It's Earth Day tomorrow, so it's only appropriate that we take a moment to explore the green of Christianity.
In 1967, Science magazine first published a Lynn White article titled, The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. The article has been of such influence over time that even Mr. Environment himself, Al Gore, has found it necessary to comment on it.
Essentially, White's article argued that, "all forms of life modify their context", and that, with the Industrial Revolution, humanity took a philosophical shift in its approach to our global context, one that resulted in us viewing the earth not as the place we dwell, but as a resource that we are to consume.
While this basic premise makes sense, White takes things a step further and argues that the mindset that enabled this to happen was established as a result of Christianity and the dominion mandate of Genesis 1. The basic gist of his argument is that, because Christians view themselves as superior in the created order, they don't respect or appreciate nature.
As I read White's article, I experienced a mixture of reactions, some positive and some negative. However, the line that resonated with me most reads, "Especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen."
Anthropocentric. Human-centered. If White is correct, and I believe at some level he is, his rightness is rooted in the word anthropocentric. After all, an anthropocentric Christianity would teach that everything on this earth exists under human jurisdiction. It gives us the right to do whatever we want to creation because it is here for our use and benefit. If in fact, Christianity were responsible for our ecological crisis, it would be because of its anthropocentric ideals. The problem is, anthropocentric Christianity isn't biblical Christianity.
Certainly anthropocentrism has worked it's way into Christian thought over time, a reality that shows up not only in our attitudes towards the environment, but also the highly human-focused, sentimental mush about Jesus thinking about each of us individually as he died upon the cross for our sins. But, in the end, any religion that is anthropocentric is nothing but idolatry of self.
The natural response to this would be to suggest a theo-centric approach to Christianity where, as Jon Petering pointed out a couple weeks ago, humans have a two-fold purpose when it comes to the creation, "we are to subdue it – use all of the resources it offers so that we can take care of ourselves, and at the same time, we are to take care of it – to work it and manage it so that it continues to exist."
The simple problem with theo-centric Christianity is that we, as people, don't uphold our end of the deal. God has provided the creation and we have, in all times, places, and cultures, pillaged it for our own purposes. If Christianity were theo-centric, then we're nothing more than horrible stewards awaiting for an angry master to come home.
This leaves us with one final option, Christo-centric Christianity. While this approach maintains the two-fold human purpose of the theo-centric model, it goes one step farther and addresses our failure to be good stewards by bringing Christ into the mix, not just to die for the sin of individuals, but to bring healing to both humanity and a creation that, in the words of Paul, has been "subjected to futility" and "has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now" (Romans 8:20, 22).
Today, this Christo-centric Christianity calls on Christians to take part in the redemptive work of Christ by doing what can be done in this age to bring healing to the futility.
To keep the discussion going on the redemptive work when it comes to caring for the creation, I've started this topic in the forums.
Earthly stewards and mechanics
The Earth is a well oiled machine from creation, but it needs maintenance and the like if we're going to keep using it. I think it's silly to say anyone isn't anthropocentric. By nature, we're selfish beings, so we all are, regardless of being slaves to "Western Christianity" or even hippy New Age-ism. The trick is the approach we view the Earth and it's resources.
The Earth was designed in such a way that it can easily sustain us if we use the resources in the right ways ("right" being defined as what allows us to sustain ourselves the longest). It's not too different than a car. A car works for a while but will break down all the more quickly if you don't maintain it. We've got to maintain this rock to keep it going. By tending the Earth, we tend ourselves.
Now, to say that Western civilization had before taken responsibility for its tending would be far fetched, and there was then seen little reason. We had some perception of an infinite supply for our unquenchable demand. But now, out of the world's societies, the West tends to be the most conscious of our future concerns in regards to renewable energy. Where Europe's and America's laws protect the environment, corporations are driven out to third world countries to continue to scourge and take advantage, where those countries readily allow them to do so, since they reap economic rewards for such. The only reason that the West was ahead of the game in pollutants is because the West industrialized first. But now that we're advancing, we're capable of moving past that and slowly are. But the now developing countries are taking the mantle of causing environmental damage.
Hatin' on the Industrial Revolution...
Amazing. This is like the 4th blog post that I have read recently that has demonized the Industrial Revolution.
That's not to say I'm a big fan of much of the output of the Industrial Revolution when it comes to economics, philosophy, and theology. There are some things that I can recognize as messed up that came from mechanizing our lives. (As someone will probably say about us, except by saying "computerizing" or "connectionizing")
I'm going to break the rules and not comment on much from the article at all. Sorry Joe. But rather, I'm going to state that I think that it is interesting that what used to be normal "postmodern hatin' on everything modern" is now seemingly getting more specific in its attacks.
I think that's interesting. And I'm probably the only one.
At the end of the day, I wonder if this might be a turn towards some new ideas that aren't as postmodern as "whatever's next".
in Christ,
jW
not a hater
Actually, I don't hate the Industrial Revolution, actually, given all of the good things that it's brought into my life (medically, economically, etc), I'm rather thankful for it.
At the same time, it's taken until recent times to realize that being industrial doesn't mean raping the earth. For a while there, we were so caught up in our being industrious, that we spaced on the broader consequences.
Now, this is actually a very normal thing and a pattern that has been repeated throughout history. Some of the stuff I was reading this past week pointed out that the supposedly uber-green Native Americans, at least on the plains, used to run entire herds of buffalo off of the cliffs and then grab the limited amount they needed and left the rest could rot. To take it a step farther, at first, when they couldn't find buffalo, it didn't dawn on them that they'd whipped them out, rather, they assumed it was because of the gods anger towards them. However, much like us with the Industrial Revolution, in time, they realized the broader effects and changed their ways.
As for your comments, you're right, the hatin' is gaining focus which would be a sign that we're getting closer to being able to define whatever it is that comes after modernity (postmodernity doesn't count because you can't label something based on what it's not). Although, I'd say we won't really be there until it's not just words but lives that reflect the hatin' ... after all, I don't know anybody who's in the mood to go back to the plague and 35 year life expectancies just to hate on the IR.
I like this...
I like this comment JW.....but I'd take a slightly different take on it.
Postmodernism is still in it's infancy. When a worldview is in it's infancy, it is reactive...reacting only to whatever was before it, not offering many new ideas of it's own. I think what we're seeing here isn't postmodernism changing into "whatever's next"...I think we're seeing it mature into something more specific (up to this point, it's pretty undefined).
I think these ideas will get more and more pinpointed as the philosophy matures. Then, at some point, it will come out of it's infancy and into it's own...starting to offer solutions and ideas, not just pointing out problems.
I've noticed this trend elsewhere as well...and I think it's a welcome change from the vague skepticism of postmodernism...at least our skepticism is getting more specific :) I look forward to the day when it can come of age and start to offer solutions to all the things we criticize.
a hinge
I think we're running on the same idea here, but maybe not. Let me offer an illustration and we'll see if it's just a mix up of terms.
I'd say that, right now, were in a hinge. Modernity was on one side of the hinge and whatever's next is on the other side. However, something needs to bind the two together. It initiates with a reaction against the old and then, as it figures out what exactly it is (as opposed to what it's not).
Now, whatever you call the hinge, and whatever you call what is on the other side really doesn't matter. I'm just thinking we're somewhere in the hinge.
Thoughts?
A Call For Christians
I think this change is a big opportunity for good and a giant danger for things to go bad. When things are different, when we don't understand them, or when something is happening that we don't like we tend to bag on things. At least, that's been a recent observation on our culture. So, we have modernity and the other (often termed as postmodernism) and because they don't understand each other and there are areas of disagreement there has been a tendency to not just define one side in relation to the other but to bag on the other. Just look at the name postmodernism... it's defined in relation to the other guy. Just look at how many people bag on the lifestyles and way of thinking of their parents and grand parents. It's trashing what they don't like or understand.
I think this is an opportunity for Christians. If we go through this transition the biblical way it's lined with love. It has us living along side people who are very different, people who are sinful just like us, people who share some sins and have different ones, and people who are just trying to do the best they can in some very crappy circumstances.
This is, also, an opportunity for the church to step back into culture and do so in a way that's loving, kind, and out for the betterment of people.