There is an old adage that one should never talk about sports, religion or politics (or climate change!) with friends, but the recent news that a gathering of religious leaders congregated on a Norwegian vessel just beside the Sermeq Kujalleq glacier warrants attention. It’s a unique pilgrimage which transcended religious divides in a show of solidarity with the earth. The religious conception of nature does, however, throw up a few problems. Let’s take a look at some of those issues.
Nature exists in most religious interpretations, first and foremost, for us— although that luxury is often qualified by the notion of stewardship. This interpretation has manifested itself in a number of ways, but it certainly ties in with the belief that nature is unrealistically abundant which is not to say that it cannot be, if treated well. That nature should exist solely for our purposes is clearly problematic for the environmentally minded thinker, but in times of crisis friends can be found in unexpected places. Take the unusual news that a number of grassroots Republican Party members in the United States are turning toward a bio-centric position. That is a number of traditional, conservative and Republican voters are taking it upon themselves to be good stewards.
By interpreting the Bible to demand fair stewardship of the environment these green Republicans are avoiding the use of pesticides or indeed any non-organic interference in their farming. This philosophy extends to their livestock which, according to the Christian idea of creation, are also designed for human needs. It may irk secularists to hear about “this little piece of real estate that the Lord has given us,” but it raises the question of how the green message should be tailored. Despite the prevalence of conservationism among conservative voters, most are inclined toward skepticism on the anthropogenic causes of climate change. This may seem enough of an issue already, but religion poses problems for ecology at a far more fundamental level.
Environmental degradation is intrinsically linked with both population control and our consumer lifestyles. It is the former which presents us with almost insurmountable divisions between ecology and religion. Population control presents two dilemmas to the religions: one pragmatic and the other ethical. The rapid growth of religion in the developing world is replacing the emptying pews of the West and so the churches look increasingly to developing nations to fill the vacuum. The ethical issue is an even more conflicted one as it centers upon the solutions to population control: contraceptives and sex education. Whether these issues can be resolved is a question of dialogue, but some of you may be wondering about the necessity of such a dialogue.
Well the case for dialogue is simple. Awareness of climate change in the West is disseminated by way of an increasingly sympathetic media. Information can be accessed via blogs, books, documentaries and all manner of other outlets, but this blinds us to the fact that the majority of the world does not have such easy access. To put it simply: billions of people are beyond the reach of the green message. The Western church may no longer seem a viable method of spreading the word in the West, but that does not mean the method cannot be applied elsewhere. This is somewhat contentious, but it’s an issue which needs to be addressed. For now it is important to simply recognize that something is being reawakened in the religious communities and it might just be a green theology.
