One of the many unfortunate results of the Church getting caught up in the culture wars is the politicisation of our stewardship of the earth. Because ‘Green causes’ have become identified with the political left, those who self-identify as not being on that side in the the culture wars, tend to trash the ‘Green agenda.’ Now it may well be that most mainstream scientists are wrong on these issues, and a minority of dissidents are correct, it would not be the first time that has happened. But is an important point being missed in the retreat to pre-prepared trenches?
What does it say about out attitude as Christians if we regard ourselves as owners of the earth? The Bible is clear that our relationship to God’s creation is that of steward; Jesus is equally clear about how God regards stewards who see their position as that of owners. What does that mean in practice?
We might take it as a matter of regret if a species becomes extinct, but is there not a wider, Christian perspective? God’s overflowing creativity has populated a world to delight us, and unless we think He has no purpose in creating, we might want to take on board the idea that each aspect of creation tells us something about God and His Creation; every time we lose an aspect of that, we lose something God has given us.
What does it say about us as a community of Christians that we take an instrumentalist view of the environment? Probably much the same thing as it says when we take the same view of education. It says, in effect, that we have adopted a materialist view of life. We see no objective beyond getting rich and being comfortable. Is that, in any way, what Jesus is telling us about what God created us for? He came that we should have life, and have it more abundantly. That is not a proclamation of the prosperity Gospel. It is not a call to forget stewardship.
But have we the wisdom to think deeply about this? Or are we simply going to retreat to the Culture War trenches? In Laudato Si, the Pope asks us to think about the purpose of life, and what it means to say we are made in the image of God? An exploitative relationship with the environment, like one with labour, is one which runs counter to the Christian belief that we are stewards of this earth, and that every life has a unique value.
In education we are moving, and may even have moved, close to a position in which the idea that knowledge is worth having for its own sake is regarded as anathema; we are told that university degrees need to be ‘useful,’ where ‘use’ is tied to monetary gain. In the UK, a degree which leads to a poorly-paid but socially useful job, is rated as less useful than one which delivers a good salary. So, women who choose to stay at home and raise children are regarded with less favour than those who take the decision to remain childless and devote themselves to their job. Women are encouraged to follow men and define their value in relation to their job. And we complain that family matters less. How can it not in a society which puts a value solely on what is economically useful?
Benedict XVI wrote about our need to recapture a sense of reason. He challenged it to rise to the ‘Socratic task of inquiring into the good life.’ Human beings, separated from God are, he reminded us, ‘reduced to a single dimension’. ‘Were God to lose his centrality man would lose his rightful place, he would no longer fit into creation, into relations with others. ‘ That, Pope Francis suggests in Laudato Si, is precisely what modern society in the West has reduced us to. We need, he suggests, quoting St Augustine, to rediscover a reverence for the beauty of God’s creation:
St Augustine, who spent much of his life seeking the Truth and was grasped by the Truth, wrote a very beautiful and famous passage in which he said: “Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky… question all these realities. All respond: ‘See, we are beautiful’. Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?” (Sermo 241, 2: pl 38, 1134).
Pope Benedict called for us to recover
and enable people today to recover — our capacity for contemplating creation, its beauty and its structure. The world is not a shapeless mass of magma, but the better we know it and the better we discover its marvellous mechanisms the more clearly we can see a plan, we see that there is a creative intelligence.
Neither are our fellow men simply means of production and consumption. We need to recapture what it means to be made in God’s image.
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence” (n. 33).
Unless our culture can recapture these aspects of life, then we remain condemned to an essentially reductionist and profoundly unChristian way of life.
Retreat to the trenches of the culture war if you must, but such an approach to Laudato Si misses the continuity with Pope Benedict – and St Augustine.
Stewardship, what a concept, and one from our past. It is something we’ve lost in this materialistic, over individualized time. One doesn’t have to be a collectivist to understand that man is an individual in society, starting at the family, Yes, there are men (and one assumes) women who prefer to live their life alone, but most of us need human connection and interaction. It actually is, I suspect a matter of health, else why so often do we hear of a widow (or widower) following their deceased partner, or indeed why people who truly retire, leave soon.
While I agree that it is based on how God created us, one can get there on other roads. Burke, for instance, He wrote. “Society is indeed a contract. It is a partnership . . . not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” What else can he be talking about other than living our lives in ways that benefit our descendant as well as us? That sounds suspicious like stewardship rather than consumerism to me.
It is, I suspect, something easier to observe in rural, agricultural areas, than in cities where famously, people supposedly believe chocolate milk comes from brown cows, but I also wonder whether the depersonalization inherent in the large city isn’t one of the drivers of extreme individualism, at even the family’s expense..
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is a complex issue and requires different answers for different angles. Re: materialism, all I can say is that people have not been taught the philosophy of science and have been under the influence of empiricists too long. Extreme empiricism is a contradiction and should be exposed as such. I also have a great dislike for arguments that misrepresent rationalism as a denial of the scientific method when it is no such thing. At its root, everything comes back to the sin nature and the two Falls (Gen. 3 and 6): this toxic situation is not merely the consequence of human activity; we are also feeling the effects of the elohim.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Amen. It is all about the Fall. Mankind has been left with a Catch 22 problem (damned if you do or damned if you don’t). How does one follow the command to “be fruitful and multiply” while not utilizing the resources of the earth. We are akin to living on a small island that will eventually not be able to sustain the number of citizens living there . . . the saga of Easter Island; no wonder science fiction dreams of setting out for new islands in the universe until they too become stressed.
It seems to me that every new technology (whether considered ‘green’ or not has its own attendant difficulties. They simply replace one type of natural resource for another and all of them are finite. If it is electric, we still need copper, plastics, ceramics, rare earth metals for magnets etc. The question is which is least impactful for the moment; what power source and means of food, clothing and shelter production has the best efficiency for power in to power out. At this time it is still gas and oil; but I have seen no detailed plan or itemized study of the materials needed for each and how they might impact the world.
At least Al Gore, George Soros and Jeffrey Sachs have not lied as to their ‘plan’ for nobody else has produced one. They at least admit that contraception, abortion and euthanizing citizens has the best chance for the moment: especially reducing the number of peoples being born into Africa. That is the ‘sustainability’ model that aver and if that is the solution my Faith will not allow me to buy into their solution; for it too is a violation of God’s commands to show good stewardship.
Or is the plan to chuck the technology that has made life more bearable for most peoples and has saved countless lives by providing the necessities of life at a cost that is far less than they ever were? A return to the agricultural society may sound romantic but the footprint of such a return is far worse than we have now. So we keep trying to find technical solutions for our immediate problems; and for every jump in technology there is a new problem associated with the change of the technology.
Recycling is a good, and developed by the capitalists countries to reduce the footprint of creating products from the raw materials only. Mining cannot cease, for every energy source has its own needs for materials. It is merely swapping one for another and getting products that require less impact on the planet by re-using things that can be reused.
But be sure that the only ‘fix’ is reducing the number of human beings on this planet and/or swelling the ranks of the poor by not having enough jobs to go around. At least in their secular, God denying ways, the elite movers and shakers that want to reduce the footprint are not shying away from their belief that decreasing the number of inhabitants is the answer.
So we are left to rethink Adam and Eve and to understand that this too is a test for us to see what harm the fall has on mankind when we try to tackle each new problem, relying on ourselves and our technology. Perhaps in the long run we will see that we are not capable of solving this seeming game of whack-a-mole without setting our faces against God or perhaps surrendering our fate to Him alone. But the attending issues are not going to go away and the solutions are going to create other problems that will escalate and perhaps be worse than the world we left. I don’t think returning to whale oil lamps and wood fires is going to help the air pollution and yet our newer technologies will perhaps make the present industrial pollution less impactful and we can only hope that one day pollution might find a point of stasis, where the earth has the ability to clean herself at the same rate that we produce the offending emissions.
But ultimately there is no answer. We find, once again, that for every fix there comes new problems that must be found. Not an easy subject if you get into the nuts an bolts of what is going on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I completely agree. It is also difficult to determine exactly where and how the law should get involved. In my return to more libertarian modes of thinking, I have become less and less keen on state involvement. To an extent tort provides an answer, but it too is not without problems.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed it is not. We may simply be at the point in salvation history where we exhaust all of our technological, legal and political fixes and await the Good God Who has the answer: which, of course, is to abandon ourselves into His hands and into His Infinite Mercy. The question that begs an answer is how much Faith do we have that Christ will not abandon us and the gates of hell will not overcome? We can do our best . . . but knowing, all the while, that our best is not sufficient and that we are ultimately placed into the care of God alone. Maybe, this whole green thing will eventually penetrate back to the Fall for re-examination and help an unbelieving world, once again place our faith in God. Even our currency sings the chorus that In God We Trust. I wonder how many of us do?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I often think about the transition between this age and the “age to come” and what that means for technology, culture, etc. If we had no sin nature, we could avoid a lot of the dangerous waste because charity would let us distribute things fairly and people would be good stewards of what was given to them. But we don’t have that luxury in business or the state. The Church can operate that way because it occupies a completely different framework. Of course, the state has seen to the decline of such activities through making the Church choose between philanthropy and Truth (see the problem of Catholic orphanages and gay rights during the Blair years).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I too think in such terms, Nicholas. I expect, before the Parousia, that not only will individual faith, families, Church, culture etc., that the earth will all be put under great stress and groan with Holy Spirit as we have but one option: turn again to the faith, hope and charity of God to once again show His merciful face to us; his most unworthy creations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m inclined to agree, but I’m not objective. My instinct for the nearness of the Lord’s return is just that – instinct. Despite my analysis of what the Bible says and how it supports me position, it isn’t the text by itself which tells me this; it’s something deeper.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think it has begun (and it began at the death of Christ) but I think we have a long way to go before we get to that desperate state . . . but we can all be sure that every day we are getting ever closer . . . that’s for sure.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“For our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed;”
LikeLiked by 4 people