I was reading The New
Yorker this weekend, and I came to a remarkable quote from the senior David
H. Rank, the senior American diplomat in China. He was contemplating President
Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. Actually,
I should have written, “the former
senior American diplomat in China” because he resigned over Trump’s decision,
a decision he would somehow have to sell to the Chinese:
“I’m not a great theologian, but, just in my gut, I thought, We’re stewards of creation and the world. As a parent, I’ve spent my life trying to make my children’s life O.K. And, finally, in terms of national interests, it’s just dumb.”
As Rank put it quite simply, global climate
change represents a pressing issue that we cannot avoid, but global stewardship
even more. We need to concern ourselves for the poor who bear the brunt of
climate change. We also need to think about the future, for our children. What
earth will we leave for them? When the planet is threatened by our actions over
which we are stewards, we have to re-evaluate all these calculations.
So
why do we resist?
Frankly,
the resistance to climate change does not strike me as primarily scientific. As
a member of the largest scientific organization in the world, the AAAS, the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, I can affirm that I hear the
call to take climate change seriously and urgently.
Money
is one big issue. I remember my church business administrator expressing more
than a modicum of resistance to the sustainability committee I started by
saying “The only greening in the church we need to seek is saving money.” Some resist for economic reasons—and those
motivated by greed need to be openly rejected. “Put to death,” is Paul’s
command to his fellow Christians about a list of sins that ends with “greed, which
is idolatry” (Colossians 3:5). (On the other hand, others truly fear a
livelihood in industries that are threatened—like coal—and I believe that we
need to be sensitive to these concerns. That’s not my focus here.)
Following
the connection Rank makes between climate change and stewardship, I’ve argued
for a particular strategy: Let’s move
away from a focus on climate change to the broader concerns of stewardship (or,
if you prefer, creation care). Partly, I advocate this change because “climate
change” has literally become politicized—with more Democrats subscribing to its
reality and more Republicans expressing skepticism. In all this, I don’t want
to lose all the other ways that pollution, and recycling, and lowering our
carbon footprint—i.e., “greening” our lives—are simply good Christian spiritual
practices.
What
can we do? We can learn to decrease our carbon-based footprint. We can make
changes in our congregations. Many churches, like my own Presbyterian Church
USA have a zero-carbon neutral statement. Others have
adopted creation care as a part of their ministry.
This
is the flip side of my central concern: Let’s
not expect too much of science. Let’s not expect science to make the change
that we’d have to imbed in our lives as (generally) wealthy United States
Christians who are often wedded to consumption. That’s something the
transforming work of the Holy Spirit has to do. It is the hope that I hear in
Paul’s stirring words, “And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the
Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory,
which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 3:18).
Finally, we believe as Christians that Jesus might return at any moment,
but when he comes like “a thief in the night” according to 1 Thessalonians 5:2,
I want to be found caring for a world that our children—my daughters and their
millennial colleagues—will inherit. (Back to Rank’s comments one more time.) It’s not hard for me to imagine that one of
Jesus’s questions will be this: “How have you taken care of this planet that I
entrusted to you?”
No comments:
Post a Comment