Saturday, April 23, 2016

earth day column

Earth Day is the 22nd, but its celebration moves into weekends. I noticed a number of churches doing Earth Day events in its time frame. Earth day festivals frame the weekends around it.

My primary environmental concern remains pollution. Most of the miners could not play with their children due to “black lung.” When I was growing up in Western Pennsylvania, we had “sulfur creeks’ running red. Lake Erie was considered dead. I didn’t know of the book, but I was aware that Silent spring knew that we were killing birds. The great symbolic moment for me was the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland catching fire.

Tim, a resident genius in one of our Bible studies, notes that ecology has become a secular religion for some. Personally, I have little patience for trying to recreate ancient rituals for Mother Nature and the flow of the seasons. On the other hand, if this movement has raised the issue of creation to the forefront of concerns, then Christian churches owe them a debt of gratitude. If they have moved us to see the creation as sacred, then they have altered the calculus we use to determine what we should or should not do with environmental impact.

My religious orientation gives a particular set of concerns to environmental issues. First and foremost, Christians speak of Creation. The National Council of Churches asks if we have become “un-Creators” by placing the Earth in jeopardy.

Second, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew calls pollution a sin as a crime against the natural world. God labored and labors long and well to help sustain this world. To use that religious language allows us to engage in ethical discussion in ways not usually available to us.

Perhaps the primary virtue of the Council of Churches statement on the environment is humility. I would extend their point. We need humility in discussing the environment. The right would do well to stop acting as if they understand science better than scientists. The left would do well to stop its preening as if it grasps the science only because scientists agree with their concerns about the environment. As limited beings, do we have the capacity, let alone the wisdom, to think that we can control the complexity of ecology and climate?

My own Reformed tradition has long advocated frugality and simplicity of life. It is the opposite of prodigal waste of resources. My mother was a Depression era person. From it, she drew a fundamental rule in our household: don’t waste.


Many people look toward dominion in Genesis as a command of power over, but it seems to have more of a shepherding, taking care of, being responsible for creation.  To subdue the earth is a tougher one, as it does have the sense of power over. The Bible is not romantic about nature: it is not all about pretty sunsets. It sees nature as a powerful force that does get out of balance, and it does threaten human life. Nature too is imagined to be transformed at some point. At the same time, it sees us as part of the natural order. Again in Genesis it cannot be an accident that Adam’s name is a play on adamah, soil, to get at our connection with nature.


The preamble to the Constitution speaks of ourselves and our posterity. The conservation movement has long sought to protect nature as a legacy for those who follow us. We do not live for ourselves; we do not live for the present moment alone. We seek to provide a legacy. What more vital legacy can we offer than a safer, more secure natural world? What way could we better respect the work of the Creator than by being caretakers of this precious planet?

No comments: