting its members in various locations in the country. To achieve this, a radical re-orientation of the wealthy in the church towards the need of sharing their wealth with those who are in need, would be necessary. Amy McGloughlin maintains that if things are shared in common, then “it means everything changes. Our sense of what is ours changes. Our sense of what is enough changes” (McGloughlin 2015:3).

3.10 Summary

This chapter has contributed to the research by shedding light on the theology of COCIN on ecology. It discussed a brief history of COCIN and the Vision and Mission of COCIN. It emphasised that the COCIN theology on ecology believes that creation is a gift from God and by so doing, condemns the injustice that many Nigerians have done to the land. This research also treated subthemes such as the COCIN theology of land, the ingratitude of humanity and land degradation. It was discovered that COCIN as a denomination acknowledges that every member of the church should act responsibly towards the issue of land, so as to renew it fertility.

It was also identified that COCIN does not have a specific theology on ecology, but it was revealed that its Service Handbook contains teachings that show some level of awareness on how the members should care for the creation. While the Service Handbook say very little on ecology, it was also found out that COCIN pastoral training curriculum in its theological institutions does not have any provision for the study of ecology or its related disciplines.

68

Lastly the Nick Spencer’s Biblical Vision of Care for the Environment was used as a theoretical framework to explain the reasons why Christians should be involved in the care of God’s creation. Sallie McFague’s Planetary Theology was also used as a framework in this chapter as well. This framework has two worldviews which are the economic worldview and the ecological worldview. The economic worldview has the notion of making profit and it is undergirded by the capitalist ideology and manifested by individualistic lifestyle. This ideology is also driven by profit which is harmful and injurious to the planet earth since resources are exploited for profit. On the other hand, the ecological worldview is driven by community, sharing, distributive justice, sustainability and frugality for the well-being of all people. This model is concerned with the interconnectedness of creation in which one part depends on the other. If one part is inflicted with harm, there will be a resultant impact on the other. The ecological worldview recognises that there is a value exchange within its scope. However, it is not for the personal interest of an individual but for the well-being of the community.

The next chapter is devoted to assessing ways in which the COCIN Community Development Programme (CCDP) is conducting its development programme and how it is contributing to overcoming deforestation in Panyam district and its environs.

69

CHAPTER FOUR: CCDP AND REDUCING DEFORESTATION

4.1 Introduction

In Chapter Three of this research the theology of COCIN on ecology was discussed. The concentration was based on the church service handbook and other relevant documents of the church. The common observation was that even the hymnal (The Hausa Hymnal (Littafin Wakoki)) used by the COCIN church also contains songs related to creation and some of these songs were examined. The findings in Chapter Three of this research revealed that COCIN theological institutions do not have a place for theology of ecology and conservation.

The focus of this chapter is to answer the third research question: How is the CCDP conducting its programme in an effort to overcome deforestation in Panyam district and its environs? This will achieve the third and final objective of this research which is to examine the contribution of CCDP as the development arm of COCIN and its contribution to reducing ecological problems such as deforestation in Panyam district and its environs.

In order to achieve this successfully, the chapter will provide a brief historical background of CCDP and why the SUM missionaries included rural development as one of their missionary endeavours. Furthermore, the vision and mission, objectives, identity, core values and programme areas of the CCDP will also be examined. The chapter will further discuss CCDP sensitisation workshops for schools and communities and to COCIN pastors; and how these efforts are helping to curb deforestation. Finally, the chapter will examine some sermon notes obtained from some pastors in COCIN to assess whether their preaching reflects awareness of ecological problems or not.