Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church (sort of like our Archbishop of Canterbury -- he's the figurehead, but he has no local jurisdiction, as the Pope does for Catholics), has long been called the "Green Patriarch" for his commitment to the environment. The other day, he published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about what our commitment to the earth should entail. Excerpt:
Climate change, pollution and the exploitation of our natural resources are commonly seen as the domain not of priests but rather of politicians, scientists, technocrats or interest groups organized by concerned citizens. What does preserving the planet have to do with saving the soul?A lot, as it turns out. For if life is sacred, so is the entire web that sustains it. Some of those connections--the effects of overharvesting on the fish populations of the North Atlantic, for example--we understand very well. Others, such as the long-term health impacts of industrialization, we understand less well. But no one doubts that there is a connection and balance among all things animate and inanimate on this third planet from the Sun, and that there is a cost or benefit whenever we tamper with that balance.
Moreover, just as God is indivisible, so too is our global environment. The molecules of water that comprise the great North Atlantic are neither European nor American. The particles of atmosphere above the United Kingdom are neither Labour nor Tory. There can be no double vision, no dualistic worldview. Faith communities and nonbelievers alike must focus on the common issue of the survival of our planet. The natural environment unites us in ways that transcend doctrinal differences.
Not all Orthodox agree. From one priest's criticism:
As an Orthodox theologian, Patriarch Bartholomew knows that the human heart seeks not abstract unity but personal communion, not bureaucracy but communion, not the tyranny of sin but true and lasting freedom. In Orthodox theological terms all of this rests in the Most Holy Trinity itself although not on the level of ousia, that is, through the shared divine nature, but by the hypostasis, that is the union of Divine Persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.Whether in the Holy Trinity or in the human family, personal communion is radically different then the union possessed by "molecules of water" or by "particles of atmosphere." The union of the physical creation is impersonal. There is no communion between molecules of water or particles of air.
Thus the comparison of the human to the non-human world in these terms makes all conversation about what is in our best personal or national interest meaningless. When particularity is subsumed into an abstraction, the differences between people ultimately have no meaning.
This seems wrong to me, by which I mean, I think Father is reading the EP's remarks in a mistaken way. Granted, I'm no theologian, but I don't see what's wrong with what the EP said, in terms of Orthodox metaphysics. Orthodox Christianity is panentheistic , meaning that God is seen as literally present, in his divine energies, in all aspects of Creation. It is a profoundly sacramental view of Creation. To my lay understanding, the EP is simply pointing to the environmental implications of Orthodoxy's panentheism. (Which, by the way, is not the same as pantheism; pantheism says that all things are God; panentheism says that God is in all things. Big difference.)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I am not an environmental scientist (nor a scientist of any other stripe), so I can't say one way or the other whether or not I agree with the science behind the theory of man-made global climate change. That would be like me having an opinion on the science of black holes -- or, for that matter, having an opinion on Fr. Gregory's theological argument.
Going by my own model, then (those who tend to agree will find what the Patriarch says compelling, those who don't will find theological means by which they may criticize him), I don't have any idea what to do with the WSJ article as an opinion piece. I believe, however, from my own reading of the Patriarch's other work, that he knows full well what the Gospel message is and does not discount it; therefore, I have to assume that he writes what he writes in good faith, even if he does not say everything how I would say it. It has always been unclear to me why his embrace of the environment as an issue is persuasive evidence to some that he is not speaking in good faith -- unless, as I say, it is simply the case that if somebody doesn't find the topic compelling in the first place, then there can be no good reason why somebody like the Patriarch would embrace it.
Call me naive, but I do not understand the rush to judge the Patriarch on the part of some Orthodox in America.
Richard
What if we all loved as global warming were a threat, even if it isn't? Well, gee, we'd all be living more frugally and carefully, with less bondage to the things of this world. Can any Christian explain why that would be a bad thing? I swear, I cannot see it.
and thus arguments which have no validity are made to preserve "snail darters" in some remote spot, or "kangaroo rats" with a few thousandths of an inch different leg length
I missed the part of scripture where God said he only valued big cool animals and not little ones. But I guess it was reflected in that old Christian song "All creatures great and greater". Certainly such a view has nothing to do with ecology, where little things tend to provide vital ecosystem resources for bigger ones.
The book of Job rather clearly states that God follows every action of every creature--that even birds pray to him and he hears it, and that he sends water to fall on thirsty grass where no man could ever live. That he would create giant animals like Leviathan specifically to keep humankind humble: "on Earth it has no equal, a creature without fear; it is king over those that are proud." And then there's Ecclesiastes: "man hath no pre-eminence above the animals, for all is vanity."
If you want to just say such-and-such creature is ugly and worthless, well, it's a free internet, so knock yourself out. But don't pretend it has any basis in sound science or honest theology.
May God bless the EP. Does he live in Instanbul?
I missed the part of scripture where God said he only valued big cool animals and not little ones. But I guess it was reflected in that old Christian song "All creatures great and greater". Certainly such a view has nothing to do with ecology, where little things tend to provide vital ecosystem resources for bigger ones.
I never really expected anyone to provide such a clear example of what I was discussing, but since you did, I decided I should respond, and demonstrate what it was I was addressing.
Since you have staked out the completely absurd and theologically silly "territory", I'd like to ask you to address how you apply this to your daily life. I'm sure you do not travel, nor even walk outdoors, for you may accidently grind one of the "lesser" beings under your foot on the sidewalk, or smash a mosquito by instinct upon yourself without realizing the enormity of the sin you just defined.
Or, is it as I suspect, you very selectively apply your "sin" to only specific politically useful examples of Creation, where it is expedient to use "natural" insecticides to preserve your flowers, whiling killing politcally useless aphids, but arguing on forums and voting for people who promise to "preserve" some nebulous and personally unaquainted insect or other creature in a far off place. And, of course, at the same time, enabling fierce religious and moral arguments against the evil capitalists for having the audacity to dam up water or fill in a low spot so they can claim the land for someone's home.
This, of course, is the specific mocking of both Creation and of God that I referenced in my post on this topic.
Some readers may recognize the kangaroo mouse reference, where an immigrant farmer in California found his tractor "arrested" for having "killed" an "endangered" rodent - the only difference between the "endangered" and the "common" being a minute physical difference so small it requires an autopsy to verify.
Whatever the case, I'm absolutely certain that TTT does not go to great lengths to preserve the moths, flies, or termites that might have the chance to invade his home. But, when it is politically expedient, he promotes a theology that would require it.
This is the very definition of rank hypocrisy. Further, I believe that I not only have defended, but revealed the truth behind my comment that reason and some sense have been given to us as human beings to determine what is and is not beneficial.
Mindless destruction of our world is not defensible... But neither is TTT's hypocritical and patently silly theological mixing of politics and religion.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.