When I first conceived of this sermon, I was asked to address a group of Christian graduate students at the Ohio State University responding to the claim by a number of ecologists that the Judeo-Christian tradition was responsible for much of our current environmental crisis. I read the arguments they wanted me to refute, and being the contrary person that I am, I decided that the arguments were poor, and I could do better. So here goes…

            Is Christianity to blame for environmental degradation? An ecologist named Lynn White made that claim in an article titled, The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis about 40 years ago, and as an observer in my lifetime, I am somewhat inclined to agree. This may seem to be an inflammatory statement, coming from a professor of Christian Faith, but I admittedly mean it to be so.

            Of course, The difficulty in claiming that Christianity is responsible for anything, is the fragmentation of Christian sects over the last 2000 years has created a complex jumble of theology that is difficult to identify as a solitary or unitary object.

             However, for better or worse, we use shorthand that refers to Christianity as if there are no divisions. This omnipresent united Christianity that is spoken of in phrases like “Great Christian Nation” and “Christian Values” is what makes it possible to lay blame at the feet of a diverse religious tradition for the changes we are observing in the environment, as if Christianity were a monolithic single body.

            Now, a monolithic Christianity is not necessarily an unfair claim. Despite the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, Presbyterians, Latter Day Saints, and Baptists, Fundamentalist and liberation theologians, there is much in common. In order to build a case as to why I think Christianity can be connected to environmental problems, I will take a genealogical approach and explore the foundations and the debates that have led to the present state of affairs. A genealogy of this sort examines how disparate ideas become linked over time to form new networks of knowledge and power.

 

            This is a good a place to start as any. The book of Genesis explores the creation of everything. Yet a careful reader will note that there are two creation stories in the first two chapters, and some scholars claim as many as four authors. However, these creation stories also provide the source of the debate about man’s relation to the world. The newer story (which comes first in the text) explains the creation of everything, and notes repeatedly that everything on Earth is a good thing. God then gives the earth to people, to have dominion over, to subdue.

            This passage has been claimed by some to do the most damage. Because it starts out the bible, it can be cynically posited that it may be as far as some people ever read. But the question to my mind is: what is meant by dominion? Is it simply the right to use everything, or a responsibility to rule wisely, so as to prevent a rebellion by the Earth and all creation? The right to use the resources of the Earth appears to have historically been accepted in many parts of the world. God made everything for us to use, and use it we shall! However, there is also the second creation in Genesis, in fact the older story. In this story, animals are created in an effort to make a companion for Adam, something to keep him company as he lived in the garden. We all know how the story ends, but what I want to emphasize is that in both stories, all of creation is a good thing, something to live with in peace, because it is good.

            Moving further through the Hebrew text, one can find suggestions as to how people are supposed to live, and therefore nuance the claim of dominion. Leviticus is essentially a list of laws, which most contemporary Christians feel free to ignore, as the animal sacrifices prescribed for nearly every transgression would rapidly deplete our stock of cows and sheep. Certain things are held onto by certain people, like the prohibitions about who can lie with whom, but the rules against wearing blended fabric, eating shellfish and cutting of hair are ignored, and most Judeo-Christian sects no longer require women to be sequestered for seven days of every month.

            Yet within the text of Leviticus, there are rules about the environment that perhaps should not be ignored, such as:

9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest. 10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger (Leviticus19: 9-10).

            I firmly believe it has something to do with an old theological debate that is still with us today. The debate concerns how grace is achieved.

            Jesus’ brother James wrote that the path to grace was through works. One needs to do good in the world in order to earn a place in Heaven. The other side of the debate, represented best by the Roman convert Paul, argues that God’s grace is acquired simply by having faith. Believe Jesus as your savior, and you will get into heaven. Paul also repeats a greatly simplified set of laws found in the gospels: Love God, Love your neighbor.

            Now, when the early Catholic church began to canonize the bible, they included the book of James, and many more of Paul’s letters. Throughout the following 1700 years of Christian evolution, authorities have debated what should be included as scripture, and what should be excluded as an opposing view to doctrine and dogma.

            It seems that the early debate about grace was resolved by the inclusion of the many letters of Paul, as opposed to the single short book of James. We can read repeatedly in Paul’s letters that faith will get us into heaven. This cannonical decision, through sheer numbers, essentially absolves Christians of responsibility for their actions. Faith and forgiveness outweigh the impact of how you live. While a number of theologians, and even entire sects of Christianity, have disputed this doctrine, it is still there for all to read, multiple times, and the claim of faith over acts as the path to salvation has formed a dominant paradigm. This correspondence of faith to grace makes the individual responsible for their own salvation, without a responsibility to anyone else.

 

            It could be argued that this interpretation of individual responsibility is perhaps a uniquely American trait. Indeed, the constitutional freedom of, for, and from religion in the United States has led to a widespread diffusion of ideas and individualistic thinking within American religious sects. The epistemology behind the founding of the United States has provided modes of thinking that led to novel doctrinal interpretations, such as the 19^th century invention of the rapture, or the idea that religion and science can and should be separated. Within the Baptist tradition, faith is rooted in the individual, and she is entitled to discern whatever she chooses through soul competence.

            This individuality leads me to a parallel thread in my argument, the role of the individual as a concept in environmental degradation. For the individual is valued not only in Christianity, but it is also one of the foundational concepts of capitalism and market economics. The individual qua individual is dogma in economics as a force that can enter into contracts and use these contacts to better her standing. The economic ideal of a rational, individualistic man is freed by the Christian tradition. The rational Man is free to act in a way that furthers his own ends, as long as he is secure in his position in the afterlife through faith. This in turn allows him freedom to engage in economic activities to better his livelihood.

            Arguably, it is the economic system of markets, rather than Christianity per se, that have led to the greatest environmental harm in our world. Nature is reduced to the status of a commodity through the privatization of land, and even people are treated as commodities through the sale of their labor. Indeed this system has become so ingrained in our way of thinking that we have a reflex to dismiss any alternative as unrealistic. Socialism and communism, even cooperative production, are frowned upon. The survival of the fittest, a scientific concept describing a force of evolution has been adapted as a justification of economics. If we are fit, we will out-compete, out-consume, and accumulate as much wealth as possible.

            This is a dangerous ideology, one that evokes the tragedy and pestilence first hypothesized by Thomas Malthus to explain the dangers of population growth. It becomes even more dangerous when the value of the individual that exists in both market theory and Christianity is rendered equivalent, and the ideology of capitalism and Christianity are combined.

            One example will suffice. James Watt, former US Secretary of the Interior, was both an avid economic liberal believer in the free market, and an avowed Christian. While in office, these interests intersected in painful ways. His record of environmental protection was dismal, believing that regulations protecting the environment should be removed, because they reduced individual freedom to participate in the market.

            Furthermore, as a fundamentalist Christian, Watt believed there was no need to conserve because he (and all righteous people) would shortly be swept up in the rapture. He felt we only needed budget our environment to last a short time, until Christ’s return. Watt’s tenure during the Reagan administration was but one example of a wider unholy alliance between Conservative social and faith-based values, and Liberal economic values. Political platforms shifted towards single-issue focus, which led to a simplification of political choices. We did not choose candidates on the basis of their general view towards all creation, as wise rulers. Instead, so-called Christian candidates could be forgiven anti-environmental, pro-business policies as long as they were “pro-life” or attended church on a regular basis.

            Watt was of course an extreme example. Most of Christianity would not be so bold as to make claims such as his. Yet, because a prominent professor of the Christian faith did make those claims, it could be said in the media, that this is how all Christians think. Unless members of the Christian community vocally object, Watt, and all professors of liberal economics and socially conservative values represent “us” as Christians.

            It is here we can turn towards the final part of my argument as to why blame needs to be laid on us, as Christians. Our long-term dependence on the letters of Paul, and the subsequent displacement of good acts in our lives, has led us to an easy Christianity. We want comfortable pews, which allow us to slumber intellectually through faith. We leave the thinking to our clergy, and in the U.S., mega-churches have developed that give salvation to people by the thousands, as long as we show up and do what they tell us to do. Religion is both comforting, and comfortable.

            However, as many of my friends over the years have confided to me, they see their role as pastor as one that “Comforts the afflicted, and afflicts the comfortable.” Many of us, as congregants, will simply find a pastor who agrees with them, and avoid that particular affliction. Indeed, I must confess I do the same myself when choosing where to worship. The problem is, the practice of comfort seeking, while passing for Christian faith today, is not Christianity as either Paul or James would see it.

            Paul’s simplification of the law to two steps, love thy God and love thy neighbor, has consequences. Loving God, as an abstract is easy, and we are assured that he loves us back. Loving thy neighbor is harder, because we actually have to deal with THOSE people. And, THEY are different in belief and action. We can condemn THEIR actions and quote th Hindu leader Gandhi, who admonished us to “love the sinner but hate the sin.”

            There is a catch. People won’t believe we love them if we don’t act like it. Telling someone to believe what we believe is not a loving act, it is one of oppressive domination.

            And there, within the commandments as expressed by Christ and reiterated by Paul, you can find James, and his claim that it is only through acts that grace is achieved. Christianity as practiced by much of the world today is going to church, and protesting things we believe to be un-Christian. It has become a faith of negation, believing that we should tell other people how to live their lives. But, both Paul and James claimed that we have to positively live as Christians, not simply claim it as our ticket to a pleasant afterlife.

            By failing to live as practicing Christians, and compartmentalizing faith into institutions and charismatic leaders, we are left with a faith that can be blamed for environmental problems, war, famine, globalization, and a host of other ills, because we have surrendered it.

            What would be a Christian response to the problems facing us today? We certainly do pray about it, because the insecurity of today’s world scares us. But, if we asked how Jesus would handle the situation (WWJD), I see the answer in the miracle of the loaves and the fishes. The miracle of that story wasn’t that a few measly fish and some loaves of bread fed a multitude. The miracle was that the plate was passed, and everyone either took, or added as was needed. They trusted that as they broke bread together and shared what little they had with everybody else, someone else would cover the difference and all that sharing would result in everyone being happy and fed, with leftovers to spare in a grand pot-luck feast.

            For me, this story shows how our diverse Christianities can come together and redeem ourselves, and prevent wider environmental catastrophe. In short, we have to live in faith and good acts, sharing freely, and trust that it will all be OK in the end. We need to work for justice and equity, ask our leaders to do the same, and to give up those things we don’t need. Arguably, I am an oddity as both a Christian and an environmentally concerned scientist, but this framework is how I conduct my research. I seek justice, love kindness, and try as best I can to return no one evil for evil. I for one am not willing to commit the sin; accept the blame; and wait for absolution given by a church. Through my scientific practice, I try to live my faith, do good acts, and change the world for the better. It is not my faith in God, but my desire to do right by my neighbor that offers possibility. If I retreat into dogma and use ends to justify the means, then the battle is already lost.

            Earth Day is April 22, and I bring these thoughts to you to ask if this secular day, started by some tree-huggers in California, shouldn’t also become an important part of our Christian Tradition. A day when when we take seriously our dominion, and simultaneously our call to do good acts for each other, and think about how being good to each other, could be good for the Earth.

 

 

fletcherc@gmail.com