Dual Directions Today: California Fires and Climate Change, Meditation and Science

I’m using today’s blog to produce a literal “essay”—from the French, essayer, “to try”—and so I'm trying out dual topics that have my attention, but neither of which is fully baked. 

They are (1) the connection between the fires I’m experiencing in Northern California and global climate change, and (2) scientific studies that validate the value of Buddhist meditation and what that means for Christian meditation and Christian views of science more generally.

Are we in a “climate apocalypse”?
The consensus of the scientific community—as well as those like me who are convinced by the science—global climate change is real. It is not, “fake news.” (In fact, it’s hard for me to understand why people want to deny this consensus.) 

It’s not a stretch in fact to make the connection then between the fires in California and this emerging global reality. Of course, this is also quite personal—I think the hardest moment for me was last weekend when the AQI—the Air Quality Index—went above 600 in Chico (0-50 is healthy), which is quite literally off the charts and when we had every window shut and the seams taped, and we were smelling smoke inside.

At the same time, I know that’s not all. Consider these two items: we have not managed our forests properly in the past 100 years—and, by the way, we could have learned from Native Americans and their version of “good fires" or prescribed burns—and we have built on lands at the WUI, the Wildlife Urban Interface to our peril.

Spiritually, we have not also given the land a break, a Sabbath or Jubilee, as I learned powerfully in a jazz vespers service last Sunday entitled “Melting.” It’s not only climate change specifically and globally, but more regional practices that are now demonstrating their deleterious effects. We need Sabbath practices that restrain us for our own good, and also for all creation. Sabbath brings renewal and sustainability to us and to nature. Not observing Sabbath has meant that the land will be desolated. The earth, as the Scripture tells us, rises up and responds to our destructive and harmful practices.

Meditation helps me—the science tells me so

It’s no secret to those who study science and religion that Buddhism is hot right now, which is particularly surprising since Buddhists represent around 1% of the U.S. population.

Why? One principle candidate is the relationship of Buddhist meditation—especially mindfulness—and its validation by neuroscience. Consider, for example, what Richard Davidson and his team at University of Wisconsin, Madison found (and now I quote Philip Clayton)

“Those with training and practice in meditation showed greater activity in areas of the brain dedicated to paying attention and making decisions.” Philip Clayton

Let’s take the scientific support for Buddhist meditation, in the aggregate, as decisive and thus as a given. What does that mean for me as a Christian? 

I’ll note two implications (with the hopes of developing these anon): 

• Mindfulness is an excellent practice for Christians as we seek to “calm and quiet” ourselves (Psalm 131:2). It's also a great prelude to prayer and to acts compassionate.
• Buddhist meditation has close affinities with the ancient and contemporary Christian practice of contemplative prayer, close enough that neurological studies find similar results between these and Buddhist meditation. And here I’m leaning on the research of Andrew Newberg, who wrote about a study of meditation practices such as focusing on Scripture, “we found increased activity in the frontal lobes (one of the areas in the brain involved with compassion and positive emotions) and there were changes in the thalamus, the part of our brain that helps us interconnect.”

In sum, these scientific studies are certainly strong support for the Buddhist meditation and its contributions to spiritual-psychological well-being. But this is not for Buddhists alone. We in the church can be humble enough to learn from these practices, adapt them, seek parallels in our own spiritual tradition, and thus find all kinds of reasons to take time away, “to let go and let God.” May it be so.

The Climate Is Changing

When I put together a list of the most important topics in religion and science in my recent book, in the changing climate of what's being discussed (if you can excuse a pun), one topic certainly received the #1 vote by a wide variety of people: Global climate change. To some this may seem unusual in the science and religion dialogue. In fact, the younger the respondent, the more critical this topic becomes. The climate is indeed changing, and this topic is trending.

There are numerous ways to approach the topic, and in this brief post, I've decided look at the topic as a follower of Jesus within a multi-religious context. (In fact, I'm addressing the topic of religious views on sustainability at the upcoming Chico State conference in March.) And so I start by saying that, as a Christian, I'm engaged in this topic because of our calling in Christ. Psalm 24 reminds us that the earth is God's, which implies that we need to care for it, just as Genesis 1:26-28 complements this affirmation with God's command to steward the earth. Eugene Peterson paraphrases that latter passage so beautifully,

“God spoke: ‘Let us make human beings in our image, make them reflecting our nature./ So they can be responsible for the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the cattle./ And, yes, Earth itself, and every animal that moves on the face of Earth.’” 

Genesis 1, The Message

#1 Climate Change
Throughout the year, I spend many hours and days at conferences and meetings in the field of science and religion, and I can affirm that what Philip Clayton has written is largely accurate that there is near

“... universal agreement among scientists that humans are causing the climate of our planet to change; and there are clear teachings within every major religious tradition, from indigenous lifeways to New Age spiritualities, that the earth is to be protected and valued.” Philip Clayton

Indeed human-caused, or anthropogenic, climate change represents a topic that increasingly comes to mind in science and religion discussions, and the consensus among scientists is overwhelmingly that climate change really exists and that we human beings have caused it. 

As a result, the often staid and reserved leader in science--and the largest scientific organization in the world--the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has moved beyond its usual roles into more public advocacy and communication. In 2018 it launched “How We Respond,” a communication initiative to highlight how communities are actively and effectively responding to climate change at local, state and regional levels, and to demonstrate the critical role of science and scientists in informing these activities.”  In addition, AAAS through their Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER) put together a fascinating discussion on climate change with climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe and Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.

As I said, I'll keep this post multi-religious with more to come, but I do not that, as Christians, this broader base allows us to connect with non-Christians in order to make a difference. As I've mentioned, the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam prioritize their call to stewardship. Eastern religions also have their own contributions. Buddhism, for example, emphasizes compassion and the interconnection of all life. Hindus and Jains describe a soul in all things, and the latter’s accent on ahimsa can contribute a deep reverence for all life. 

Is there a way that we might join with others and take up this call? I certainly hope so. More to come in future posts...

On Climate Change and Christian Faith

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?”

Global Climate Change: We Ask Too Much of Science

(One note: Check out the new gadget where you can sign up to have my blog posts sent directly to your email. It's just to the right of this sentence!)

One of the tried and true ways to relate the Bible and the discoveries of science has been the Two Books model. There’s the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture, and God is their sole Author. Francis Bacon, one of the pioneers of modern science, phrased it this way, 

"God has, in fact, written two books, not just one. Of course, we are all familiar with the first book he wrote, namely Scripture. But he has written a second book called creation." Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

So ultimately a contradiction between the Two Books is impossible.

But I often ask myself, “Are there times when I’m asking too much of science? Can it really answer more directly the questions that Christians have puzzled over for centuries by looking at Scripture, seeking discernment in prayer and community?” 

Responding to those questions is what this blog post intends to do.

Like any association between two different entities—in this case, science and faith—resolving contradictions can be tricky. This makes it tempting to think that both parties are exactly the same. (I won’t go into the marriage analogies, but they’re there.) If we give the Two Books the same weight and voice, the Book of Nature can itself become sacred and direct the Christian community and its ethics. 

Put another way, misreading the book of Nature leads us to make too much of science. And I hear that done in two different ways with a duo of contemporary issues: global climate change (this week) and sexuality (next week).

With climate change, many Americans are under-informed by the science and particularly the fact that many scientists and Christians today are calling for a response to global climate change. A large majority of scientists are convinced that climate change is occurring and that human activity is responsible. 

“97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that ‘currently available scientific evidence’ substantiated its occurrence.”

They are joined by leading voices like Pope Francis and the National Association of Evangelicals, along with leading climate scientist and evangelical Katherine Hayhoe, 

“Climate change is here and now, and not in some distant time or place. The choices we're making today will have a significant impact on our future.”

But why does Hayhoe think it’s human caused? As she points out, when we look at the rise of global temperatures since 1900—in other words, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and its release of carbon dioxide—the signs of human causes for climate change are fairly clear.

It strikes me that the consensus is clear enough. We resist (e.g., President Trump’s withdrawing from the Paris climate accords) not only for scientific reasons. Some certainly see the economic loss—and those motivated by greed need to be frankly resisted. Others truly fear a livelihood in industries that are threatened (like coal), and I believe that we need to be sensitive to these concerns. Others don’t believe government should enforce the solution. 

But let's not ask science to tell us what our moral wills don’t want to do.Global climate change represents one pressing issue that we have to consider as stewards of the earth (Genesis 1:26-28). When the planet is threatened by our actions over which we are stewards, we have to re-evaluate all these calculations. Most of all, we need to concern ourselves for the poor who bear the brunt of climate change. We also need to think about the future. Yes, Jesus might return at any moment, but I want to be found caring for a world that our children will inherit.

What do you think? Why don’t we listen to scientists about climate change? And more generally, how do you relate the Book of nature to the Book of Scripture?