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