The lack of an adequate Christian response to global warming and ecological problems is an indication of an historic, flawed theology.
I have started this on an Advent Sunday, a season of preparation, of
expectant coming, 2 comings in fact. The ‘Christmas’ that was, and the second coming of Jesus that is supposed
to be. The Church tends to fight shy of dwelling on this second aspect, and with good reason. All the
predictions in the Hebrew and Christian books were written at times of great turmoil, change, and persecution,
times when there seemed no way out but for God to wind up the present world order and start again. The thrust is
the salvation of those few who are believers, be they Jew or Christian (depending on which books you read) and
the consequent destruction of all who belong not to these 'faithful'. Inevitably in this day and age such views
can cause offence to those outside these faiths. Now that is not necessarily bad were it not that great
expressions of spirituality exist in all other world religions. Can the depth of spirituality found in elements
of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, for example, be ignored? I think not.
Where then the second coming?
Confined to the dustbin of failed theological propositions? Probably, but not quite if one takes a wider view of
the operations of Nature and the arrogance of humanity. Perhaps there will be an end of the world (well 'Earth'
really), but not in the way we suppose and not with the outcome Christianity preaches.
In the 2000
years of Christian development since the time of Jesus how has humanity fared? True, it has now reached all
sections of the world. This period, also true, has seen huge development in knowledge, in human rights, in
standards of physical living, in the arts, and especially in our understanding of the universe.
Good!
We have a long way to go but are we getting there, or even likely to? The signs are not good. On the one hand we
see the rise of Fundamentalism, religious terrorism, even state religious terrorism, and unseemly religious
internecine warfare fought out across the world on such desperately stupid topics as gay and female priests. Yet
religion is remarkably quiet on ecology. On the other hand we now know we live on a minor planet in a remote
part of a galaxy which is nothing special among billions of other galaxies. The enormity of this coupled with
the recognition of our own smallness should give us pause for thought. It doesn't. We still have not learnt to
co-operate with even our own species, let alone with those of our own religion - and we still persist in
regarding ourselves as somehow unique in the whole of creation!
How have we managed the earth's
resources? Not very well. The list is too endless, the web sites too numerous. Suffice to say our domination of
the planet has not been in favour of 'Gaia Earth'. And religion remains remarkably silent. It should have taken
a lead but not so. Not surprising really. For centuries Christianity has preached that God gave man dominion
over all created things. So what's the fuss? Its ours to do with as we like. Not so. This is a serious
misreading of Genesis 1 where God gave partnership to humanity (male and female) with 'him' to hold back the
forces of chaos out of which the world was created. It certainly was not to create more chaos and deprive earth
of many species and resources!
Nor have we anything to be proud of in our own evolution. We have
developed but 5-10% of our brain capacity and seem very loath even to recognise that this a fundamental issue
which needs urgent investigation as to how to develop the remaining 90-95%. So caught up are we in the ephemeral
materialism of our age where possessions, style, and surface enjoyment are the driving forces of our existence
that we fail to explore our true potential. I can but surmise that previous generations of humanity may have
been more developed spiritually and holistically than us.
Given all these parameters we have to
confess that we are the most destructive species which has or still exists on this planet. What right then have
we to survive? Materialism is egocentric and tends to lead to missuse of power and earth's resources, to war and
to the denial of social responsibility. Religions, particularly the Abrahamic ones and their derivatives, are no
better. They pretend a good message but rarely deliver because they too are concerned so often with control and
global issues rather than evolving individual spiritual freedom or true respect for all creation.
So
what has this all to do with Ecology? The new 2007 United Nations report on global warming paints a gloomy
picture of the state of the earth and its future. Like all else we are but a physical species on this earth.
Wherein lies our salvation? Given the size of the universe and the time it has taken for all species on this
planet to evolve we have become concerned that many are not surviving.
My question is, why should it
be that any section of humanity survives? We know that Nature has no favourites, and rarely concerns itself with
the survival of the individual. Why should it concern itself with a species which is arrogant enough to think
that it has a ‘god-given’ right to be lord over the rest of creation, which frequently mismanages this aspect,
which can pollute its environment to an extent which causes environmental catastrophes on a global scale, and in
its 100,000 years of existence has yet to learn the lesson of co-operation for the greater good of all members
of the species? Are we not becoming another failed species, rather like the dinosaurs who probably had similar
thoughts! Why should not the present order be wound up by some global catastrophe to be followed by a lengthy
period of the rise of another and more developed species? After all it took some 4 billion years on planet earth
before any vestiges of humanity arrived. God, obviously, is in no hurry!
The clock is ticking and
with our denial of environmental concerns, brain capacity, social responsibility and ecumenism, we are in the
dock. Can we escape the sentence of oblivion? It is up to all of us to take action, but do we care sufficiently?