Wetlands as an Ecumenical-Theological Metaphor for a Geopolitical Imaginary in East Asia

KUNG, Lap Yan
Adjunct Associate Professor

(This is the revised version of a keynote speech for CWM 2023 East Asia Region Members’ Mission Forum, Life-Flourishing Communities: Sharing and Partnership, 22–27 April 2023, Singapore)

A nation is defined by the territorial boundaries within which its sovereignty is recognized. Relationships between nations may descend into hostility and even conflict if territorial boundaries are not respected. Paradoxically, the protective role of boundaries against invasion can be abused as a nation’s justification for ignoring and even condemning the demand of social justice from the global community. Such an ambiguous role of boundaries in East Asia is the context of this paper. Instead of a political perspective, this paper opens a discussion on the concept of boundaries from an ecological perspective and focuses on wetlands. It suggests that wetlands characterised by blurred boundaries can be understood as an ecumenical-theological metaphor for a geopolitical imaginary in East Asia.

Geopolitics in East Asia

Among Asia-Pacific’s multilateral regional organizations, such as ASEAN Regional Forum, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the ASEAN Plus Three, East Asian Summit and others, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been a primary shaping mechanism in all these bodies. ASEAN was created in 1967 with five member nations, and expanded to ten in 1999: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Its aims are:

to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries in the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.^[1]

In 2008, the ASEAN Charter took effect. In 2015, the ASEAN leaders adopted three pillars as their aims, namely the political-security community, economic community and socio-cultural community.^[2]

A recent challenge to the political-security community of ASEAN is the coup in Myanmar in February 2021. Despite the fact that ASEAN adopted a “Five-Point Consensus” on Myanmar on April 24, 2021,^[3] ASEAN has no power to enforce it because ASEAN adopts the principles of “non-interference”, “consensus based” and “non-conflictual way”. In short, the principle of “non-interference” puts national sovereignty first and emphasizes “non-interference” in the internal affairs of other nations.^[4] This is so called the “ASEAN Way”. The challenge to ASEAN is the extent to which the “ASEAN Way” characterized by sovereign boundary is still effective in addressing common issues such as the promotion of human rights, the protection of the global environment and the maintenance of the global economy. Since there are churches in the member nations of ASEAN, the corresponding issues facing churches are: how churches respond to suffering in Myanmar and how God’s mission as life flourishing is different from the “ASEAN Way”.

Another issue shaking the security of East Asia is the maritime disputes in the South China Sea.^[5] First, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam claim interest in waters contested with China. Second, the United States, which has a strong interest in preventing China from controlling access to the South China Sea, has increased its maritime presence to enforce freedom of navigation in international waters. Third, the member states of ASEAN are divided among themselves over their ties to China and to the United States. Apart from the South China Sea disputes, severe tensions have erupted between China on one hand and Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea and Japan on the other. Apart from the duty of country, the civil community also has a role in shaping geopolitics because Article 1.13 of the ASEAN Charter states that ASEAN should “promote a people-oriented ASEAN”. The pressing challenge to churches is how churches as ecumenical communities can push the implementation of a people-oriented ASEAN which prioritizes matters of human concern over regime interests, and demonstrates ways of coexistence.

It is not the purpose of this study to evaluate the extent to which ASEAN has achieved its task,^[6] but to explore the meaning of churches as God’s ambassadors (2 Cor 5:20) in East Asia. However, the two issues mentioned above may be too vast for churches to digest and handle. More importantly, churches in East Asia are minority, except in the Philippines. Therefore, some suggest that it is more appropriate for churches to focus on evangelism and worship. Evangelism and worship are central to the Christian mission, but they are not the alternatives to the minority role of churches in international relations. Churches should recall Jesus’ teaching that “the kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened” (Matt 13:33; Lk 13: 20–21). Churches’ engagement in political realities is motivated and empowered by the eschatological vision in the Hebrew Bible, namely, shālôm (peace), ashrê (blessedness) and tāmîm (wholeness),^[7] and in the life and praxis of Jesus Christ, rather than determined and measured by political power and capital. In what follows, I would like to develop the ecological phenomenon of wetlands as an ecumenical-theological metaphor to articulate such a vision.

Wetlands and Life Flourishing

“Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is covered by shallow water.”^[8] Wetlands are neither totally dry land nor totally underwater. The overlapping area between land and water creates its unique ecological nature and causes life to flourish. First, wetlands as the “nurseries of life” provide food and habitat for many terrestrial and many aquatic species. Migrating birds use wetlands to rest and feed during their cross-continental journeys and as nesting sites when they are at home. Wetlands may serve as the last refuges for many rare and endangered species. Wetland diversity is often higher than that of adjacent ecosystems. Second, wetlands pull leaves, animal waste, and other high carbon matter down from the surface of the water. Carbon dioxide is absorbed into plants and soil. Wetlands can store 50 times more carbon than rain forests and help to keep the heat-trapping gas that contributes to climate change out of the atmosphere. Wetlands have been described as “the kidneys of the landscape”, performing the rites of cleansing. Third, the capacity of wetlands to absorb a great amount of water benefits developed areas, especially during periods of flooding. Coastal wetlands serve as storm surge protectors when hurricanes or tropical storms come ashore. Wetland systems can also recharge groundwater aquifers and cleanse polluted waters. Despite occupying an area of no greater than 8% of the earth’s surface, wetlands are, in fact, among the most productive ecosystems in the world.^[9] However, as much as 2.4 million km2 of inland wetlands have been lost over the past 300 years, with much of this loss happening after 1900.^[10] According to the United Nations, roughly 35 per cent of all wetlands globally disappeared between 1970 and 2015, and the rate of loss has been accelerating since the year 2000.^[11] It is generally agreed that worldwide at least half of all pre-development wetlands have been lost to human activities.^[12] For instance, what is economically beneficial in the upper portions of drainage basins—irrigation, timber harvesting, hydroelectric power, recreation and other human uses—is often deleterious for downstream inhabitants of wetlands and coastal regions. Water supply to wetlands may be reduced by levees, canals and dams as well as by extraction of ground water. Filling is another common means of converting wetlands for building construction, urban expansion, and industrial development. The loss of wetlands affects greenhouse gas fluxes, flood control, nutrient cycling and biodiversity. “Asia is the global centre of tidal wetland loss from direct human activities.”^[13]

In order to prevent further deterioration of wetlands, negotiations between various countries and nongovernmental agencies in the 1960s culminated in adoption of a treaty in the Iranian city of Ramsar in 1971, namely, the Ramsar Convention. This treaty, which came into force in 1975, dealt with conserving wetland habitats necessary for migratory waterbirds. The number of contracting parties (countries) has reached 160, representing all parts of the world, and nearly 1900 sites have been listed as wetlands of international importance covering more than 185 million hectares. Despite this, wetlands are still at risk of degradation due to human activities.

Rethinking Boundaries

The blurred boundary of wetlands allows the synergy of soil, water, vegetation and wildlife, and its distinctive ecosystem supports and encourages life. How does this ecological blurred boundary inspire theological reflection on boundaries?

Boundaries for others

Wetlands are zones in which the boundaries between dry land and water are blurred. The dry land cannot claim wetlands as its own. Neither can the water. The blurred boundary of wetlands creates a unique ecosystem. However, humans always tend to change the blurred boundaries of wetlands into dry land for agriculture, urbanization and industry. Interestingly such a human activity may correspond to God’s act in creation.

And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good (Gen 1:9–10).

It is with God’s act of drawing a boundary that the creation story begins. Can we say that it is human invasion into wetland that cultures are created? God’s creation is his/her self-withdrawal where God cedes the cosmos its own space and time, which is to say an existence of integrity not obliterated by divine presence. God’s act of drawing a boundary is an act of giving space for others to exist, develop and interact rather than simply an act of separation. Creation is the overflow of the infinite love of God and witnesses to God’s kenosis. This divine kenosis reveals a passionate interest in the otherness of the other, a passionate interest in letting the other unfold himself/herself in freedom, a passionate interest to pave ways for the unfolding of his/her life…It respects the depth and the mystery and the freedom of the loved one; it even keeps this depth and mystery and freedom alive and holds it open.^[14]

Regarding giving space in creation, Jürgen Moltmann finds that a sense of kenosis echoes the zimzum of kabbalistic thought. In zimzum, the self empties in withdrawing, in contracting the self to make space for creation and for the other. “It is not just self-giving that belongs to creative love; it is self-limitation too; not only affection, but respect for the unique nature of the others as well.”^[15] God’s kenosis in creation helps us to understand God’s command to humanity: “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat you shall die (Gen 2:17).” The tree of the knowledge of good and evil can be seen as the boundary between God and humans, and it is a boundary of mutual respect. This is further explicated in the Ten Commandments. Once such a self-limiting, for others and protecting practice of boundary in God’s creation has been translated into dualism, exclusivism and patriarchalism, boundary carries more a sense of marginality, self-centeredness and authoritarianism, and as a result, certain groups of people are seen as living on the edge of society. In order to save the cosmos from the distorted practice of boundary, God revealed in Jesus Christ tears down the barriers of discrimination. Paul said, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). Tearing down barriers does not mean homogenization. Rather it is the blurred boundary in which differences are kept and respected. Interestingly the two natures of Jesus Christ as fully divine and fully human constitute a striking example of barriers torn down, and this can be metaphorically seen as the blurred boundary between the divine and the human. Any attempt to sharply distinguish between the two natures of Jesus Christ distorts Jesus Christ. The Chalcedonian Creed confesses that the two natures of Jesus Christ are “without confusion, without change, without separation, without division.” The blurred boundary of Jesus Christ is also reflected in St Athanasius’ theology of theosis. In his work On the Incarnation he wrote, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” I would not say that the blurred boundary of wetlands metaphorically fully expresses the two natures of Jesus Christ. Rather, in the light of God’s creation and Jesus Christ as the Incarnated God, boundary is to support life-flourishing and respect for others instead of simply separation. Returning to the concern of wetlands, first, humans should protect wetlands; second, humans should practice self-limiting kenosis in order to allow space for others; third, humans should challenge and tear down boundaries unfavorable to the flourishing of life.

Coexistence as together towards life

The blurred boundary of wetlands illustrates one of the world’s most biologically diverse environments, but we should not romanticize ecological coexistence as peace and harmony without violence. In fact, there are many sorts of interactions between species in ecosystems. They include predator-prey relationships, in which one species is food for another; mutualistic relationships, in which each partner to the relationship provides something the other needs; and competitive relationships, in which the interaction may be indirect through the effects that each species has on its shared environment.^[16] In an ecosystem, mutualistic relationships should not be seen as morally superior to predator-prey relationships and competitive relationships. Instead of unquestionably copying the ecological system into the human community, humans as moral agents have to ask what ethical coexistence is involved. The basis of ethical coexistence is to recognize the reality of inter-dependence and the right to exist. However, there are various reasons for coexistence. First, people learn to recognize the differences among them, and so they practice toleration, mutual respect and settle conflicts without recourse to violence. Second, people choose to live in coexistence because there is no way to destroy the others. They practice toleration without mutual respect. In fact, to eliminate others is still the goal. Third, there is a kind of coexistence for the sake of exclusion. Coexistence is selective rather than open to all. Coexistence can be determined either by value-based or strategic considerations. Taking the reality of international relations into consideration, Terry Nardin rejects the normative theory of co-existence and suggests the “purposive association” or “practical association”. There may be many areas in which groups of nations will have common purposes which they will wish to pursue through purposive association. He explains:

... (purposive association) is an association of independent and diverse political communities, each devoted to its own ends and its own conception of the good.... The common good of this inclusive community resides not in the ends that some, or at times even most, of its members may wish collectively to pursue but in the values of justice, peace, security, and co-existence, which can only be enjoyed through participation in a common body of authoritative practice.^[17]

His proposal of the development of a common body of authoritative practice expressed in international law remains questionable because nations can ignore international law when they find the international law does not serve their interests. For instance, China rejects the Arbitral Tribunal’s ruling in the South China Sea. My question is not whether statements of the normative theory of international relations are practical or not, but whether there is any symbol or myth that opens human consciousness to the possibility of a common goal of liberation rather than closing it off in the narrow security of reactionary conservatism. This is not a matter of “what ought to be” but some kind of utopia. Max Horkheimer comments that the otherworldly elements of religion are “a longing for something other than this world”, a longing that can help to open and keep the human imagination alive to the possibility that what presents itself as the natural order of things is not the fullness of what might be.^[18] This is the area that I now turn to.

On September 5, 2012, the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC) approved the new mission affirmation, that is, Together Towards Life: Mission and Evangelism in Changing Landscapes.^[19] It states:

God created the whole oikoumene in God’s image and constantly works in the world to affirm and safeguard life… A denial of life is a rejection of the God of life. God invites us into the life-giving mission of the Triune God and empowers us to bear witness to the vision of abundant life for all in the new heaven and earth...^[20]

Together Towards Life illumines our imagination of coexistence in several ways. First, coexistence is about a culture of encounter. It is an encounter in which people open themselves and move beyond boundaries defined by nations, ideology, religion, gender, ethnicity and others. The encounter is to support an I-Thou relation instead of I-It and a practice of “radical hospitality to the estranged in society.”^[21] This is reflected in Jesus’ practice of meeting sinners, prostitutes and tax-collectors. Second, coexistence is about solidarity. It is “a movement taking place from the centre to the periphery, and from the privileged to the marginalized of society.”^[22] Pope Francis uses a phrase—an ecumenism of blood—to describe a particular way of solidarity with martyrs. I would further say that we are not only united with people suffering for their faith, but also anyone who has suffered from injustice. Ecumenism of blood is a kind of coexistence in which we are the voice of the voiceless. Third, coexistence is to allow and encourage each other to participate freely. It recognizes the importance of each life and that each life is capable of contributing something to others. No matter how marginal, vulnerable and feeble one is, one’s participation should not be overlooked. Fourth, coexistence is to celebrate because we are invited to the feast of life through Jesus Christ.^[23] It is both a reality in the here and now and a promise. Celebration reminds us that life is about sharing rather than competing, flourishing rather than suffering oppression, living to the fullest rather than struggling to meet standards. Unlike natural coexistence, an ethical coexistence is one in which diversity is respected, encounter is promoted, solidarity is practiced, participation is encouraged and celebration is felt.

Are wetlands by their nature pro-life flourishing? Are wetlands inviolable? The ecosystem of wetlands reminds us that there are many forms of coexistence in nature, and we should not be surprised by the possible tension among different organisms. In fact, nature does not provide the ultimate to life. It is God’s grace that perfects nature. In Thomas Aquinas’ words, “Gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit.” Together Toward Life reminds us that the Spirit of God is the source of life, sustaining, renewing, healing and flourishing within creation.^[24] It is the Spirit of God continuously working within nature implicitly and explicitly. Humans are invited to be God’s co-workers (Gen 1:28; 1 Cor 3:9) to take care of, liberate, evangelize and sanctify the nature which humans are part of. At the same time, humans are co-sufferers with nature and long for God’s salvation (Rom 8:20–23).

Wetlands as a geopolitical imaginary

The emergence and development of ASEAN is an example of the East Asian geopolitical imaginaries. Its effort should be recognized because it is not an easy task bringing nations with different political ideologies, social structures and histories together to work for a better regional environment. However, ASEAN is still framed in the classical geopolitics that focuses on the interrelationship between the territorial interests and power of the state and geographical environments, and territory, resources and location. Critical geopolitics tends to focus more on the role of discourse and ideology, and how the interactions between the human and physical produces geopolitics.^[25] The critical geopolitics is to be rather more fluid and subject to interpretation. My concern then is how wetlands characterized by blurred boundaries and ways of coexistence as an ecumenical-theological model may shape and inspire people in East Asia to reimagine their lives.

First, I am not thinking how international government organisations such as ASEAN can be converted to something like wetlands with blurred boundaries, but how civil society in different nations is encouraged to emerge, develop and be connected. Metaphorically, civil society is as a wetland. ASEAN is a top-down model where nations take initiatives while the model of civil society is bottom-up where people take more initiatives. ASEAN is framed by boundaries while civil society always exists across boundaries and borders. Civil society is not the soft power of governments in international relations. Ironically, it challenges and pushes governments to be committed to life flourishing. The bottom-up model of civil society corresponds to the Catholic social teaching of the principle of subsidiarity. It means that larger social bodies should not take over decisions that are responsibilities of small groups or associations. It has its roots in the 19th century social thinkers in France and Germany and first appears in Catholic social teaching in Pope XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo anno (1931).

The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of “subsidiary function,” the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.^[26]

The principle of subsidiarity does not weight civil communities over governments; both must work together to meet the common good in the prevailing circumstances and conditions of human life. However, governments should protect, support and intervene less in civil society instead of vice versa. This request is particularly true in East Asia in which civil society has undergone different degrees of scrutiny and suppression. Many nations in East Asia consider that limiting the development of civil society helps to safeguard the authority of governments. Paradoxically, the suppression of civil society brings insecurity and instability to nations, not only because the legitimacy of a government comes from people, not from the suppression of people, but also because people have very limited non-violent channels to express their discontent to their government policy. The experience of wetlands teaches us that self-limiting is urgently needed so that a life flourishing ecosystem can be developed and sustained. Unlike individual persons, governments are hardly likely to be self-critical and self-limiting. Therefore, empowering civil society through connecting with and supporting one another are ways to protect and enhance life flourishing communities. Civil society here is more understood as politics of influence. Now we turn to the second point.

Coexistence in wetlands supports biodiversity. Coexistence is about the values of I-Thou encounter, hospitality, solidarity and celebration that have been articulated in this paper. In the East Asian context, the implementation of coexistence is concerned with understanding and protecting human rights. The importance of human rights discourse(s) is the acknowledgement of everyone’s potential for human flourishing. Human rights are not new to most nations. ASEAN possesses four instruments and institutions to promote and protect human rights, namely the ASEAN Charter, the ASEAN Community, the National Commission on Human Rights and the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Asia. However, we experience different degrees of the violation of human rights in East Asia.^[27] Some violations are very serious. Besides, there are debates in the understanding of human rights in East Asia, such as, western values versus Asian values, civil and political rights versus subsistence rights, liberal rights versus collective rights and so on. The cultural, philosophical and political debate on the “Asian exceptionalism” was reflected in the Vienna Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993. The differences should be noted and understood, and not dichotomized. Edward Said argued in his classic text Orientalism, the very notions of West and East are problematic constructions that homogenise and obscure the dynamic complexity of both areas.^[28] These differences should never be an excuse to justify that women’s and girls’ rights can be overruled because of Asian cultures. Freedom of expression can be given up because of the different degree of development of society, the right to justice can be traded off because of national security, freedom of religion and belief can be denied because of the supremacy of one’s religion. I am expecting to see how Asian uniqueness can enhance our commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights rather than that maintain the status quo. Coexistence is more than living together without the use of violence; it is to speak up for others whose existence is under threat, and who are denied and deprived. Coexistence challenges the “ASEAN Way” on the one hand, and illustrates the protection of human rights as the basis of coexistence on the other.

I would not expect such an imaginary of self-limiting and coexistence-human rights to be embraced by most East Asian nations, in spite of ASEAN’s vision of “a people-oriented ASEAN”. Rather, it is civil society that we should expect to carry such a vision, even if its impact remains limited. In his book, Dreams of Peace and Freedom: Utopian Moments in the 20th Century, historian Jay Winter writes of “minor utopias” or “moments of possibility” when a very disparate group of people tried in their separate ways to imagine a radically better world. These minor utopias are opposed to major utopias such as the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere by Japan during the Second World War. Winter describes minor utopias as visions of partial transformation that “sketch out a world very different from the one we live in, but from which not all social conflict or all oppression has been eliminated.”^[29] I am inclined to say that churches are minor utopias or moments of possibility, but these are not confined to churches only. Theologically, first, Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church, and the life of Jesus Christ is for others and thus kenotic; second, churches are ecumenical and not defined and bounded by the national boundaries within which churches are located; third, churches are not a sect (though churches are in the world, they are not of the world), but they participate in missio Dei. Churches are like wetlands: they nurture and support human flourishing, although churches are far from offering a full realization of this theological vision. Any theological reflection and practice have to start from metanoia (conversion).

Conclusion

This paper employs wetlands, an ecological phenomenon, as a metaphor to think about the geopolitics in East Asia. The “is” and “is not” nature of metaphor helps us to correlate two partly different, partly corresponding, entities imaginatively and allows us to cross boundaries, think outside the box and even generate something new. On the one hand, we learn from wetlands that the blurred boundary fosters diversity and encourages coexistence in human communities. On the other hand, we recognize the richness of wetlands and our responsibility to wetlands through self-limiting. We preserve the natural wetlands and, at the same time, we metaphorically create something like wetlands in human communities in which communal life, as characterized by the eschatological vision of shālôm (peace), ashrê (blessedness) and tāmîm (wholeness) revealed in Jesus Christ can flourish. Geopolitics from civil society thus is more about a vision and a practice for the promotion of life-flourishing communities rather than narrowly maintaining a regimes’ political interests. Despite its limits and weaknesses, the church as a minor utopia always has an indispensable role to play in supporting a life-flourishing geopolitics.