Love, Power, Awareness and Creation
Commission for
the Environment,
Anglican Diocese
of
2005
And [God] showed me more, a little thing, the size
of a hazelnut, on the palm of my hand, round like a ball. I looked at it
thoughtfully and wondered, ‘What is this?’ And the answer came, ‘It is all that
is made.’ I marvelled that it continued to exist and did not suddenly
disintegrate; it was so small. And again my mind supplied the answer, ‘It
exists, both now and forever, because God loves it.’
Julian of
Preface
For the Christian there is always the
potential for tension between our perception of the world as a citizen and as a
Christian. This can be especially true in the context of our civic
responsibility towards the environment; or is it our Christian responsibility
before the Creator towards Creation? Is there any difference between what
decisions we would make in each case? Would we come to the challenges with
different values and perspectives? This material is intended to provide a
starting point for groups wishing to reflect on issues related to the
development of a proper Christian response to the environmental challenges we
face. It is based around nine columns written by various members of the
Commission for the Environment and published in the Commission’s monthly column
in Anglican News, the Diocesan newspaper.
While the material could be used by
individuals, it is primarily intended to be used by small discussion groups. In
this case it is expected that participants read and reflect on the session
material and the related questions before each session. At the meeting the
responses of participants to the material, the scriptural passages and then to
the questions, can be shared.
There are nine sessions in the material,
which may be too many for some parish programmes. If so, please use sessions 1,
2, 3 and 9 and as many of the others as time allows.
There is no necessary presumption of
consistency of views between the column authors, and the material does not
necessarily represent the views of either the Commission or the Diocese.
Contents
Preface 3
Index 4
1. Love, Power, Awareness and
Creation.
Linda
Chapman 5
Energy
2. Contraction and Convergence – A Way
Forward.
Barry
Richardson 7
3. What about Green Power?
Bill Leane 9
4. Nuclear Power – Time to Consider?
Rod Corrigan 11
Water
5. Water and Christian Ethics
Bill Leane 13
6. Thirsty Land – Thirsty People
John Walker 15
Biodiversity
7. A Christian Basis for Environmental
Action
Barry
Richardson 17
8. Forestry – One Person’s Perspective
Charles Body 19
1. Love, Power, Awareness and Creation
You can show your great
power any time you wish, and no one can stand against it. In your sight the
whole world is a grain of sand, ... a drop of dew on the ground in the morning
... you love everything that exists: you do not despise anything that you have
made. If you had not liked it you would not have made it in the first place.
(Wisdom 11:21-22, 24)
One morning
recently whilst swimming in shallow, still ocean water I noticed ahead of me a
shadow and, supposing it to be seaweed, I kept swimming. The ‘weed’ turned out
to be a huge sting ray. Now I know that the barb of a sting ray is extremely
painful and in some cases life threatening. Here was this huge ray only inches
under me yet, in those first seconds of recognizing it, a choice between love
and fear seemed to happen within me. The experience of such physical closeness
to this gracious creature was one of pure gift. For a moment the sting ray
remained where it was, then it slowly moved away.
In reflecting on
this experience, I was struck by the sense of the silent movement of this
beautiful creature towards me whilst I remained unaware of it until it was
right underneath me. I was surprised by the close encounter, having entered the
water with no expectation of such a meeting or indeed awareness of the presence
of the sting ray. But I was also touched by the intimacy of the encounter and a
powerful sense of love for this sea dweller. I began to reflect on awareness,
love and power in our relationship with creation.
The words of
Wisdom from the Old Testament (above) speak of the immensity of both God and
the created cosmos. We are indeed like a grain of sand in the face of such
immensity and yet as the writer of Wisdom says we are sustained by the love of
the Creator. God’s love for everything that exists forms the basis of a
Christian ecological ethic of living. We may not yet be capable of such a love
or of seeing the whole world in a grain of sand yet we are called to grow
towards such love and awareness.
The Wisdom writer
also speaks of great power. What then is the relationship between love and
power and how do we understand these in our own relationship with God’s
creation and the, often unseen, processes of nature?
From processes in
the ozone layer that protect us from UV radiation, to the network of
biochemical activities found inside each cell in our bodies, we are surrounded
by unseen processes and activities that maintain us and the world in which we
live. Such complexity in creation is outside our usual sphere of awareness.
Yet, as we go about our day-to-day activities, these processes of creation go
on in an invisible life-giving dance. The power inherent in this activity,
given by God the Creator, is indeed awesome.
Humanity,
however, often misappropriates power in life-denying ways. This abuse of power
is evidenced by such things as our voracious appetite for often unnecessary
consumer goods, over-reliance on fossil fuels as an energy source, cruelty to
animals in the livestock trade, deforestation and resulting loss of habitat for
non-human life and so on. We see creation as being human centred and therefore
live as though creation is here to serve us. We live as though we have no
dependence on other life in the whole earth community; as though we are
sufficient to ourselves and are entitled to exert power in whatever way we like
over other life.
As Christians, we
say that we are here to serve God; that our power is only in God. To really
live out such a belief we must ask ourselves who, in reality, do we serve?
Surely, if we answer by saying we serve God, then we must also serve God’s
creation. If we say, along with the Wisdom writer, ‘You love everything that
exists’ then surely we too must at least attempt to love ‘everything that
exists’. This love will recognize not only our own interdependence with all
creation but will also desire the integrity and fulfilment of all creation.
The power of
geological events such as earthquakes and tsunamis can be seriously destructive
and of a kind that we humans cannot ‘stand against’. Such destructive power is
part of the evolutionary process. The power of God however is the power to love
even in the midst of destruction and at times when that love may seem invisible
to us. It is the power of love that we know in the reality of Christ on the cross.
We human beings have been gifted with great love and power even though this often seems hidden or outside our usual awareness. But the love and power with which we have been gifted is divine in origin. The whole earth community, of which we are a part, and with whom we have interdependence is suffering. For too long we have used our power to exploit creation. Many Christians today however are recognizing the call to care for creation. Such caring begins with awareness, which precedes action. Let us all grow in our awareness of the life process and our part in the dance of life. Let us learn to use our power in the truly Christian way that Christ shows; use not for power over, but for the purposes of love. And let us always live in gratitude for the unseen forces of nature that sustain us, as we are also mindful of the ways in which humanity debilitates nature. Our true power may indeed be in our capacity for co-creativity with God. May we grow in the capacity to ‘love everything that exists’ and act for the integrity of creation.
A
Scriptural Perspective
Job 38:1-27; 40:1-5
Points
to Ponder
1.
Can you recall an occasion when you were
particularly touched by an encounter with the natural world? Spend time
reflecting on this. Stay with the experience. What do you notice? Is there a
sense of God’s presence/love in the experience or not?
2.
How does the concept that the cosmos is more than
just a backdrop to your life and, more generally, to that of humankind, affect
you? Does a sense of relationship to the rest of creation (or lack of it)
affect your attitude to the way you believe we can use natural resources.
3.
When confronted with the need to make behavioural
decisions about the environment, what values do you use? (If possible make a
list of these for reconsideration in later sessions.)
2.
Contraction and Convergence – A Way Forward
In 1990 a small
British institute called the Global Commons Institute presented an idea aimed
at solving the global crisis resulting from climate change. They were
interested in two issues, equity, between the various peoples of the
world, and survival through the maintenance of the present planetary
climate regime. Their proposal was called Contraction and Convergence (often
given the acronym C&C).
The concept
assumes that there are limits to growth in fossil fuel consumption if a climate
crisis is to be avoided. A typical scenario addressing the issue of survival
under C&C would be to stabilise carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere at
about 450 parts per million by volume. This compares with the present (unstable
and still rising) level of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 360ppmv. This is not
to claim that 450ppmv is not without serious risk, given that claims of
detectable effects are made for the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
If this level is accepted then the scientific community can be asked to
estimate the annual world emission rate that would be sustainable (probably
about 60% of the present emission rate, as the present emission rate would
ultimately lead to much higher levels). Such a generous scenario however would
still mean contraction in use by the developed world and restrictions on
how much carbon dioxide could be released by developing countries in the
future.
Equity
is addressed by proposing that future entitlements to emit carbon dioxide
should be equalised globally on a per capita basis. That is, when fully in
place, say in forty or fifty years time, each individual in the world would be
entitled to emit the same amount of carbon dioxide measured on a national
basis. This is the proposed convergence.
It
is hoped that this, more inclusive process, would break the present
international stalemate that we see in
Basically,
the C&C system would provide the basis for a world carbon budget but,
because the budget will not be big enough for all to do whatever they wish,
carbon emission will need to be rationed on an equitable basis. There are three
components to this. Firstly, the budget must be global; every country shares in
the atmosphere and its absorptive capacity must be allocated so that no-one
gains and no-one is deprived of their share. Secondly, the present situation,
where allocations are generally proportional to wealth must be replaced.
Thirdly, each person must be entitled to the same amount of greenhouse gas
emissions (on a country basis). Studies during the World Wars showed that
rationing only works if it is perceived as fair and it is claimed that the C&C
system can be seen as fair.
There
are practical implications with this approach. Developing countries would have
strong incentives to direct as much as possible of their development down
non-fossil-fuel based energy pathways. As well the C&C mechanism would
allow them to sell their unused annual emission entitlements to finance
development without the need for massive debt-causing loans. At the same time
developed countries would be able to purchase emission entitlements to gain
time while they rebuild their infrastructures.
While
some European and developing countries have expressed varied levels of support
for C&C as the basis for a long-term solution, it is early days in the
process of exploring just how such a system would work. The Anglican Church, as
well as the World Council of Churches, has expressed support for C&C and
some of the many statements can be found at:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/040705.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3866543.stm
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/moscow2003.html
http://www.ecen.org/topclim.shtml
http://www.web.net/~tendays/wcc.htm
A
Scriptural Perspective
Lk
12.13-21,.32-34
Points to Ponder
1.
How does the tone of this column
‘feel’ compared to the tone of the last column? Which do you prefer? Why? Which
is valid?
2.
How should the needs of our
community be balanced against the needs of other communities in the world. What
does ‘justice’ mean in this context? How could it be determined? Would you
consider this form of justice to be congruent with Gospel values?
3.
The World Council of Churches
actively organises demonstrations and other ‘events’ in the cities where G8 and
other international bodies meet on global warming, etc. Should the churches be
involved in this way? Why? Are there limits to what they should do?
3. What about Green Power?
Green energy facts
More that 90 % of
Green power
schemes are those set up by energy retailers to provide electricity to
customers only from green energy sources, and can be defined as that obtained
from sources where generation results in minimal damage to the environment.
That is:
·
large dam hydroelectricity production is ‘out’, so
are nuclear, co-generation from gas heating plants, energy produced from coal
seam methane, and biomass when produced as by-products from old growth forests;
·
‘in’ are solar thermal and photovoltaic (PV)
processes, as are generation from small hydro, wind power, biomass from
plantation and crop residues, landfill methane and emerging technologies (eg.
micro-turbines and fuel cells)
On this basis, green
electricity accounts for less than 1% of domestic sales in
The moral issues
The central moral
question in the concept of green power is the insurance principle of Moral
Hazard. Moral hazard applies where a buyer knows of a harmful outcome of an
action, and where policies or price structures would reward behaviour or
actions that increase the likelihood of the harmful outcome. For example a
moral hazard occurs when a homeowner takes less care
in locking up his/her home once it is insured.
In the context of
green energy, where Christians believe that:
·
the threat of global warming is real and damaging to
the environment; and
·
the continued use of energy from fossil fuel is a
major contributor to that environmental damage; and
·
there is a technology alternative available (albeit
more expensive);
then, the moral
hazard is the availability of inexpensive fossil-fuel-sourced energy which is
an incentive to take actions that they believe to be harmful to the
environment.
There are
practical and moral issues at stake if energy sourcing is the best response to
the energy dilemma. Other options include reducing overall demand, changing
household behaviour and investing in energy saving technologies. Other
practical questions relate to affordability, availability and ease of changing
to a green source.
There is a
hierarchy of actions available to concerned Christians that allow them to act
in a manner that is practically sensible and morally righteous. The first of
these is to be mindful of wasteful and excessive use of energy. Simple,
practical remedies arise for most people when planning construction or renovations
and the future energy demand is built-into energy efficient design, efficient
appliances and matching the quality of the energy source to the quality
demanded. Low quality demand (internal space heating) should come from low
quality sources (i.e. radiated solar thermal gain), and high quality demand
(e.g. a hi-fi) should be from mains power.
Second, there are
actions as statements to signify a moral stance to policy makers, society, and
our fellow concerned Christians. I consider the purchase of green energy as one
of the more important of these action statements.
In considering
the moral and ethical issues of
Green energy is
at the forefront of the public face of action to change energy policy in
How does this matter to us
The Diocese is
putting its house in order by encouraging its major facilities and institutions
to join in a program of energy management contracts. As well, the recently
distributed Parish Environmental Audits allowed congregations to consider their
individual and corporate behaviour. If you have not seen your Parish response
then ask your rector or Council.
A
Scriptural Perspective
Amos 7:10-8:8
Points to Ponder
1. Is it right for
the church to speak out in the Australian political context on environmental
issues, for example,
2. Is accepting a
moral hazard (as described above) sinful? Why?
3. Would you apply
the values you listed in Week 1 in deciding on your choice of electricity? How
would you do it? If not what values would you use? Similarly how should a
parish decide on its choice of electricity?
4. Nuclear Power – Time to Consider?
As Christians we
are called to care for God’s creation. In exercising our free wills within
God’s creation, some of our most important decisions are those relating to how
we acquire and use the energy that powers our society. In this regard,
electricity generation employing fossil fuels and present methods are a
significant source of pollution through the emission of various “greenhouse”
gases, and alternatives need to be considered.
Because of the
great variability in daily load demands, “renewable” energy sources such as
solar and wind are restricted in their ability to contribute to major
electricity generation. Their energy is available only as nature dictates,
which is not necessarily when the power grid needs it. Apart from “off-peak”
pumping to replenish hydro-electricity dams or the possible manufacture of
hydrogen in the future, no satisfactory means exist for large-scale “storage”
of the energy that these “renewable systems” produce.
Despite this, we
need not always be dependent on “greenhouse unfriendly”, fossil fuel power
stations. At present there are two well developed means of “base-load capable”
power generation that produce virtually no greenhouse gases. The first is
large-scale hydroelectricity. In thirsty
Unfortunately
strong emotions are raised by the issue of nuclear power in those who are
either for or against it. As a consequence it can be difficult to obtain
accurate information on the subject.
So, what are the facts?
There are 438
nuclear reactors worldwide currently supplying approximately 16% of the world’s
electricity, with virtually no attendant greenhouse emissions.
Safety and public health?
For many the name
“
Fears of
terrorists flying a large aircraft into a nuclear power reactor have been under
serious consideration since the World Trade Centre attacks. The most thorough
study of this threat has been undertaken by the Electric Power Research
Institute, and concludes that modern reactor structures “are robust and would
protect the nuclear fuel from impacts of large commercial aircraft.” In other
words, the reactor containment would not be penetrated.
Nuclear waste?
The disposal of
the products of the nuclear power process is carefully accounted for by the
industry. Recent reports of failings in accountability for nuclear material in
the
No scientific or technical
problems remain to be solved in isolating unwanted radionuclides from the
environment. Problems that exist in so-called “waste disposal” are virtually
all political and ideological. The encapsulation of radionuclides in
boro-silicate glass or their incorporation in a synthetic mineral by the
Australian “Synroc” process, coupled with well-designed long-term storage
facilities, provide the level of safety necessary.
Uneconomical?
Not so. The Royal
Academy of Engineering has substantiated previous studies that nuclear energy
can be economic when external costs are included. In the UK, when the cost of a
carbon tax of ₤30/ton is included in coal and gas figures (to offset the
release of greenhouse gases) and the cost of standby plant is incorporated in
wind calculations (to take account of variability), the present-day generating
cost in p/kWh are:- wind 7.2; fluidised bed coal 5.1; pulverised coal 5.0;
combined-cycle gas (CCGT) 3.4; and nuclear 2.3.
So where is the nuclear power debate in
All the presently
considered energy alternatives offer advantages as well as risks. There is no
simple solution – otherwise we would use it! How then is the Christian to come
to some responsible view on the matter? Clearly we have responsibilities towards
our neighbours; be they in our own country or elsewhere. How are we to
distribute polluting technologies (and all technologies are polluting in some
sense) between countries? We also have responsibilities towards our neighbours
of future generations. Which is worse; sequestered nucleides in Synroc,
sequestered carbon in underground strata or increased global warming? There is
also our responsibility towards the other creatures of God with whom we share
this planet. How will the various options affect them? What should we make of
the effect of wind vanes on endangered bird species? Surely there is a need for
us to consider all the options that are available to us.
A
Scriptural Perspective
Matt 5:1-30
Points to Ponder
1. What criteria should we use as Christians in arriving at a balance between the options (and others) in the last paragraph of the column?
2. The alternative to simply striking a balance between different energy sources is to consider the alternative of contracting energy consumption. (see chapter on ‘Contraction & Convergence’). How much energy are we ‘entitled’ to use? What standard of living are we ‘entitled’ to?
3. Do you see any ‘moral hazard(s)’ here (see ‘What about Green Power’)? Where, and if so, how can they be avoided?
5. Water and
Christian Ethics
Engineering
skills have been deployed since the 1930’s to provide abundant water (usually
stored in large dams) for our use. The resulting false sense of security lasted
until the end of the 20th century when the folly of our belief in
the perpetual abundance of good quality water became manifest as water
scarcity, declining water quality, degraded soils and depleted aquifers became
evident to all. The promises made by promoters of big dams made us forget some
simple truths that were evident to earlier societies: that water was a precious resource, water was
limited in amount and not evenly or equably distributed in either time or
space, and that a society that practised poor stewardship of its water
resources was in peril of social, economic and environmental catastrophe. In
the 21st century, we now have to re-learn these lessons and it is
our values and beliefs that must provide the context for change.
As stewards of
Christ’s earthly creation, what are our responsibilities in the management of
water? I believe that these fall into three categories.
Riparian
stewardship. The riparian zone is the corridor of river banks and the vegetation on
either side of rivers, creeks and gullies that provide the critical link in
preventing sediments, pollutants and nutrients entering our waterways. To take
up our role in riparian stewardship is to become aware, interested, and then
knowledgeable about the important relationships that shape the landscape. This
‘landscape literacy’ is a knowledge that is vital for the survival of any
society, but especially for one that wields technical muscle on a scale ours
does. Revisiting and relearning this lesson is necessary if our society is to
understand the problems that we face and to give context to necessary remedial
action.
How many of us
can name one local native plant flowering on the banks of our rivers, much less
any of the myriad of insects, fungi and microorganisms found there? How many of
us can say what role they fulfil or how they live? What do we understand of the
services they contribute to our well being, and what are the consequences and
options when species are removed by loss of habitat, pollution or climate
change?
Our first step
then is to be aware of our environment and more literate as to what it is and
what it contributes to our well-being.
Resource
stewardship. Every ancient society allocated
its water in relation to the relative security of supply from available
sources, and the relative importance of demands for the different grades of
water. Most precious (secure) were local sources of water from reliable springs
and wells that were available for drinking. Next was previously used water:
households used rinse and washing water for gardens etc; farms used irrigation
water multiple times via terraced fields and simple collection and return
structures. Third, insecure supplies from occasional rains were harvested and
stored for later use. Such insecure storages were emptied as soon as convenient
to vacate space for the next downpour. Communal long term secure storages were
reserved for common use and were usually in aquifers, and natural or excavated
underground chambers for long term reserve storage. These were used sparingly
in good times and reserved for use in bad times.
The principles
employed by the ancients are as relevant in the 21st century as they
were then, except that we have the advantage of technology to transform water
sources from insecure to secure, and from lower to higher quality. However, we
have developed policies and structures that depend almost exclusively on
long-term reserve storages, and have lost sight of the importance of local
secure and opportunistic source availability.
We need to
preserve the reticulated mains supply for potable needs so that it is used only
after other available sources (from grey-water and rainwater) have been used
for ‘fit for purpose’ uses. Modern technology provides devices (logic control
units) that can treat grey-water to safe standards and cheaply select the
source to match the quality of water supplied to the quality of the water
demanded for a given use. No behavioural change is necessary on the part of the
user to result in a very environmentally friendly outcome, often at lower
long-term cost.
It is too easy to
simply turn on the tap for town water. We need to take more responsibility for
choosing the right water for the right task and let our political masters know
that this is the preferred direction of change in policy. We are then in a position to have technology
make water available, rather than drawing yet more from the natural environment
Equity &
Justice. The water sharing systems of many ancient societies had equity as
central in the allocation decision. These societies recognised that the basis
of most conflict and dispute was over sharing arrangements and developed
elaborate systems to ensure that essential needs were met with a fair basis for
water sharing.
The question of
equity has only just surfaced as a social issue in the Australian water debate.
In the current drought we are now seeing many households installing systems for
rainwater collection and recycling, often without utility approval because of
the rigid application of potable water policy and public health guidelines.
Appropriate
policy, standards and delivery mechanisms are central to issues of equity and
justice. The use of drinking-quality water for most in-house and external uses
exacerbates artificial water shortages in times of drought. That is, water of
drinking quality is restricted for all uses, whereas many uses could be met by
grades of water other than of drinking water standard. We need to establish a
‘fit for purpose’ portfolio of supply sources of various qualities, and to
engage technology so as to optimise our use of these.
This
paper started off by making reference to societies that managed water well some
thousands of years ago. These systems have since become dysfunctional or have
fallen from use. In most cases it was because of climate change.
A
Scriptural Perspective
Jeremiah, 2.5-13
Points to Ponder
1. Is managing water properly simply a practical
issue, or does it have moral dimensions?
2. Is landscape literacy the same as Creation awareness? Why?
3. What distinguishing criteria should a Christian bring to water
allocation decisions between different users?
6.
Thirsty Land – Thirsty People
When Moses led the
Israelites out of Egypt, scripture reports there was a great deal of discontent
as a result of the discomforts they faced. Perhaps the most significant
hardship they endured was from the shortage of water. On two occasions, some
forty years apart, the Israelites complained bitterly to Moses of the hardship
they were enduring - "Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to make us and
our children and livestock die of thirst?" (Ex 17:3). On each occasion God
answered Moses' plea for help and, both times, Moses struck the rock with his
staff and "water gushed out and the community and their livestock
drank." (Num 20:11)
New South Wales is in the
grip of its worst drought in a hundred years. This drought is affecting rural
communities much the same as droughts did in Moses’ time. Despite the huge
changes in technology that we have implemented to transform our environment,
the natural elements still control our lives. Water has been perhaps the most
valuable natural resource to mankind since creation, so that even today,
despite our efforts to improve our lifestyle, communities are still crippled by
water shortages that impact on our social well-being. Despite our best efforts,
many are hurting in both town and country.
Today the social effects of
this natural phenomena are significant. Low rural productivity and extra costs
mean that farm incomes are reduced, and, in many circumstances, are negative.
This, of course, impacts on the town businesses that service agriculture. Many
rural towns and urban areas are also imposing heavy water restrictions on
consumers just to pull through this seemingly never-ending drought.
In such times, many families
leave rural communities seeking employment elsewhere. This in turn affects the
communities left behind by changing ratios in schools, banks, health
facilities, etc., and thus further affects their viability.
Human designed systems are
economically driven. God's design in creation is environmentally balanced and
sustainable. It can therefore be argued that we have interfered with nature’s
balance in creation to such an extent that we have caused climatic change; or
is this drought simply part of a natural cyclic phenomena? After all we do hear
about floods causing destruction in other parts of the world.
Drought stricken rural
communities could be forgiven for wishing for a flood now. There is an old
saying " It is easier to grow crops in mud than in dust". Somewhere,
however, our vision and trust in God gets diminished when everything is going
well, but there is also a tendency to blame God when the rain does not come. In
Ezekiel 14, God again reminds us that his judgment is inescapable. We are each
personally accountable to God. Ezekiel talks of Noah, Daniel and Job as three
ancient men of renown, selected because of their proverbial righteousness and
saved from the wrath of God. When God comes in judgment against a nation or its
people, no one can count on another’s righteousness to be delivered.
So this drought may be a
challenge for people of a nation to work together and to acknowledge God for
his power and greatness, rather than to blame him for the problems associated
with water shortages. It may also be a timely reminder to reflect on God's
environmental balance in creation against the impact of man's greed in an
economics driven society.
The story in John 4 tells of
Jesus asking a Samaritan woman for a drink and her response, following their
conversation, with a spiritual thirst for the things of God. We can compare
Jesus' recognition of the reality of thirst, to our thirst as a consequence of
today’s drought. Some farmers have to buy water every few weeks, further
stretching their budgets. Local Church communities are responding to their need
and consequently stretching those limited resources. This response impacts
greatly on the lives of all the people involved, as it did in the case of Jesus
and the Samaritan woman. This story explains that both thirsts were satisfied -
Jesus and his thirst for water after a long walk, and the woman with a
spiritual thirst for the Living Water of God.
Hopefully the Church is
making similar significant impacts on people’s lives as they endure hardships
brought on by this drought. With the help of prayer, efforts are being made to
assist rural people both physically and spiritually. Rural people are grateful
for the compassion and practical assistance given by rural parishes.
As a church community we can
continue to offer help in both practical and spiritual ways to alleviate the
distress some families are experiencing. God's commandment to "Love your
neighbour" is being put to the test, and our calling is to offer help.
"Let us not become weary of doing good, for at the proper time we will
reap a harvest if we do not give up."(Gal 6:9)
Just as water was a catalyst
to deepened relationships between God and Moses, Noah and the Samaritan woman,
so the drought we face can deepen the relationships between God, ourselves, and
our neighbours today.
A
Scriptural Perspective
Exodus 3:1-15
Points to Ponder
1.
What
is your image of God? How do you understand God’s action in the world?
2.
In
light of your answers to q1, what do you consider to be the relationship
between God and extremes of nature? What part do we humans play?
3.
Review
your own spiritual journey. What have been the ‘catalysts’ to a deeper
relationship with God and neighbour? Did material need affect your spiritual
growth? In what way?
7. A Christian
Basis For Environmental Action
A good place to
start is the second of the great commandments “You shall love your neighbour as
yourself” (Mat 22: 38). Clearly how we interpret the words ‘neighbour’ and
‘love’ in this commandment will affect our decisions and actions.
To start with ‘love’. A New
Testament perspective on this word is one in which God is seen as self-emptying
love and, so, love may be defined as the process of ‘enabling the beloved’.
Love in this sense is expressed in a special kind of relationship where the
lovers evoke and promote each other’s identity. Such love acts to increase
wholeness and maturity in the beloved. The beloved is strengthened by the
relationship, not subsumed by it.
In the love relationship
between the Creator and creation, we would not expect to see coercion of
creation, given the evolution of a freely choosing partner in love was the
intent of the action. We would expect to see creation provided with the gift of
opportunity. It is important for us to realize that before all else we are part
of God’s creation. We are loved by our Creator, as are all other creatures, and
we (and they) are enabled to explore and evolve together in the context of our
creation home. The relationships then that exist between God’s creatures should
continue to reflect the pattern of love we see in God’s continuing act of
creation. We should love, that is, we should enable, the potential of the
others of creation.
This now brings us to the
question of who is our neighbour? In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke
10:29-37), where Jesus asks ‘who do you think was neighbour to the man who fell
into the hands of robbers?’ [The scribe] said, ‘the one who showed him mercy.’
Jesus said to him ‘Go and do likewise’. Thus in Jesus’ view anyone to whom we
are able to show compassion is our neighbour and we are bound by the law of
love to do so. So, who are our neighbours in the context of environmental
issues?
Firstly there are those of
future generations. I do not think any one of us would see our grandchildren as
other than our neighbours, though in time rather than space. If we use
resources in such a way as to reduce their opportunities and options, we have
not enabled them or their generation.
Secondly there are those
with whom we now share resources, eg those with whom we share water in the
Murray Darling system. Those who live in towns and cities or farm the land, are
all affected by our behaviour in the use of water. As we could act differently
and more compassionately towards them, they are, by our definition, our
neighbours.
Thirdly, there are those
with whom we share this planet, who, as a consequence of our behaviour live
diminished lives. The victims of global warming fit within this category
including those who live in drought or flood prone areas, cyclone areas or any
coastal areas in Australia or other lands. They will all be affected by the
frequency and violence of weather conditions and by sea level rise. As we could
have acted differently (in our direct and indirect use of energy), so they are
our neighbours.
Fourthly, the plants and animals
of God’s creation are our kin and neighbours. We are able to show compassion on
the biological world, to allow it to be truly itself, yet in many ways we
choose not to. It is not that we should not draw on the natural world of which
we are a part for what we need, but we rob it of its health and freedom.
Thus we are called by the
primary imperative of God’s sovereign command of love, to enable our
neighbours, to evoke and promote their identity, to provide the conditions for
them to increase in wholeness and maturity. Have we done so? Could we do
better? How will we answer before God for our actions when the time comes?
A
Scriptural Perspective
Ps 96.10-13, Mark 12:28-34
Points to Ponder
1. Do you ‘enable’ creation in
your daily life? Should you? In either case how could it be done?
2. Does creation enable you? Why
(or why not)?
3. Where does the rest of
creation, both human and non-human fit in your search for meaning?
8. Forestry – One Person’s Perspective
The fourth Thanksgiving
Prayer in our Holy Communion service reminds us that God has given us this
Earth “to care for and delight in”. The
Communion service also reminds us that we must love our neighbours as
ourselves. If we are to show love to our
neighbours, we need to ensure that our use of God’s creation, including
forests, does not adversely affect our neighbours, including our fellow
Australians, people in other lands and generations yet unborn. We also need to
show respect for all elements of creation simply because they were created by
and belong to God. If we do not show
respect for creation, we do not show respect for God.
The management of
Australia’s forests has been in the news recently, particularly during the
Federal election, which prompts us to ask whether our present forest policies
are consistent with our Christian responsibilities. This article looks at some of the issues from
the perspective of a forester who is also a Christian.
Are
Australia’s forests disappearing?
Over 17% of Crown land
forests are in reserves, and many other areas are informally reserved. In fact, less than 15% of Australia’s native
forests are managed for timber production. Further, all logged areas are
regenerated. Therefore, the total area
of forest in Australia is not decreasing; in fact, it has increased in recent
years due to the establishment of plantations.
However, a young, regrowth forest is not the same as the forest it
replaced, and it may be many years before a young forest has the complexity of
an old forest.
Are
Australia’s forestry practices sustainable?
Forests provide many
non-timber benefits such as soil and water protection, aesthetic values and
habitat for wildlife. Forests are also
places of beauty, wonder and majesty where we can find spiritual refreshment.
Australian forestry is
subject to codes of practice which attempt to protect all these values. Protection of endangered species is a
particular focus, and there is no evidence that any species have become extinct
as a result of forestry in Australia.
Forests are not static
entities. Like all other living
creatures they are born, grow, become old and die. Many eucalypt species require a major
disturbance to regenerate. In nature,
this is often provided by bushfires or cyclones. Modern forestry practices attempt to mimic
nature by providing a suitable seed-bed for the forests to regenerate after
timber harvesting.
Social
considerations
As Christians, we must
consider the well-being of other people.
About 80,000 people are employed in Australia’s forest and forest
products industries. Many of these jobs
are in rural areas where there is little alternative employment. The closure of the forest industry would
cause immense economic and social hardship to the workers affected and to many
rural communities.
It is sometimes claimed that
tourism could provide an alternative to forestry. But are tourism and timber production
mutually exclusive? One of Tasmania’s
most popular tourist attractions, the Tahune Forest Airwalk south of Hobart, is
in a timber-producing forest. So perhaps
we don’t always have to make a choice between tourism and forestry – carefully
managed forests can provide both.
Are
plantations the answer?
Plantations can provide many
of our timber needs. We could increase
the area of plantations to reduce the need to produce timber from native
forests. However, there is only limited
cleared land available for plantation establishment. Further, plantations do not have the biodiversity
of native forests. So, while plantations
can provide our timber needs they may not always provide all the other benefits
that native forests provide.
International
concerns
As trees grow, they take
carbon out of the atmosphere. When
timber is used for housing, furniture, and even paper, the carbon can be locked
up for decades or centuries. The
production of most alternatives to timber (e.g. plastic, steel, aluminium and
concrete) requires large amounts of energy and therefore adds to carbon in the
atmosphere.
If we reduce timber production in Australian forests, we will have to import more of our forest products. If these products a