Posts Tagged ‘religion’

#18: Outward manifestation of an inward pollution.

***This is the eighteenth of a series of posts based on a book I’m reading for a class called Connections in Religious and Ecological Education entitled Holy Ground: A Gathering of Voices on Caring for Creation. The chapter is “Restoring the Inner Landscape,” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the sacraments lately, partly because I’m in the process of discerning my own call to ordained ministry and partly as a result of encountering a formula, over and over again, in which, like our definition of what a sacrament is in the life of the church, a symbol acts as the outward sign of an inward reality.  Seyyed Nasr states that the ecological “crisis must be seen as the external manifestation of a universal pollution that has turned the inner landscape of so many modern men and women from a luxuriant garden into an arid desert.”  A sacrament is the outward manifestation of an inward grace… the fact of our negligent and intentional destruction of the natural world is an outward sign of an inward lack-of-grace.  Sacrament… destruction.  Is it possible that our environmentally catastrophic behaviors are the diametric opposite of a sacrament, anti-sacramental?  I think so.  The broken world we’ve made is evidence of our spiritual brokenness, our inability to recognize God’s grace in Creation, in God’s making of us a part of this integrated and connected web of life.  We’ve exited ourselves from this web, and having done so, have made ourselves non-sacramental.  Holiness is at stake, it is in danger.  We are spiritually adrift, having cut the ties linking ourselves to the natural world of which we are a natural part.  Our “inner landscape” is arid, and so we have made our external landscapes arid.  Can we view the state of our world as a direct result of the state of our souls as a human family?  And, if we work on healing our souls, will we heal the world?  Or is it the opposite, that in healing the world, our souls will find wholeness and reconnection to one another and to God?  Perhaps it is a both/and.

#2: A contemporary heresy.

200px-ecumenicalpatriarchbartholomewi1

***This is the second of a series of posts based on a book I’m reading for a class called Connections in Religious and Ecological Education entitled Holy Ground: A Gathering of Voices on Caring for Creation. The chapter is “The Orthodox Church and the Environmental Crisis” by Patriarch Bartholomew, known for his work promoting environmental awareness.

What is heresy, really?  Merriam-Webster states it is “a: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards.”  Seems to me that environmental degradation, by this definition, isn’t heresy, it’s orthodoxy.  What’s the dominant opinion or practice?  Certainly not to conserve, sustain, or care for the world in which we live.  The dominant voice, the Western voice in particular, chants “take, take, take” and “consume, consume, consume.”  Except, the etymology of “heresy” is from the Greek hairein, meaning “to take.”  It’s a complicated word, but it seems to me that His Holiness the Archbishop has a point, labeling our addiction to consumption at the expense of the well-being of the world of which we are a part as “heresy.”  Because whose is really the dominant opinion?  In the world of the Kingdom, it’s not us.  It’s God.  We are the dissenters, the contrarians, the refusers.  We are the takers.  God is the giver and maker, the dominant voice to which we are no longer listening.  The Patriarch calls our current way of life suicidal and speaks of this self-harm as being directly in opposition to the will of the Creator, who made us as an integral part of the natural order.  When we kill that order, we kill ourselves.  God called the world, in the beginning, “good.”  If we destroy it, are we not, then heretics after all?

#1: If we can still dream.

***This is the first of a series of posts based on a book I’m reading for a class called Connections in Religious and Ecological Education called Holy Ground: A Gathering of Voices on Caring for Creation. The chapter is “Daring to Dream: Religion and the Future of the Earth” by Mary Evelyn Tucker, a founder of the Forum on Religion and Ecology.

When Jesus spoke, he didn’t come with facts, or figures.  Statistics were the last thing on his mind.  Rather, he told stories and reminded people of what their hearts valued but their lives were not evidencing.  Mary Tucker, discussing what will be necessary for the salvation of creation in our time, when a mass extinction is occuring that is equivalent to the infamous destruction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, makes a bold claim, and it is (I think) much the same type of claim Jesus would make… Just as Jesus didn’t explain himself but showed in parable and bold action how the love of God works, we must stop separating ourselves from the problem at hand, as though it is outside of ourselves.  We learn not through data but through values and emotion.  We must claim the problem as being ourselves and change our perspective entirely, and this transformation will only really come through feeling, by being so de-centered that we can’t help but rethink who we are.  Isn’t this the how the good news is possible?  When we, as a species together, can re-imagine the possibilities and stop trying to solve problems with the same tired solutions, then we’ll be moving somewhere new.  Tucker’s idea is that we need to re-imagine our very identity.  Who are we in this world, as a species?  Are we consumers, or are we stewards?  What role are we currently playing, and can it change?  This is the same challenge God put forward in Jesus.  “Will you be as I created you, or will you remain broken and defiant?  Are you willing to rethink what it means to be in the world, or do you want the world to stay as it is?  Can you imagine it differently?  What can you dream?”jesus-green-in-fog

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.