Bodies Don’t Lie—A Feminist Eco-Theological Perspective = on Embodiment

Bodies DonR= 17;t Lie:

A Feminist Theological Perspective on Embodiment

Mary E. Hunt

January 24, 20= 09

World Forum on Theology and Liberation, Belem= , Brazil

Introduction

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; I dedicate my remarks to the memory of Sister Dorothy Stang, an American nun = with a Brazilian heart killed in the region for her commitment to Earth and Wate= r. Dorothy Stang, Presente!

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; I live in Washington,= DC, and we had some celebrating to do = this week! Our new president, Barack Hussein Obama, was sworn in on Tuesday with= all of the pageantry and excitement imaginable. Although we in the U.S. are not naïve about the limits of any one person, it is a new day in my countr= y, not simply because we have an African American president, though that is ne= arly miraculous given the scandal of slavery and the enduring oppression of raci= sm. It is a new day because in the first few days the president has already iss= ued an executive order to stop torture and will close the prison in Guantanamo, made plans to end the war in Iraq, a= nd is developing an economic plan that will be more just and equitable for all. Hopefully th= ese actions will restore the integrity of a country that has been mismanaged and led astray for eight years.

Presidential promises are only words, but I can report with humility and hope that there is new resolve in the people of the United States to be more responsible global citizens than we have been, especially during= the years of President George W. Bush. I loved the recent Brazilian editorial c= artoon which showed lots of pairs of shoes outside a closed door. One man asks ano= ther if a new mosque has opened in town. No, is the reply, George Bush is around= ! That is how we feel, too, grateful that he is back on the ranch in Texas where he can do less harm than h= e has done to the world during his terms in office.

On Monday, January 19, 2009, the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the U.S. enjoyed a National Day of Service. Millions of people volunteered their tim= e to improve local communities. My daughter and I went to a nearby park to pick = up trash. I wanted to reinforce to my child that we are all responsible for our environment. As we picked up cans and bottles from the woods, the discarded garbage on the land, we lived out in some small way our conference theme, &= #8220;Water, Earth, Theology.” It was cold and we got a little dirty. It was uncom= fortable. Our bodies didn’t lie to us that there is a price to pay for a cleane= r Earth, a more just society.

<= o:p>

Theme of the Lecture: Bodies Don’t Lie

The majority of Earth’s people pay a steep price= so that some people can take their embodiment for granted. I contend that now human beings are not one, but several species. It is this dynamic of oppression th= at I want to explore from a feminist liberation theological perspective. How are= we to think about embodiment when it is such a radically different experience = for human beings depending on their social location and economic status? Are there any common human experiences of embodiment? What are we to think theologically = in light of this new anthropological reality when not even being human means t= he same thing to everyone anymore? What contributions can our liberation theologies make to changing these dynamics and creating a world in which embodiment is not a boutique experience for some but a human right for all?= I offer some general contextualizing remarks, some observations on eco-femini= st theology and other liberation theologies, and then explore these questions = in light of my claim that bodies don’t lie.

<= o:p>

Context

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; My eyes glaze over when I read statistics about Earth, the Universe, and even economics that all point to what a poor job we are doing caring for the precious resources that have been entrusted to us. But my heart is touched = by embodied inhabitants of Earth who live on it in such different and often un= fair ways. The pets of wealthy people live far more comfortably than most of the world’s poor. Bodies don’t lie.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; I am haunted by the dead bodies of children in Gaza. One family lost three small ones recently. It is a picture I cannot erase from my mind: their father distrau= ght and bereaved alongside them, his wife and children dead from Israeli bombs.= A report from the United Nations confirms this news:

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; “Palestinian children are dying at a heavy rate in the Israeli-Hamas fighting — ab= out one of every three persons killed, according to Gaza statistics. As of early January, 2= 57 children were among the approximately 760 reported dead in Gaza. There were another 1,080 children= among the 3,100 injured in the conflict, according to statistics from Gaza's health ministry.” [i] The details are even grimmer: the Geneva-based International Committee of t= he Red Cross issued a stark statement reporting that “a team of four Palestine Red Crescent ambulances accompanied by Red Cross representatives made its way to Zeitoun Wednesday where it found four small children next to their dead mothers in = one of the houses. They were too weak to stand up on their own. One man was also found alive, too weak to stand up. In all, there were at least 12 corpses l= ying on mattresses.”

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; This is embodiment in 2009, where it is not easy to say whether the dead children are better off than the ones who stood besides the dead bodies of their mothers. In English we say, “Pick your poison.”         &= nbsp; This is the context in which we gather to speak about embodiment. Bodies donR= 17;t lie.

As theologians we are used to a dispassionate discourse and a rational conclusion. I must confess that I am neither dispassionate n= or rational in the face of such suffering. Rather, I weep at the thought of hu= manity that prefers to kill children or let them watch their own mothers die rathe= r than sit down and discuss ideological differences like civilized people. I find neither rhyme nor reason to lives snuffed out just as they begin, lives mar= ked indelibly with the stain of suffering and the stench of death. <= /span>

Everything I say about embodiment today is filtered through the lens of these children—some the age of my own dear daught= er—who live (and die) in their bodies so differently than most of us in ours.

It is axiomatic in liberation theologies to contextual= ize our claims. So I acknowledge that I live in the U.S. where so much of what pl= agues the rest of the world is engineered and implemented. Surely in the case of = Gaza there is blo= od on American hands, albeit from a distance.

As a feminist theologian I am used to thinking of embodiment in much more personal terms—women’s bodies, sexualit= y, motherhood, sexual abuse, and the like. But these are all of a piece with t= he destruction in Gaza and the destruction of our ecosystem. Now I want to think globally about the connections, linking women’s damaged bodies and dead children with Ea= rth endangered and parts of the Amazon dead. There is privilege entailed in bei= ng at such a remove from suffering of the magnitude of <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Gaza or ecocide that one can even conce= ive of its impact, and I acknowledge that privilege. The more humane response is to hug the children, weep for the parents, and curse angrily at any divinities that might tolerate such depravity. But if our gathering on the eve of the World Social Forum 2009 is to contribute to global justice, then I think we need to explore embodiment theologically as if it were a matter of life or death, because it is. As theologians our task is not only to seek meaning b= ut to make change. Our bodies must not lie either.

Lest Gaza be consider= ed unique, Zimbabwe, R= 20;once considered the ‘breadbasket’ of Africa…is now a country that cannot feed its own people.” [ii] Life expectancy there is 37 for men= , 34 for women thanks to the deadly regime of Robert Mugabe. Health care is almo= st non-existent while disease, including HIV/AIDS, cholera, and anthrax poison= ing are rampant. Physicians for Human Rights issued a report last week in which they confirmed that “a major problem is the loss of life and fetal wastage we are seeing with obstetrics patients. They come so late, the fetu= ses are already dead….” This is embodiment. Dead bodies don’t lie.

In Phnom Penh, Cambodia, just as in Belem and so many other places in the w= orld, people live on top of a mountain of garbage. While we in the U.S. campaign = to outlaw sweatshops and to boycott products made in them, for many of the peo= ple who live on top of smoking, stinky garbage, a job in a sweatshop is somethi= ng to aspire to just as my child aspires to a college education. It is a perve= rse point but for those who live in garbage heaps, sweatshops are a step up.= = [iii] In short, we deal with the problems= of development alongside the ecological crisis. This is the dilemma of embodiment—at once so common our humanity and at the same time so variegated as to divide us into what are practically different species. Wor= king bodies don’t lie.

Indian economist Radhika Balakrisnan makes a similar p= oint about the paradox of embodiment. Women in her country sew underwear in swea= tshops that is sold cheaply in the United States. Immigrant women in the United States, many of them from India, = who cannot afford a new outfit, can perhaps buy a new pair of underwear.= = [iv] Their pleasure at hav= ing choices about color, style, size of underwear is created by their sisters s= till at home who labor in factories. This is how the two ends of the embodiment spectrum are lived out by sisters or cousins who, but for the accident of g= eography, are linked closely. In what kind of upside-down world do we live? At a mini= mum, we can conclude that embodiment, like underwear, is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Bodies don’t lie.

One methodological problem with the challenge of ecolo= gy is that it is so big. For most of us the task is where to start, how to get= a handle on the issues from where we live, how to do something concrete rather than throwing up our hands at the enormity of the task. I think as liberati= on theologians our work needs to be very specific and strategic. So I look for= the connections between daily life and the macro themes, between working on iss= ues for which there is already progress, such as gender, sexuality, and disabil= ity rights, and issues like the environment which will challenge us for generat= ions to come. I propose linking them, being consistent across the board, and in = so doing forging bonds of solidarity and accountability that will take us into= the future.

<= o:p>

Resources from Eco-feminist,= Queer (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender) and Disabled Theological Perspectives

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; I turn to feminist, queer, and disabled theologies as some of the most useful= resources for understanding more about our varied embodiments and sources of inspirat= ion and motivation to make them more just. I look at hard issues like abortion = and homosexuality, especially hard for Catholics whose church has positioned it= self publicly against justice for women and lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender peo= ple. My embodied location as a white, middle class, U.S. citizen grants me the sy= mbolic capital to do so and the moral responsibility to take on these unpopular is= sues without fear or apology. Indeed, my embodiment provides the imperative to b= egin with the familiar, not the exotic, in order to live with integrity in an un= just world. In this way I do not shy away from the difficult in order to take on= the “safer” questions of planetary destruction. As a feminist I pre= fer to see the ways in which these matters play out in tandem rather than prioritizing one over the other. I urge such a method on liberationists as a way to lend credibility and specificity to what may otherwise be generalizations about the human condition that we pretend to stand outside = of and observe.

I bring an eco-feminist perspective to embodiment on an endangered planet. What happens to many, if not most, women’s bodies = is paradigmatic of Earth’s own predicament—overburdened and under = resourced, taken advantage of when young, deprived of the opportunity to make choices, thrown away when old, ignored when poor, left to fester when ill, or romant= icized beyond recognition through media and pornography. I follow appreciatively in the footsteps of feminist theologians Ivone Gebara, Rosemary Radford Ruethe= r, Sallie McFague, Heather Eaton, and others whose work to bring feminist insi= ghts to bear has passed largely unnoticed by the world’s powers and inexplicably by many liberation theologians. I stand in debt to the Circle = of Concerned African Women Theologians, to Native women including Andrea Smith= , and to the countless women’s = groups that have met to deal with these issues in their neighborhoods, towns, and cities.

Much of their work has been ignored by liberation theologians. In an effort to = be global in reach, philosophical in tone, and acceptable in the eyes of the powerful, some liberation theologians colleagues take on the macro issues—poverty statistics, development goals, global warming numbers—passing over without noticing or noting the way in which thes= e phenomena play out for individuals, especially for women and their dependent children= . I want to pick up where the feminist colleagues have left off to suggest why embodiment is an increasingly unequal experience and what we might do to ch= ange it.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; First, virtually all feminist theologians of embodiment have concerned themselves = in one way or another with women’s reproductive rights because pregnant bodies and the children who follow are the essence of embodiment. Sex education, birth control, abortion, childcare, and the like are fundamental= to women’s well-being. In fact, the degree to which access to these righ= ts has been denied to the majority of Earth’s women has led to the curre= nt focus on procreative justice. The rights language of the upper middle class= has given way to the justice language of the poor precisely because of the differences in our embodiment. Womanist theologians and Latina/feminista/mujerista theologians have emphasized the survival of women and children over against the perceived rights of those who are already entitled in so many ways. Rather than juxtaposing “rights” and = “survival” when both are necessary, advocates now speak of their sum, which is justice. Likewise, the language of “reproduction” tends to favor more the later stages of pregnancy and abortion or birth, while the language of “procreation” hints at earlier points in the process, especially matters of insemination and choices about whether and how to get pregnant. Hence, “procreative justice” is a goal many can unite on. =

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; The United Nations and many development groups have concluded that women in developing countries require control over reproductive choices, along with = jobs and education, if they are to survive, much less access their share of the world’s resources. Procreative justice is a good starting point for measuring our progress on taking the specificity of embodiment seriously. Bodies don’t lie and pregnant bodies are especially truthful.

This is common sense and simple justice vis-à-v= is embodiment, not the stuff of theological treatises and ecclesial power play= s. But it has not been a popular theme in liberation theological circles becau= se it treads on a touchstone of orthodoxy (that is, abortion) for Catholics. Moreover, it forces us to admit that embodiment is not a statistic but an experience, not a common human characteristic—to the contrary, it is = one that signals our uniqueness and organizes our claims on justice. As such, women’s bodies, especially pregnant women’s bodies, are a logic= al starting point for liberation theological reflection that yields deep insig= hts into the nature of embodiment. I urge us to start our liberation theological work here with women’s bodies lest we fall into abstraction. Then we = are more trustworthy when it comes to the loftier goals of environmental clean-= up because we will have practiced being consistent with our values on a daily basis.

Procreative justice has not been a popular issue even = for liberationists. Just ask Brazilian theologian Ivone Gebara, who was silence= d by the Vatican at the mere suggestion that abortion should be decriminalized in Brazil. [v] I do not recall a huge outpouring of support for her from liberation theology colleagues applauding her prescience and her courage. Ask my colleagues at Catolicas pelo Direito= de Decidir (http://catolicaso= nline.org.br/) who have incurred the wrath of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, = with scant support from liberation theologians. Their heroic work to name and explore abortion, most recently to name religiously sanctioned violence as sinful, is a respected part of the larger so-called secular movement for procreative justice. These colleagues in religion dare to state the obvious= : providing safe, legal, economical contraception and abortion is a minimal condition f= or justice in a world in which women and men are differently embodied when it comes to sex and reproduction.

Until and unless these material conditions of embodime= nt change, it is hard to imagine a liberation theological defense against procreative justice. Vague claims about the sanctity of human life that favor fetal life over women’s well-being are simply not sufficient to erase the realit= y of women’s embodiment. If this, which is part of our daily life, remains disputed, I despair to imagine how we might have anything useful to say abo= ut Gaza or Zimbabwe about which we know so much less, much less to commit to dealing with water= or Earth, which cannot speak for themselves.

It is a challenge to be so specific about our embodied selves in a world threatened by ecocide. But dealing with the concrete realities of daily life gives me confidence that we are on the same page wh= en it comes to the macro issues. Otherwise, it is all too easy to offer philosophy rather than a cond= om, theology rather than childcare. I hope we can avoid this.=

A second dimension of embodiment that liberationists h= ave all but avoided is the matter of same-sex love or homosexuality. Argentine theologian Marcella Althaus-Reid and Brazilian theologian André= ; S. Musskopf are pioneering voices on this question in Latin American liberation circles, to whom we are indebted.[vi] Just as procreative justice has replaced reproductive rights as a focus, so too, an analysis of heterosexism takes the focus off of homosexuality. After all, the lives and loves of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people need no special scrutiny. We live our embodiment like everyone else, expressing our love physically in ways that match our deepest instincts. This is a human right, albeit one that is not yet safeguarded in many countries of the world. As s= uch, same-sex love needs no more examination or ethical parsing than any other f= orm of love, provided it is safe and consensual. Our lesbian/gay/bisexual/trans= gender bodies don’t lie either.

What does beg religious and ethical scrutiny is the embodiment of those who would discriminate against same-sex loving persons, commit hate crimes, pass laws that prevent us from getting jobs or housing, from marrying and/or adopting children, all the normal ways in which embodi= ed people act, to which all persons have a human right. What needs to be exami= ned is the abnormal, immoral ways in which heterosexist behavior and structures prevent lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people from going ab= out these ordinary aspects of daily life. These are not extraneous issues, but = like ecology itself, they are central to the well-being of some of our people. To ignore them in favor of saving Earth and all that is part of it will come at the price of some people´s human right to love. This is a false dicho= tomy that I reject.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; It seems to me that liberationists have shied away from looking critically at = so obvious an area of embodied difference, and the result has been more oppres= sion. I understand why, especially for Catholics. When Vat= ican pressures on liberation theologians are heavy enough, no one wants to add s= upport for LGBTQ people to the reasons why one is censured or silenced. It is simi= lar to the reluctance to take on abortion as a justice issue. But I submit that= an embodied theology in an endangered world does not allow the luxury of leavi= ng aside something as basic as sexuality if we are to claim liberationist intentions. Rather, I think we are compelled to prioritize not homosexualit= y, as its opponents would have it, but heterosexism. We need to grapple in a primary way with heterosexism as a form of oppression as basic as any other= on a planet that needs love, not hatred, community, not fragmentation. Again, if= we cannot practice these actions on the everyday issues, what will assure that= we carry them out on issues of land, water, and air?

Now that we are doing our liberation work in a globali= zed setting rather than in balkanized groups by country, region, or ethnicity, = it is difficult to bring sexuality to light. I can imagine that some will say it = is an import from the U.S. and Western Europe, that dealing with same-sex love will distract us from the larger issues of poverty and the environment. I challe= nge this assumption because same-sex loving people exist all over the world, in garbage dumps and seminaries. Moreover, global efforts are mounted to preve= nt human rights in this regard and they require global responses to secure hum= an rights.

Religious pluralism is a happy fact of contemporary li= fe. But its shadow side, religious collusion, is becoming increasingly hard to = ignore. It is the dynamic of religious groups making common cause on issues that oppress even though they find little else on which they agree. On December 18, 2008, 66 of the 192 member countries of the UN introduced a declaration urging states “to take all necessary measures, in particular legislat= ive or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.” This measure was necessary in ligh= t of the fact that homosexuality is still banned in 77 countries and punishable = by death in seven (including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, = etc.) The UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that “all human beings= are born free and equal in dignity and rights" (Article 1). So the body was simply extending its own mandate to another group.

The declaration was not adopted despite support from t= he members of the European Union, Israel, and Brazil. It was defeated with opposition from the U.= S., China, and Russia.= Leading the charge once again were religious leaders, principally the Holy See whic= h, as the governing body of the Roman Catholic Church, has permanent observer status at the UN. Most progressives believe that it ought to have Non Gover= nmental Organization status like other religious bodies. Imagine the outcry if a Protestant church or a Muslim group were treated as a sovereign nation? Whi= le lacking a vote in the General Assembly, the Holy See can and does intervene= in debates and politick with the best of them to have its view hold sway.=

That is precisely what happened this time around. The declaration was voted down because the Vatican sowed the seeds of opposition. It claimed that, if accepted, the statement might mean that sam= e-sex marriage, adoption by LGBTQ people, and/or forms of assisted reproductive technology would have to be made available to everyone. Perish the thought = of equality! Instead, the Vatican charmed its Muslim colleagues into seeing that their religious sensibilities would be offended in equal measure. Their joint efforts were enough to tip = the balance away from justice one more time.

This kind of common cause over oppression is ironic especially between Muslim and Catholic leaders who have lost no love on one= another in other settings. Recall Pope Benedict XVI’s 2006 lecture at the University of Regens= burg in Germany when he spoke controversially about Muhammad. The reality is that Catholic = and Muslim officialdoms have found few points of theological intersection. These leaders have collaborated at earlier women’s and development conferen= ces where they successfully rounded up their religious sycophants to block consensus on reproductive health issues. So we see that embodiment is what links those who oppress; so, too, it must link those who liberate.

The challenge of transgender people is only beginning = to be felt in theological circles. Transgender people have upset the sexual applecart. We used to know what a man was, what a woman was, indeed, who wa= s a lesbian on the basis of her object choice for a sexual partner, that a man = was gay because he loved another man. The challenge of trans people is that we cannot be so sure of any of this anymore. We all have to rethink our identi= ties and commitments. Trans activists and scholars have taught us that gender is= far more fluid than we think, and that there are more than two choices, that se= x is just as socially constructed as gender.[vii] Trans bodies do not = lie.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; Early religious leadership on transgender issues has come from a relatively unlik= ely source, an evangelical feminist, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. She makes obvious the limits of bin= ary categories and the need to rethink all gender assumptions.[viii] This “good news” is not universally well received, even among religious lesbian/gay/bisexual/queer people who are working day and night to change t= heir respective faith communities’ positions. They are forced to stand back and rethink analyses and strategies crafted as if sex and gender were fixed when now we have to admit they are not. So we know far less than we thought= about embodiment—and need deep conversations to illuminate it in light of o= ur legacies of faith.

Another rich resource of thinking anew about embodiment comes from those who theologize from the experience of disabling physical or mental conditions. [ix] Just as reproductive rights has given way to procreative justice, and a foc= us on homosexuality has been replaced by a more appropriate concern for heterosexism, so, too, has a focus on disabling conditions been replaced wi= th the ethical imperative to examine and transforms attitudes and physical structures that “temporarily able bodied persons” foist on the world. This theme remains on the margins of most liberation theology. I sug= gest we move it to the center. Disabled bodies do not lie.

If embodiment determines our relationship with the wor= ld, then there is much to be learned from the infinite ways in which bodies are formed. Justice demands that the needs of the most challenged, not the abilities of the most able, should set the conditions for common life. How = far we live from that goal with barriers of every sort set up to impede the full participation of those whose hearing, sight, and/or mobility is limited. Yet theologians working on issues of disability have begun to spell out their insights and to make their claims on our common ethical agenda. If Earth is God´s body, as several theologians have suggested, then God is disabl= ed and her body does not lie.

<= o:p>

To the Questions:=

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; With the resources of feminist, queer, and disabled theologies to enrich our thinking, I return to my questions with some hints and glimpses of how to s= hape our liberation theological agenda. My fundamental point is that without attention to the difficult issues of daily life I have no confidence that we will have the political will or the solid practice needed to take on the mo= re distant and enormous matters of earth, air, and land.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; A) How are we to think about embodiment when it is such a radically different experience for human beings depending on their social location and economic status?

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; The embodied experiences of women, queer people, and those who are disabled do = not bode well for an ailing Earth. If the oppression and marginalization they experience provide any clue to the future of the planet, we have grounds for pessimism. Taken together and with those who are economically poor, I ventu= re that global oppression has created a subspecies of humanity that lives with less nutrition, fewer rights, and more burdens than the household pets of t= hose who are wealthy and in charge. While that may seem extreme, I think it is achingly accurate and forms the backdrop of our theological claims. Our age= nda for common work takes off from this new, dreadful anthropology.<= /span>

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; B) Are there any common human experiences of embodiment?

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; A Muslim colleague recently observed that we all smile in the same language. = Our tears are clear fluid, possessed of no color or race. We all want the best = for our children. At this conference we learned that our bodily elimination, wh= at is now known theologically as “shit,” is another element in com= mon that divides us—those whose waste is recycled for them and those whos= e it is not. Our bodies don’t lie. But there is little more that unites us= at this point, given the extreme to which we have arrived as a species (or, sh= all we be honest and say, several species).

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; Ironically, death is another reality that divides us. Some lives are prolonged well bey= ond what is reasonable simply because money and technology are available. Other lives are snuffed out prematurely because there is no political will to cle= an up water supplies, purify air, make food available on the basis of Basic Hu= man Needs. But now there is every indication that all bodies are in peril as the environmental crisis deepens. It is simply a matter of degree when the envi= ronment will not sustain any of us. Even in death our bodies do not lie.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; C) What are we to think theologically in light of this new anthropological rea= lity when not even being human means the same thing anymore? <= /p>
<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; As liberation theologians, our work has long been to amplify the voices of the voiceless and to undertake structural change because private solutions to public problems are never sufficient. We are now at a point where the eco-crisis and its human toll is beyond critical. Perhaps now our claims of= a preferential option for the marginalized will ring true. Perhaps now our insistence on t= he well-being of the most afflicted as the center of our concern will be taken seriously. Perhaps now the wisdom of our theological ancestors who said, echoing a Psalmist, that God is always on the side of those who are poor wi= ll be recognized. But what if it is too late and what if our bodies really do = lie?

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; D) What contributions, if any, c= an our liberation theologies make to changing these dynamics and creating a world = in which embodiment is not a boutique experience but a human right?

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; This is the heart of the matter, both literally and figuratively. I propose that= we take our work more seriously than we have to date. I suggest that we think = big about our work, that we lay o= ut some large goals even at the risk of failure since the problems we face are= so large. One example of thinking big is called the United Nations Millennium Development Goals of 2000. These are a constructive effort to eradicate pov= erty without endangering natural resources and the ecosystem, solving problems n= ow that will only grow worse in coming generations. [x] It is a fifteen year p= lan, now halfway through. There are measurable results, forward progress, especi= ally on vaccinations and primary education. What if we were to propose something similar in religion? It certainly cannot hurt and might help to move us forward, making our contribution before it is too late. <= /p>
Conclusion:

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; I humbly suggest that we take such a possibility seriously and begin to make a plan we can adhere to. Let us lay out a plan for how religions can be useful and not harmful in the shaping of a just world, how religions can eradicate instead of exacerbate violence. I imagine it as a Liberation Theology Plan = of Action to be assessed in 2014 and 2019, five and ten years hence, to which = we hold ourselves and one another accountable.

Let us take advantage of this gathering to organize ourselves, listening to the voices of the indigenous = and women, queers and those who are disabled, people of color and marginalized ethnic groups first. Let us be strategic and systematic about it—dividing up the issues we will tack= le and the groups we will empower, giving ourselves specific timelines and assignm= ents and holding one another accountable for our work. Then our liberation theological movement can fulfill its mission and promise.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; I know theology is not done this way under normal circumstances. It is far mo= re individual and evolves more slowly. Theology, even of the liberation stripe= s, is done on the semester plan or on publishers’ deadlines, for confere= nces or professional meetings. But the crisis of embodiment for many of the world’s people, indeed for Earth itself, cannot wait for us to discern and redact, ponder and preach. If bodies don’t lie than we must organ= ize ourselves with dispatch while there are still bodies around to do the work.=

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp; On the visit to the Belem garbage dump that was part of this meeting, a colleague asked one of the wo= men who made her living collecting plastic to recycle if she needed a license or someone’s permission to go about her work. “No,” she said, “only courage.” What we need to deal with bodies that do not li= e at this moment of ecological crisis is courage, courage, courage.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;         &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Notes