Climate change is becoming more prevalent as an issue. Or at least, I hope it is. I am on the side of the debate that says our time is running out to do something about taking better care of our earth. I am not worried about my own skin. I clearly will be gone before things get dicey on this planet. But I am worried about my grandkids, who can easily live till 2100 CE. What will things be like when they are really old---eighty years old—and have their own kids and grandkids. I am not so sanguine about them and their chances.
And so it was with interest that I saw a recent article by Sister Ilio Delio, a contemporary theologian. I have read some of her books and find her very insightful. The title of her article is “Theology needs radical revisioning.” She opens her piece with reference to Greta Thunberg, the young Swede, who has been speaking to governments about a different approach. She has won the hearts of many and maybe that is the role of the young folks among us. They can cause folks to listen and, perhaps, change.
And then Delio begins her own critique. She notes, “The officials, whether in church or government, are listening but not listening, interested but apathetic, agreeing but not really agreeing.” I think she is right. Basically she says people are beginning to take some notice, but not enough to make any difference. This means the danger continues to build. Many of us are in denial mode. For many, the problem---the environmental problem---is so huge, it leaves us dumbfounded and unable to manage any kind of response.
Next Delio turns to some work from Lynn White, an academic who was writing about this stuff in the 1960s. I remember reading some of his work and being nudge to worry about our planet even in those days. I agree with Delio he is even more relevant today. For example, he concludes, “the problems of the environment are essentially religious and thus the solution must be religious as well.”
Again, I think there is much truth to this position. Along with Delio, I am not interested in placing blame. But to say the problems of the environment are essentially religious is to say the dominant Christian worldview of the past two millennia have established the foundation for the way we have seen and used our earth. That needs to change. And this is where the theological revisioning comes into play. Delio poses the question this way: “What does a "religious solution" to the environmental problem look like in a church that seems to be riddled with dysfunction?”
Much of Delio’s analysis takes us into the medieval university and Catholic Church to see how a kind of narrowness developed that is still evident in many ways even to this day. The dominant view of that time---and still evident in our American culture, for example---is the view that humans have a dominant role to play with respect to nature. Nature is there for our use (and sometimes abuse). Because this is so normal, we don’t even think about it in ethical terms. We tend to equate normal with right thing to do.
And hence, our crisis today. Of course, it is easy to deny that we are in a crisis. And this only wastes time debating instead of marshalling resources to respond and be creative. The sad thing is if I personally don’t feel like there is a crisis, there is little reason for me to think about it and ponder living in any different way. I go back to Delio’s use of Lynn White. He says we will need a religious solution.
If this is true, it is silly to wait for Congress or the government to bring the solution. It will need to come out of the grassroots. I recall how the anti-Vietnam sentiment grew out of the grassroots sentiment. This is probably how the environmental problem will be solved. Delio is correct to see it as a collaboration of religion and science. She says, “An integrative vision of science and theology is not an option but essential in the 21st century.” The real question is: what can I do?
I can become more informed. I can encourage co-operation and collaboration between religion and science. Too often, these are pitted against each other. I can develop my own ecological sensitivities. Recycling sees quaint, but it is a place to begin. Moving away from fossil fuels is a no brainer. In my case, it may mean driving less. In my case, it means raising awareness of college students, so they can go further and be more creative than my own generation.
We need to switch the momentum to deeper listening, more caring, more passion for change. There are so many other ways to move forward. It is time to heed the core religious message not to be self-centered, egotistical. This is not an ecological pathway to a solution. Count me in. Let’s build a new community in this new world.
And so it was with interest that I saw a recent article by Sister Ilio Delio, a contemporary theologian. I have read some of her books and find her very insightful. The title of her article is “Theology needs radical revisioning.” She opens her piece with reference to Greta Thunberg, the young Swede, who has been speaking to governments about a different approach. She has won the hearts of many and maybe that is the role of the young folks among us. They can cause folks to listen and, perhaps, change.
And then Delio begins her own critique. She notes, “The officials, whether in church or government, are listening but not listening, interested but apathetic, agreeing but not really agreeing.” I think she is right. Basically she says people are beginning to take some notice, but not enough to make any difference. This means the danger continues to build. Many of us are in denial mode. For many, the problem---the environmental problem---is so huge, it leaves us dumbfounded and unable to manage any kind of response.
Next Delio turns to some work from Lynn White, an academic who was writing about this stuff in the 1960s. I remember reading some of his work and being nudge to worry about our planet even in those days. I agree with Delio he is even more relevant today. For example, he concludes, “the problems of the environment are essentially religious and thus the solution must be religious as well.”
Again, I think there is much truth to this position. Along with Delio, I am not interested in placing blame. But to say the problems of the environment are essentially religious is to say the dominant Christian worldview of the past two millennia have established the foundation for the way we have seen and used our earth. That needs to change. And this is where the theological revisioning comes into play. Delio poses the question this way: “What does a "religious solution" to the environmental problem look like in a church that seems to be riddled with dysfunction?”
Much of Delio’s analysis takes us into the medieval university and Catholic Church to see how a kind of narrowness developed that is still evident in many ways even to this day. The dominant view of that time---and still evident in our American culture, for example---is the view that humans have a dominant role to play with respect to nature. Nature is there for our use (and sometimes abuse). Because this is so normal, we don’t even think about it in ethical terms. We tend to equate normal with right thing to do.
And hence, our crisis today. Of course, it is easy to deny that we are in a crisis. And this only wastes time debating instead of marshalling resources to respond and be creative. The sad thing is if I personally don’t feel like there is a crisis, there is little reason for me to think about it and ponder living in any different way. I go back to Delio’s use of Lynn White. He says we will need a religious solution.
If this is true, it is silly to wait for Congress or the government to bring the solution. It will need to come out of the grassroots. I recall how the anti-Vietnam sentiment grew out of the grassroots sentiment. This is probably how the environmental problem will be solved. Delio is correct to see it as a collaboration of religion and science. She says, “An integrative vision of science and theology is not an option but essential in the 21st century.” The real question is: what can I do?
I can become more informed. I can encourage co-operation and collaboration between religion and science. Too often, these are pitted against each other. I can develop my own ecological sensitivities. Recycling sees quaint, but it is a place to begin. Moving away from fossil fuels is a no brainer. In my case, it may mean driving less. In my case, it means raising awareness of college students, so they can go further and be more creative than my own generation.
We need to switch the momentum to deeper listening, more caring, more passion for change. There are so many other ways to move forward. It is time to heed the core religious message not to be self-centered, egotistical. This is not an ecological pathway to a solution. Count me in. Let’s build a new community in this new world.
Comments
Post a Comment