One environment, indivisible

I realize this is purely anecdotal, but I've noticed many converts, esp. those in the priesthood or from a more Evangelical background, don't seem to cut the EP much slack and tend to assume the worst. I've seen him be dismissed as a 'liberal' on certain blogs. It's too bad, I think he has interesting things to say. I think this behavior has to do with a certain anti-Papal type baggage from their Protestant backgrounds in that they struggle with hierarchical authority.

Thanks for this, Rod.

I think Fr. Jensen's response is important. In my reading, he is not criticizing the I think Fr. Jensen's response is important. In my reading, he is not criticizing the Ecumenichal Patriarch so much as using the WSJ piece as a jumping off point to warn against the tendency of a politicized Gospel that twists and empties the faith to arrive at desired conclusions. This comes out, I think, in the comment discussion that follows:

"With influence as the goal, doctrine and theology, even the Scriptures, became superfluous, even a distraction. What mattered was power pure and simple...

Once jealous and envy and the love of power and prestige took hold, the Gospel (and everything that goes with it) goes out the window.

I fear that if the Orthodox Church in ths country isn’t careful, we could go down the same road. This doesn’t mean we should give up our social witness (so AOI is still good in my book!) but what we do must be done with dispassion and not simply as a power grab to bolster our sagging personal and corporate egos."

I think Jensen's point is more "down this road lies trouble" than anything else. He's right to warn against this early, because this politicized Gospel does rear up in every denomination from time to time. Certainly I've seen it in Catholicism (Liberation Theology, Crossan, McBrien, LCWR, etc)

The union of the physical creation is impersonal.

I'm...well, close to speechless. Who, then, is "everywhere present and fill(ing) all things?"

And I agree that a politicized gospel is Very Bad News Indeed, but from what I've seen in North American (specifically, United Statesian) Orthodoxy, this is far more likely to be a right-wing politicized Gospel than a left-wing one.

Safeguarding of Creation
Pope Benedict XVI
Wednesday, 26 August 2009

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

...The Earth is indeed a precious gift of the Creator who, in designing its intrinsic order, has given us bearings that guide us as stewards of his creation. Precisely from within this framework, the Church considers matters concerning the environment and its protection intimately linked to the theme of integral human development. In my recent Encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, I referred more than once to such questions, recalling the "pressing moral need for renewed solidarity" (n. 49) not only between countries but also between individuals, since the natural environment is given by God to everyone, and our use of it entails a personal responsibility towards humanity as a whole, and in particular towards the poor and towards future generations (cf. n. 48).

Bearing in mind our common responsibility for creation (cf. n. 51), the Church is not only committed to promoting the protection of land, water and air as gifts of the Creator destined to everyone but above all she invites others and works herself to protect mankind from self-destruction. In fact, "when "human ecology' is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits" (ibid.). Is it not true that an irresponsible use of creation begins precisely where God is marginalized or even denied? If the relationship between human creatures and the Creator is forgotten, matter is reduced to a selfish possession, man becomes the "last word", and the purpose of human existence is reduced to a scramble for the maximum number of possessions possible.

I was trained as an Orthodox theologian. In my view the good Father's critique lies in a overly simplistic view of the distiction between ousia and hypostasis and the union of the holy Trinity. The union of the hypostases lies in their shared ousia. To read more into this distinction implies that we understand the mystical nature of the Triune God much better than we can say with any confidence.

Many times we try to use Orthodox theology as a justification for things we already believe. In this case a defense of modern American conservatism. And it only by the grace of God that we are transformed into the people God intends for us to be. I was once challenged while in seminary and asked, "Are you studying theology in order to revolutionize the church?" My response: "No, I study theology so I can be revolutionized by the church."

Pope Benedict, the Bartholomew of the Catholics, is more concerned about the need for one world government and managing one world economy...

First, thank you Rod for noticing my post on AOI I do appreciate it.

To be clear upfront, a personal matter, I do not agree with the climate change science or the policy that seems (to me at least) implicit in the Patriarch recent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. But his science and politics are not the subject of my comments. His secularism, his failure to proclaim Christ in his essay, is.

Forgive me but in failing to acknowledge this, I think Rod you have badly, and unfairly, represented my criticism of His All Holiness' op-ed piece. I took great care to commend the Patriarch for entering into conversation with not only Christians of other traditions, but all religious believers as well as though without any particular religious faith. I would commend him as well for seeking to find common ground between science and religion. All of these are good things. Unfortunately, I think the essay falls far short His All Holiness' laudable goals.

As I said in my original response the Ecumenical Patriarch's argument owes more to the Enlightenment than it does Orthodox theology. Yes, as Tony D points out here, the Holy Spirit "is everywhere present and fillest all things." Would that the Patriarch had made that argument. Unfortunately he did not.

Nor was he clear what he means when he says that "Just as God is indivisible, so too is our global environment."  On the surface this seems true but on closer examination it isn't. The unity of God is a communion of Persons. The unity of the environment is impersonal.  More over, this unity is momentary; in the end the creation is subject to a variety of changes and divisions.  In other words, creation is not indivisible in any sense that resembles the indivisibility God.

Yes, "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."  But human beings are, and must necessarily be personal.  And as in the Holy Trinity, it is our personal uniqueness that makes love not only possible but essential -- both to personal happiness and the collaborative efforts that comprise human endeavor. Lose sight of those differences and love becomes impossible.

Moving to the specific criticism offered here, the contention that Orthodox Christianity is panetheistic is at best, a matter of theological speculation rather than dogmatic truth. But even granting for the sake of argument the legitimacy of seeing Orthodoxy in these terms, this was not the argument His All Holiness made.

Truthfully, I think that the statement by Pope Benedict XVI on the environment presents a significantly better theological argument for the care of the creation.  Yes, as was pointed out, the Orthodox Church has a sacramental view of creation. However, His All Holiness, unlike Pope Benedict, does not make this argument.  Nor did he make, again as the Pope did, the connection which for Christians is essential: "Is it not true that an irresponsible use of creation begins precisely where God is marginalized or even denied? If the relationship between human creatures and the Creator is forgotten, matter is reduced to a selfish possession, man becomes the 'last word', and the purpose of human existence is reduced to a scramble for the maximum number of possessions.” None of this is found in the Patriarch's op-ed piece. For that matter he does not even use the word "creation" much less suggest that turning away from sin toward faith in Jesus Christ is essential to the proper care of the creation. Unpopular though it has been since before St Paul preached at the Mars Hill, this is still the heart of the Gospel.

Of course His All Holiness is free to make whatever type of argument he wishes. He has chosen, in this instance, to make an argument that is secular in nature his passing references to the New Testament notwithstanding. In doing this, however, I think he has missed an opportunity to proclaim Christ. Absent from his words , as Anie rightly says of herself, is any hint that humanity and our relationship to creation can, and must, "be revolutionized by the church."

For record, I was ordained to the holy priesthood in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and served there for 10 years (I am now in the Orthodox Church of America). This makes me, I say with no small sense of gratitude, a priest of the Ecumenical Throne. I thank God for my time of priestly service under the spiritual fatherhood of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. During these years I learned more about the Gospel and the nature of the priesthood then I ever imagined possible.

I am not, if it matters, an ex-Evangelical Christian conservative with an ax to grind against the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I was until my wife and I joined the Orthodox Church in 1991, Catholic and the product of a fine Catholic education from high school, through college (University of Dallas for both my BA and MA), and graduate school (I took my doctorate at Duquesne in Pittsburgh). My criticism of the Patriarch's op-ed piece, though pointed, are not the result of any Evangelical theological baggage or personal disappointment with the lack of any public opposition to abortion on the part of the Ecumenical Throne. If anything my argument owes as much to Catholic education as to my Orthodox faith.

Finally, one clarification. Like the Pope Benedict, Patriarch Bartholomew does have a local jurisdiction, he is the Archbishop of Constantinople just as the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. What Bartholomew does not have in the Orthodox Church and what the Benedict does in the Catholic Church, is a universal jurisdiction, that is a direct an authority over the whole Church.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

As one of those AOI readers, I think Anie has misread Father’s argument. His point is not to dissect the inner life of the Trinity, nor does he do so, but he uses that language to make the critical point that we do not deal with essences but with persons - particular persons.

On a further note, I would agree that people use theology - or whatever system of thought - to justify their own views. Rationalization is humanity's favorite "indoor sport" since the Fall. I had the same thought reading some of the responses; after all, it is difficult for everyone to see the flaws in arguments with which they basically agree. The problem with making such a dismissive political judgment in this case is that it has to be read into the article. There simply isn't any reference that can be construed as promoting, defending or critiquing a particular policy position.

Regarding the understanding of creation: everyone who is Orthodox - conservative or liberal - agrees (or should agree) that God "is everywhere present and fills all things." However, as Father Gregory notes in his response, this was not His All Holiness' argument. Interestingly, H.A.H. lent support to Father's argument when he made related comments in a speech recently given at Fordham. In one particular comment, he described "created nature as the extended Body of Christ." This warrants clarification, but the speech does not provide it. Creation can certainly be sacramental, but humanity alone was made in the divine image. As the incarnation makes clear (for what He is by nature, we are called to be by grace), humanity was uniquely made to be living temples of God’s Spirit, to live in communion with God. It is only in this way that we can fulfill our calling to faithfully exercise divinely authorized stewardship over creation. Obedience requires that we do what we must, but that obedience will fall far short and will not be fulfilled until we begin to become who we were made to be. And since the ultimate cause of pollution - whatever its form - is sin, the vital answer to the world's various crises (not just ecological) is Christ and His Church.

Let's be honest. If you find manmade global climate change compelling, you will probably tend to find what Patriarch Bartholomew says compelling. If you don't, you will find theological reasons to pick it apart. I'm not convinced it's any more complicated than that.

My own point of view is that the Patriarch desperately needs our prayers, not our derision.

Richard

Richard, folks who agree with the position may agree with what he says (though that is sort of tautological), but the arguments offered are not compelling - unless, as you implied, he is just "preaching to the choir." My concern, and I think it is well-expressed in Fr. Gregory's piece, is that it is not the argument of the gospel. I have tried, in a very short and admittedly inadequate way, to offer something of an alternative.
That said, you are exactly right: he does desperately need our prayers. Nothing I have said should be construed to be derisive toward him personally. It is important to remember that he is in a horrible political position and, at the same time, has important responsibilities. It is a heavy load for anyone to bear. He does indeed deserve our prayers.

It seems Father Gregory confuses right wing orthodoxy with true Orthodoxy. Perhaps he should spend some time meditating on his confusion and consider a public apology? Nor does Bartholemew's visit to Cuba have anything to do with the issue under discussion here.

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

Such an eloquent, accurate, and effective statement could not be crafted by me in a century of trying.

My apologies, but Bartholomew is absolutely "full of it", having created a very pagan "pantheistic" sounding bunch of nonsense.

I have a friend who is a builder, of higher-quality buildings, be they homes or businesses or whatever. For those who know, you can drive around the area and point out hey, there's a _____ house, for he, or his father, or he and his father, or he and his father and brothers, built it. It tends to mean a quality home you would never be afraid to own or buy.

But, saying that does not mean that any of of the family "essence" or being is inside or contained within the physical structure. No, they were just the creators.

Just as God created our world, our universe, and claims ownership thereof, it is His, but it is NOT "holy" nor is it "sacred" nor is it "God" in any form or essence. The entire pantheistic notion is nonsense if you accept God as a creator and that both us and our world were CREATED by Him. But are NOT "Him", just as we are not "Him".

This world was created to sustain us, it contains a wealth beyond our comprehension for our benefit. In return, we're to be stewards of both those things that are there for our benefit, and those things that are there for our blessing (like the animals) and those things that are there to make it function.

But to get lost in the notion that "fish are holy" or "this mountainside is too holy to dig into for copper" is to mock God and the purpose for which this planet was created. We're not honoring Him, we're belittling His being the creator, by substituting something He created for being the actual Creator.

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 serve as justification to bankrupt an immigrant farmer. This could not possibly honor God anymore or any less than it would to casually dump poisons into a river and cause widespread wanton destruction.

We've been given minds and asked to use reason to govern our decisions, and then reminded that the earth isn't ours to destroy, waste, nor as Bartholomew seems to imply, deify. Nor could failure to use those things which exist for OUR benefit be any measure of honoring the Creator.

Suppose you gave you best buddy the dream bicycle he had always drooled over, but never could really afford, and yet, one year later, it has remained hanging in his garage, never ridden, and still having the store tags tied to it. It would be an insult. Just as much as if the first time he rode it he wantonly destroyed it.

Think about it.

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

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.

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.