John Calvin: Predestined to be Misunderstood

Calvin. The name alone can draw a powerful emotional response from today's Christians. The Young Reformed movement often found on university campuses ensures that many people know about John Calvin and his classic conflict with James Arminius. Tomes of blog posts have probably been written on the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, or the question of our “election.” I dare say I may be one of the few contemporary Christians who does not care about this debate at all! What is frustrating is how much it misses the point of what Calvin was trying to accomplish with his famous Institutes. 

The title page of the 1559 edition of the Institutes.
Calvin's classic work began as a slim, practical volume,
but he added to its content as his career continued. 

Calvin had more important things to say than whether or not we are predestined, or whether or not we have free will. He was above all a practical theologian. He was concerned with living a Christian life. If a theological point could not be used practically, he had no use for it. We often lose that when discussing this great thinker. What I want to do right now is bring up some less known aspects of Calvin’s thought expressed in The Institutes of Christian Religion. Hopefully, that will allow us to not throw the baby out with the baptismal font when we engage with today's “Calvinists.”

Man’s Dependence on God

Arguably, most of Calvin’s theology is dependent on humanity's state of utter dependence. His first writings in the Institutes all disparage the human being’s ability to measure up to God. For instance, Calvin writes: 

“[A]s soon as we lift up our thoughts to God and reflect on his nature and how absolutely perfect he is in wisdom righteousness and virtue, we realize that this is the standard to which we must conform.”

Calvin does not, as is often misconstrued, have a negative view of man, but view's man negatively only in comparison with God's absolute goodness. Abstract theological principles can arise from all of his musings about the absolute goodness and power of God. A philosophy class or two can be evidence of that. But Calvin does not concern himself with such matters! Instead, he focuses almost entirely on why such a position of reverence and self disparagement is necessary for building a relationship with God which focuses on submission and filling the lack all people have in themselves. 

From where does Calvin draw some of his most persuasive proofs on our dependence on God? 

Nature. Echoing the words of all Christians concerned with nature from Augustine to Pope Francis, Calvin attests the glory of God in creation. He seems to gasp in horror that, “Creation lights up all these bright lamps to demonstrate the glory of the Creator to us, all in vain.” Calvin’s theology of man’s dependence, and God’s absolute goodness are not abstract theological principles he is working out. His principles are realizations derived from life experience, and describes these beliefs as crucial for Christians who want to walk with God.

Scripture

Calvin had a lot to say about the Bible. He encouraged constant study of it. He himself was consumed by a constant effort to learn more, to distill more knowledge from the text. It was a tradition that was picked up later by Puritan theologians in the United States. 

Why did Calvin put so much focus on the scripture? Again, it was a practical concern. Calvin saw the Bible as a repository for sound teaching. If we could only learn everything about the Bible than we would no longer find ourselves in the throes of inadequate and dangerous theology. Becoming learned in scripture was a hedge around ungodliness, which would threaten our walk with our Creator

In this, Calvin gives the Holy Spirit one of its most important roles. The Holy Spirit guides the reader through scripture. This is where Calvin famously says, 

“Unbelievers think that religion is a matter of opinion and so demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets were inspired , if they are to sufficient grounds for belief. My reply is that the testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason.” 

I was always frustrated in college whenever someone who was Reformed would respond to any objection I had with, “Well that’s just a mystery.” Essentially, saying that reason is somehow the enemy. That view it is contrary to everything Calvin stood for. 

After explaining this idea Calvin goes on to dismiss “strange revelations from the Spirit” and praises studiousness of the word. 

Again, Calvin speaks with a practical voice. We might picture him saying something like, “Don’t worry if you don’t have an answer to every objection, keep studying the Word--the Spirit will reveal the answer to you.” Calvin demanded careful study of scripture in order to fully understand God, and this demand was made in order to preserve people’s walks. 

God’s Providence

You may note that I am skipping over Calvin’s discussions of the Trinity by moving on to his teaching on providence. Surely God will reward you for you astuteness. My reason for skipping the Trinity is simply to avoid spending too much time discussing essential orthodox Christianity since Calvin does not tread much new ground in his explanation. Also, providence is more fun. 

As I’ve been alluding to, and hopefully demonstrating, Calvin was concerned with practical theology. We often judge Calvin’s doctrine of providence in the opposite way. Instead, I hope I can contribute to important internet discussions of Calvin by thinking through this doctrine practically. I think a perfect summation of this is the statement by Calvin that, 

“The believer’s comfort in trouble is that everything they endure is ordained and commanded by God and that they are in His hands.”

Previously, Calvin had described God as a creator who is close to his creation, a creator who is actively involved in it. He is not sitting back, resting on his laurels while the world plays itself out. No! According to Calvin God is always close, actively sustaining you and everything else in love. So fret not! Even when God seems far, he is close. 

Now that sounds a lot nicer than when that line is quoted to show how Calvin makes God the author of sin, what Calvin was trying to do was God the author of comfort. There is very little evidence that Calvin was concerned with the meta-ethical implications of his view. Calvin connects this idea to Abraham when he exclaims that “God will provide.” Maybe Calvin’s view of providence is more akin to providing for us rather than presiding over us. 

Moreover, Calvin entitles the very next section “How to use this doctrine for our benefit.” Evidently, that’s what Calvin was thinking when discussing God’s ordering of the world. That God designed everything in order to “develop patience in his people, correct their vices, control their impurity, and stir them from laziness.” 

Sin, the Law, and Salvation

The doctrine of total depravity gets a really bad reputation. Are we really totally depraved. Is it really impossible for me to do something good without God. I think what we need to remember is that the doctrine was a tool for self-denial. Its use was to remind people to be humble. More importantly, Calvin has his eyes constantly set upon God, the ultimate creator of the universe, and Calvin implicitly compares everything to the standard of God. Therefore, in comparison to God, we probably aren’t all that great, Calvin’s views on sin and the fall seek to reinforce that. 

All of these insights temper Calvin’s view of the law. It was never meant to be a final solution, it was always meant to point to something else. The law is a tool of learning, to teach us to be more capable of being with God. In fact, practically speaking, Calvin’s view of the law connects very well to popular contemporary teaching on Paul’s view of the law. In a sense, the law was like training wheels, and it is still valuable like all scripture is: as a hedge against immorality which keeps us from our creator. 

Finally, we come to Christ. Christ, through whom God perfects humanity. Christ is God’s way of redeeming us, so that we may be like God. That insight is crucial, because with Christ it is possible to be like God. Not divine, but holy. Holy enough to be in a relationship with him. Calvin’s theology comes full circle. We are constantly told that we are not quite good enough, that God is so holy, but through Christ we experience communion with God. Through all of the other practical considerations of Calvin we can make ourselves ready for a relationship, and that relationship comes to being in Christ. Surely Calvin is not the pessimist that he is made out to be. Surely he is not the deep, complex, abstract thinker he is made out to be. 

Concluding Thoughts

I hope you saw that I never mentioned predestination. Calvin’s theology does not need it in order to be complete. All of our contemporary considerations of Calvin seem to miss the point of his practical theological musings. When we criticize and elevate this man, it ought to be through the lens he wrote. 

Of course there are numerous practical criticisms of Calvin that I did not even mention, and hopefully those will get brought up in the responses to this piece. What I hoped to accomplish in this piece was to reframe Calvin in a way that makes him a fresh theological voice again, he deserves as much. 

Seventh Sunday after Pentecost

Inspired by Groupthink's recent material on spirituality and mysticism, our prayer for the week comes from philosopher, scientist, and priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ (1881-1885).

"Glorious Lord Christ: the divine influence secretly diffused and active in the depths of matter, and the dazzling centre where all the innumerable fibres of the manifold meet; power as implacable as the world and as warm as life; you whose forehead is of the whiteness of snow, whose eyes are of fire, and whose feet are brighter than molten gold; you whose hands imprison the stars; you who are the first and the last, the living and the dead and the risen again; you who gather into your exuberant unity every mode of existence; it is you to whom my being cries out with a desire as vast the universe, 'In truth you are my Lord and my God'."

--(The Oxford Book of Prayer, 6) 

What Do These Mystics Know?: A Review of Richard Rohr

When I discovered one of Richard Rohr’s newest book What the Mystics Know at Barnes and Noble, I was ecstatic! I jokingly asked my girlfriend what she thought the mystics know, to which she sarcastically responded, "Not much.”

“Not much.” If you just take a look at all the books Rohr has written, it would be easy to declare such a comment as absurd, yet it has more truth than I think she even realized.

"Not much.” While contemplating what to say about his book, I looked over at my dog and asked her what the mystics knew. Obviously she just stared up at me without comment.

While reading the book, I was shocked by how much Rohr has improved in his ability to communicate effectively and elaborate his message. I have read many of his books and loved each one, yet this book is unique in its ability to make sense of the contemplative traditions Rohr has spent his career exploring and popularizing. He constructs short but informative sections which can be read in no time at all. If you want a deeply reflective devotional, this is the book for you.

I had trouble to believe I could love this book even more than Rohr's last offering, Eager to Love, which is about the transformative love of St. Francis. I truly did not believe he could top that captivating work, yet here I am reflecting on the new masterpiece in front of me.

One of the most powerful lines from the book is found in the heading “Beyond an all-or-nothing outlook,” where he states:

More than with any other personality trait in my life, all-or-nothing thinking has caused me to make huge mistakes and bad judgments, hurt people and myself, withhold love, and misinterpret situations.

Let this sink in for a second. True mysticism does not give one more conceptual certainty. Indeed, this type of extreme certainty can lead to less love, which is not what Christians should want. Rather, mysticism requires a level of openness. 

Really, what Rohr and other mystics have known for thousands of years is just now being discovered in academia. This is shown through the recent emphasis on epistemological humility--the possibility that one could be wrong and should act as such. This does not mean one becomes less certain of God or his or her religious doctrines. Instead, these doctrines begin to take on new life at a deeper level, a level beyond the conceptual, which opens up the heart to what God has to offer.

Stop believing so much and start knowing! Knowing is not always easy. It will always be easier for the self-serving nature to create beliefs it can defend rather than go through trusting God’s judgments. Nothing is harder than letting go, yet nothing is as freeing.

When my dog looked at me I felt a flood of love. She usually brings this to my life. She is extremely loyal and follows me around everywhere. She doesn’t have judgments on who I am. She accepts reality as it is and seems to be at peace with the world. This is something I often wish I could achieve. This is the peace I think the apostle Paul refers to when he speaks of "the peace which transcends all understanding." Maybe it explains why so many mystics love nature. The animals in this world never forgot who they were in God. 

So what does my dog know which the mystics strive for? “Not much.”

Fifth Sunday After Pentecost

Today, we join in the prayer that Pope Francis offers on behalf of all Christians at the end of Laudato si':

Father, we praise you with all your creatures. They came forth from your all-powerful hand; they are yours, filled with your presence and your tender love. Praise be to you!

Son of God, Jesus,through you all things were made.You were formed in the womb of Mary our Mother,you became part of this earth,and you gazed upon this world with human eyes. Today you are alive in every creaturein your risen glory.Praise be to you!

Holy Spirit, by your light you guide this world towards the Father’s love and accompany creation as it groans in travail. You also dwell in our hearts and you inspire us to do what is good.Praise be to you!

Triune Lord, wondrous community of infinite love,teach us to contemplate you in the beauty of the universe,for all things speak of you. Awaken our praise and thankfulness for every being that you have made. Give us the grace to feel profoundly joined to everything that is.

God of love, show us our place in this world as channels of your love for all the creatures of this earth,for not one of them is forgotten in your sight. Enlighten those who possess power and money that they may avoid the sin of indifference,that they may love the common good, advance the weak, and care for this world in which we live. The poor and the earth are crying out. O Lord, seize us with your power and light, help us to protect all life,to prepare for a better future,for the coming of your Kingdom of justice, peace, love and beauty. Praise be to you! Amen.

Economics, Politics, Morality and Creation: A Response to Taylor's Review

Jeb Bush responded to the Pope’s Encyclical at a town hall meeting after it was released. He said, “I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or from my pope. I think religion ought to be about making us better as people, and not about getting into the political realm.” Rick Santorum did Jeb one better and said that he was more qualified to make a judgement on climate change than His Holiness. Greg Gutfeld, a talking head for the show ‘Fox and Friends,’ said that Pope Francis was a malthusian and had a “Marxist background.”

Needless to say, the political reaction from the right is unsurprising. Conservatives worldwide have consistently been skeptical of climate change. In fact, less than half of Republican Roman Catholics in the U.S. believe in human cause climate change; that, compared to 80% of Democrat Catholics that do. As Taylor pointed out, the encyclical was long, and we don't usually think about morality in terms of changing how we use technology. By the way, its obvious that Mr. Gutfeld did not even take the time to read the Encyclical, since the Pope specifically denounces any view that argues populations controls need to be put in place to solve the problem, something Malthus would never say--hopefully Mr. Gutfeld takes Taylor's advice to read the Encyclical for himself. 

It’s hardly surprising that the Encyclical, which is largely a message of unity which calls into question ecological practices that hurt the poorest among us, would divide politics. The energy sector provided over $69 billion last year in campaign contribution to GOP candidates. In Poland, where coal is a primary industry, conservatives are lashing out, worried that cutting off coal could upset their economy and political position. In retaliation, they are telling the Pope to stay out of politics, science, and economics, and stay in the realm of morality.

However, that is exactly what Pope Francis is doing. In the Encyclical, he says, “It is also the mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage.” In his theology we are called to be caretakers of the creation we are apart, but our current economic and political epistemology sets us above nature, and so we dominate it rather than nurture it. In fact, the topic of poverty is inseparable from politics and economics!

Indeed, world politics has been consumed with self-interest, and we do desperately need the cultural revolution Pope Francis calls for in his Encyclical. It is easy to see how shallow the morality politics of the modern right in the U.S. have become when they denounce a biblical ecology that is foundational to any theology. As Calvin remarked, “Wherever you look, there is no part of the world however small that does not show some glimmer of beauty…The superb structure of the world acts as a sort of mirror in which we may see God.”

As Taylor beautifully illustrates, the problem is not with coal or oil, it is with our humanity.  So no, Mr. Bush, when economics is the cause of suffering for creation, the Pope’s call is about making us all better stewards.

To Till Her and Keep Her: In Laud of Laudato si'

"Of course I'm gunna to kill a deer this season; God told us to rule over the earth, and that's what I'm doin'." Living in a rural Midwestern setting it is not unusual to hear statements similar to this one whether it is currently a particular hunting season or not. People have come to understand our relation to Creation not as a divinely appointed "care taker" of sorts, but as the "divinely" appointed plantation owner, with all the implications of misuse, misunderstanding, and misplaced theology intended. This idea of God's imperatives in Genesis 1 as totalitarian lordship is currently the view of the general populous, and the church, even in Her goodness, has sadly led the world in this direction. 

However, in his groundbreaking Encyclical Laudato si', Pope Francis brings to light the true imperative of the Old Testament, New Testament, and humanity at large. Also, in a slightly less known arena, Groupthink's own Taylor Qualls wrote a piece in response to the Pope's work in praise of Francis' call to ecological, social, and economic repentance. I find myself in humbled by their words, but encouraged by their call to recognize "Nothing in this world is indifferent to us," which is why I would like to look at two Old Testament passages that speak on this issue.

Whether one believes the narrative of creation found in Genesis 1-2 as "factual" in the most literal sense or not, the truth of our relation to the created order of things is pervasive in the first two chapters of the book. It would seem by reading Gen. 1:1-3 that God has seen the chaos of "the formless void" and the "darkness" that is covering "the face of the deep" and has set out to restore it. Many believers find it more comforting to have a God that creates His own matter to begin the universe, but I find it much more comforting to know that our God saw what was and brought it into completion, restoring what was into something better. 

It is in this example of of the Lord's exercise of power that we start to see what it means to be creative beings made in His image. We are called to have dominion over the creation as God had dominion over the chaos: Bringing it to a point of goodness through our involvement in it. I feel that Pope Francis is saying something similar in his remark "...Our human ability to transform reality most proceed in line with God's original gift of all that is." Along the lines of my prior statement and that of the Pope, I think this is furthered through seeing God's command to the man in 2:15 to till the earth and to watch over it.These words are not unique in the Hebrew Scpitures; 'abad (work/serve) appears almost 300 times and shamar (keep watch/preserve) appears over 450 times. In fact these aren't even fun words to syntax due to their simplicity! 

The implication is far greater though, as the same infinitive 'abad is used in v. 5 to explain why there were no plants yet. Man is made as a helper to God, to help tend to what God gives life to. We ought to recognize these truths (that we serve a restorative God whose image we are made in and that we are made from the earth for the sake of aiding the earth) in our everyday choices. Going to the store is not simply about price point as a member of humanity; it is instead an activity in preserving the earth. Gardening is not something meant to be done because it makes you "cool," but it is us fulfilling our duty to watch over our part in Creation.

Another integral place in the Old Testament we see our duty to Creation as care takers is in everyone's favorite devotional book, Leviticus. In the 25th chapter, the author speaks on times of holiness and rest in the Israelite community. As many people know these two times are the shmita (literally meaning "release") every seventh year, and the Jubilee every 50th year. In preparation for the sabbath year, we are told that the Israelite people are to be dependent on God for a bountiful harvest so as not to have to plant the next year. This also hints at God's idea of conservation: Creation is not to be used simply as a means to gain, but as a reminder to whom we are dependent upon. When speaking on these passages, Francis remarks, "This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings in nature," that we are to care for Creation well so that it can continue to show us God and care for us.

Since there are obviously entire books (yeah people, plural; very, very plural) on the topic of man's responsibility within Creation to Creation, and I feel as though I am at a sufficient stopping point, I would encourage you to do a few things. 

First, read the Pope's Encyclical. 

Second, pray about the repentance Taylor mentioned in his blog post. Third, pray over an investigation into some of what I have mentioned. 

Fourth (sorry, this is quite the homework list), check out some books by authors like Wendell Berry and Norman Wirzba. 

And lastly, if you do nothing else on this list, meditate on one of closing lines of the opening section of Laudato si': 

"If we approach nature and the environment without this openess to awe and wonder, if we no longer speak the language of fraternity and beauty in our relationship with the world, our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on their intimate need." 

Grace and Peace.

Rural Americans and Climate Change

Most rural Americans hold an intense appreciation for the natural world. Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and related activities are popular and beloved pieces of our cultural heritage. Many children spend their summer days adventuring in the woods, building forts and only returning home for lunch and dinner. Farming is considered an honorable career choice. Because of this love for nature, most rural Americans have at least a rudimentary knowledge of ecology and conservation. You’re only supposed to hunt during specific times of the year. You should only kill a certain number of a certain type of animal. You shouldn’t throw trash in the local fishing hole. If you go camping, clean up after yourself. Many country folk, especially farmers, have an even more detailed understanding of their local ecosystems. In rural America, nature is an object of deep appreciation and respect. With this attitude towards nature, one would expect most rural Americans to enthusiastically support the Pope's message in his recent Encyclical on climate change.

Despite their intense love for nature, however, most rural folk are stereotyped as being fierce climate change deniers. Although this stereotype does not hold true for all rural Americas, it is grounded in reality. A great many people in America’s rural areas deny climate change, or at least anthropogenic (man-caused) climate change. What accounts for this seeming contradiction? One reason is political. Quite simply, climate change is strongly associated with liberal politics. As absurd as it may be to politicize science, climate change is, for better or for worse, strongly connected to political liberalism. Former Democratic politician Al Gore was one of the most famous and powerful voices regarding climate change in the 2000's. Recently, United States President Barack Obama called climate change “an urgent and growing threat to our national security.” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, has made climate change a central issue in his political platform. Numerous other liberal voices, both within the government and the media, have endorsed action to counteract climate change.

Conversely, conservatives have been more skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. Unlike the Democratic Party platform, the Republican Party platform avoids any grave pronouncements about climate change. The platform advocates “responsibility” and “common-sense” reactions to environmental issues, but avoids mentioning the causes or severity of climate change. Many conservatives use stronger words. Conservative blogger and columnist John Hawkins flat-out calls climate change a “hoax”. When asked about man-made climate change, Republican politician Rick Perry said, “I’m not afraid to say I’m a skeptic about that.” Unlike liberals, conservatives do not seem particularly united on the issue of climate change, but there is general skepticism of climate change among conservatives. This politicization of climate change is relevant because rural America is significantly more conservative than liberal. Political debates in America tend to be rather heated, and this has put climate change in the unfortunate position of being a fiercely debated political topic, rather than a purely scientific issue to be studied and investigated. Because rural Americans are more likely to be conservative than liberal, this contributes to skepticism of climate change in rural areas.

According to NASA, “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.” This statement, unfortunately, loses some of its impact in rural America. It’s not because country people are anti-science per se; the relationship between rural Americans and the scientific community is a bit more complicated than that. Evangelical Christianity is quite popular in rural regions of America, particularly in the South and parts of the Midwest. Unfortunately, the relationship between the scientific community and Evangelical Christians is often tense, if not outright hostile. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, is definitively Evangelical, and they fiercely deny the theory of evolution, despite scientific consensus in favor of the theory. (Keep in mind there is a distinction between belief in evolution and an atheistic worldview, and not all Evangelicals reject evolution.) This conflict between Evangelicals and scientists continues to this day, and runs over into the climate change debate. Evangelical Christians are far less likely than most Americans to believe in anthropogenic climate change, and I believe this can be chalked up to the (unnecessary) conflict between Evangelicals and the scientific community. There is a disturbing trend in Evangelical Christianity towards the belief that there is an inherent conflict between science and faith. This leads Evangelicals, who make up a large chunk of America’s rural population, to reject not only evolution, but climate change as well.

To understand rural attitudes towards climate change, there are several things to be aware of. Rural America is very politically conservative, and rural Americans generally associate climate change with liberal politics. Whether or not this association is fair or accurate is irrelevant; climate change is seen as a major liberal talking point. As a result, many rural Americans deny climate change, seeing it as more of a political issue than a scientific issue. Also, Evangelical Christianity is a major cultural influence in rural America. Because Evangelicals have a rocky relationship with the scientific community, many rural Americans are skeptical of scientific conclusions and theories, especially those that challenge their faith. Rural Americans are less likely than other Americans to accept man-made climate change simply because they don’t trust the people telling them about it. Many rural Americans see climate change as a tool used by their ideological opponents to force a secular and/or liberal worldview. Perhaps Pope Francis can help change all of that. 

Pope Francis and Ecological Repentance: A Review of Laudato si'

I had no idea.

I mean, I knew there was a problem, don’t get me wrong, but to me environmental issues were primarily something to be debated. Over time I came to realize that it was good to recycle when possible, and energy efficient cars were good (primarily for my wallet, but they help the environment too), and I picked up the odd piece of litter, but I knew that the earth was really gonna be just fine. I mean, it always has, and there are all those laws being put into place and debates being held, surely that will turn things around.

So when I was asked to write a piece on the Pope’s Encyclical addressing environmental issues, I agreed, but I wasn’t really excited about it. (I was not familiar with the term “Encyclical” coming into this, so for those of you who are in that same boat it’s basically a letter from the Pope or a Bishop that’s meant to circulate throughout the Catholic Church, somewhere between the length of a long essay and a book) “The environment is important and all…but don’t you want me to write on the atonement or hell or something exciting like that?” I set about the task of reading the Pope’s encyclical with the intention of sparing whoever might read this from having to read the real thing (it’s just over 100 pages).

My goal started changing very quickly.

The writing isn’t stuffy or inaccessible, it doesn’t have an especially holy tone to it. I was finding myself thoroughly enjoying myself as I was reading it. The piece is informative, convicting, concerning, and encouraging all at once. I no longer want to distill it down into 1000 words so you don’t have to read it, I want to tell you to read it. Do yourself and the world a favor and read it.

I honestly didn’t understand what the current environmental situation is. Pope Francis presents the best of science to demonstrate that while things are by no means hopeless, things are far bleaker than I had thought. We have to do something different. We have to repent.

That’s an interesting thought isn’t it?

When we talk about repenting in the church we usually think about lying or looking at pornography. We don’t usually think about needing to repent of the way we treat the earth. But according to Pope Francis, if we don’t change we are going to destroy our home. Isn’t that what repentance is? Changing our minds about something. Doing something different.

What does that repentance look like? This is where I especially appreciated Pope Francis’ perspective. I’ve heard plenty of debates over what technology does or doesn’t hurt the environment and what new regulations will really make a difference, but Francis rejects regulation and technology as the way forward (though he does not reject them as an aid). The problem is not primarily with our technology but with our humanity, or rather our lack of it. We have treated our home as if we own it, as if we can do whatever we want to it. We’ve cut down forests, polluted our air and waters in the name of the dollar. We’ve raped the earth in the name of profit.

Our greed, our carelessness and waste and our selfishness are destroying the planet. We all contribute to this, from when I choose to throw out my paper rather than recycling it; to the major corporation that destroys an entire ecosystem to lower its overhead costs. When we neglect and harm the earth, whether in big or small ways, we sin against our home, ourselves, and our Creator.

The reality is that taking care of the earth is an incredibly human thing to do. When we care for the earth rather than destroying it, we are living out our humanity more fully.  Caring for the environment is truly humanitarian in nature. This is because those who are most harshly affected by the damage done to the earth are almost always the poor and disenfranchised, the least of these that are so important to Jesus, those that we are commanded to care for.

How is this true? Let’s take for example the polluting of our oceans. This has adversely affected the fishing industry in major nations due to the fact that it’s killing off the fish. Among the affluent some may take a serious hit on profits or even lose their jobs, but most will ultimately recover. In small villages where fishing provides the only means of work for the majority of people already living in poverty, this is a devastating blow that many will never recover from. The task of caring for the earth is also the task of caring for humanity.

It is not enough however to simply care for the earth as if it were a resource to be exploited. The earth is a gift, something precious and beautiful in its own right. Pope Francis identifies with St. Francis of Assisi when he identified the animals as brothers and sisters. This wasn’t simply an overly romantic view of the world, it was a way of life for St. Francis. He treated nature with respect and dignity thanking sister sun for the light that it gives and brother pig for providing us with meat. The earth is not ours to be exploited, but ours to tend to and care for as we use the blessings that it gives us. If we cannot change our minds here, we will never move past our own greed.

So, what is the way forward? Repent. Change. Do something different. Start by reading Pope Francis’ encyclical (you can read it for free here). Read the rest of this series this week on Groupthink. Find ways to make changes in your life, not just to plant a tree (though that is good) but to free yourself from the bonds of greed and consumerism.

“Replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism which “entails learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want to what God’s world needs. It is liberation from fear, greed and compulsion.” --Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew