Spirituality of the Essential: Christian Responsibility towards the Environment
The message of John the Baptist in the gospel text of last Sunday (2nd Sunday in Advent – year C) was, “Prepare a way for the Lord…” (Lk 3:4). After hearing this message, we see in the gospel text of today people going to him and asking him, “What must we do” (Lk 3:10). How do we prepare for the coming of the messiah? His general message to everyone is ‘Charity’. His message to the tax collectors is, ‘Justice’. And to the soldiers, “Be content!” John the Baptist seems to be well aware of the situations of each group and quite down to earth in his proposals.
So I too went to John the Baptist. “What about me? What must I do?” I asked. He said, “Live simply. Live a spirituality of the essential.” It took some time for me to realise that he was quite aware of the present crisis of climate change, and the Copenhagen World Summit that is now in progress.
‘A spirituality of the essential’ – that is the theme of this reflection.
During the season of Advent one of the themes that we often reflect on is the theme of the messianic times. What will it be like when the Christ appears? The prophets eloquently describe those times as being similar to the world before the fall: the paradiso. Prophet Isaiah says, “I will make rivers well up on barren heights, and the fountains in the midst of valleys” (Is 41:18). And elsewhere (Is 11:6-8), the prophet says, “The wolf will live with the lamb, the panther lie down with the kid, calf, lion and fat-stock beast together, with a little boy to lead them.” The paradise that is painted here analogically is the ideal world that we hope for, and it is also a task to be achieved, as a believing community.
At Christmas we contemplate the mystery of incarnation: “And the world was made flesh” (Jn 1:14). God is found in the form of a little babe. The Christian God is not only a transcendent creator, but He became part of creation. The world is holy not only because it was created by God, but also because it becomes the very altar of God. This calls for celebration. This calls for commitment. This calls for an ‘Incarnational spirituality’ in which we once again commit ourselves to an appreciation our responsibility to the physical world. This calls for a meaningful appreciation of our body. This calls us to situate our Christian faith in the context of contemporary history.
Against this theological/liturgical backdrop I would like us to reflect on the situation of the world today – the physical, social, and political world.
One of the important concerns of our contemporary history is the problem of climate change. Even as we speak, almost 15,000 officials are discussing the future of the physical world, and the human responsibility in caring for it. The solution to this life threatening problem does not just lie in the hands of politicians. Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary General of the UN, believes that religions have a unique role to play in the struggle for the environment. What is actually needed right now to resolve the crisis of climate change is not just policies – but a change of heart, a change of life style, a new definition of development, a spirituality. Politicians only make short-term-focussed policies. It is religion that can “inspire people to change” (The Tablet 5/12/2009, p.10). That is why I dare stand at the pulpit and say what I am going to say.
The problem of climate change
What is the problem? There are some who deny that there is a problem at all. They say that the climate has always been changing. In the 4.5 billion-year history of planet earth there have been catastrophes, extreme climates, creation and re-creation of different forms of life. So what is the problem? The problem is that the present situation is largely contributed to by human activity. The problem is that the rate of climate change itself is accelerating. The problem is that it is taking place before our eyes (our green Christmases and white Easters!). The problem is that this change threatens our own existence. The problem is that the poor people are the ones who suffer most because of this, as the Pope said in his Angelus message last Sunday.
Sometime back, one of my colleagues naively said at table: when we use water, actually we are not wasting it. After all, it goes back to earth, or perhaps it gets evaporated by the sun. It is back in the cycle. Yes, he was right. There is that law of thermodynamics: energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed. I am sure you’ve heard that before! But my colleague was also wrong. There is also the law of entropy: this law adds that as we use more and more energy the usable energy becomes less available in the universe, creating a residue of unusable energy. That is the problem. But let me explain this in simple words: when you open the tap you get water. How did water get to the tap? Energy was needed to pump the water from its source to your tap. Once you open the tap and the water flows out, you need another set of energy to put it back! Where do we get this energy from? We can harness it from nature: gushing water, sun, wind, heat of the earth, etc. Use of energy from sun and wind is more difficult, with the technology available to us now. In the past two centuries, we have found an easy way to harness energy: from coal, oil and gas; from what is called, ‘fossil fuel’. Of course, we are only transforming energy. But the problem with the use of fossil fuel, in simple words is, that the carbon that took millions of years to be captured in the form of diesel and coal under the earth, we are releasing into the atmosphere in matter of days! This upsets the natural energy cycle of the earth. This is the crux of what is now called ‘climate change’.
There are also other mid-level problems that follow from this, or are associated with the cycle of energy, that we hear about in the media: the emission of greenhouse gases, deforestation, extinction of animal species, ozone depletion, rise in temperature, melting of polar ice, rise in sea level; the list seems endless. All these are interconnected and they aggravate each other.
For me, there is an underlying philosophical problem (don’t get frightened by these big words). We live in an energy hungry world. What created this hunger? Our definition of development. Is development being able to access basic needs of life that ensures ‘quality of life’ or is it having all that you want just because you can afford it. Put simply, development is falsely identified with the availability 100’s of varieties of cereals, jams, marmalades. Development is identified with the use of a towel for each part of the body. Development is identified with the use of 8 plates and at least 3 glasses for a meal. We refer to their use as, ‘being civilised’. In short, development is identified with consumerism. (This concept of development is also related to capitalistic – free market economy. When there was the credit crunch they asked us to spend more! In this sense, the global recession of 2008 and climate change has the same root cause.) Put ironically, development of a country is measured in terms of the amount of garbage that it produces. World’s most developed nations also generate most amount of garbage. (Have you asked yourself where does all the garbage from our homes go? Most of them from UK are ‘exported’ to Brazil!) Remember, all this requires energy! Only 20% of the world’s population consumes 77% of world’s resources, including energy. Thank God for this!!! Imagine what would happen if everyone begins to consume at this rate! We will come back to this shortly.
However, one thing that we have learnt from this is that almost everything on planet earth is connected. Upsetting one aspect leads to a whole chain of reactions. If one group of people do harm to planet earth, nearly everyone suffers. (Let us say, we have a common grazing ground that is shared, and we agree that if each one has 3 cows we should be able to sustain the grazing ground and our cows. Now if one of us adds a 4th cow, just because he can afford it, he will get the benefits of the 4th cow, but all the others suffer the immediate consequences. But in the long run even the owner of the 4th cow will suffer.) So we know there is a problem. We know this is serious. Where does the solution lie?
Present stalemate: political – economic – ethical implications
There is increasing political will to finding a common solution to the problem of climate change, but perhaps it’s just not sufficient. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) formed by the UN announced for the first time in 1990 that if we continued with “business-as-usual” the earth will be hotter by 3oC by the year 2100 (but according to present estimates it will be 6o), and this will be highest temperature rise in the past 10,000 years of earth’s history. But the threshold to save the planet from any catastrophe is below 3o. So in 1992, an Earth Summit was held in Rio de Janeiro, and a convention was signed by almost all nations. Again, in 1997 at Kyoto, governments of 37 industrialised countries agreed to cut down the emission of greenhouse gases (that includes CO2, methane and nitrous oxide), and other countries to share in other responsibilities. But unfortunately some countries have not signed it. That includes countries like Afghanistan, Somalia – which have not had proper governments – and the US. And yet, the US with only 5% of the world population is responsible for 23% of global emissions of greenhouse gases. Who will call for sanctions against countries like this?
And this month, we have the Copenhagen Summit. There seems to be a stalemate in the discussions. The reason according to me is politics that has no conscience. We need to look at a few facts squarely and ethically:
- Often you hear that China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas. This is true in one sense, but this statement is deceptive. China is responsible for 21.5% of global CO2 emission, but is closely followed by the U.S (with 20.2% CO2 alone). But consider the population of China. In the list of per capita emissions of greenhouse gas, US ranks 7th, the UK 47th, China 121st, and India 162nd! Remember, the increasing emission in China and India is also outsourced emission – Europe and America are pushing their industries to these countries, while depending more and more on providing services and marketing technology for their own economy!
- Developing countries like China, India and Brazil argue on the basis of their present per capita emission and our definition of ‘development’ that if they are to uplift their masses from the clutches of poverty they will have to contribute to global emission. They have to provide jobs – to provide jobs they need industry – and industry needs energy – and that means carbon emission. After all, this is the path that was previously traced by the developed nations.
- But thanks to scientific technology, the developing world does not need to take the same path as the developed world. They can ‘tunnel’ their path to development through the use of alternative sources of energy and by improving the quality of their industry in terms of carbon emission. But these are very expensive strategies and these nations do not have the money for it. So the developed world will have to financially bear this responsibility to combat climate change.
- European Union is proposing that the world’s nations raise about €22-50 billion per year by 2020 to support the developing countries in combating climate change. All countries except the least developed should contribute, but developing countries would be net beneficiaries. The 27 countries of the EU have already pledged to pay 6.5 billion pounds in the next three years; and UK has generously promised to pay 500 million pounds annually to the developing countries.
- Does this amount seem huge to you? Remember last year (2008) within weeks of the beginning of global recession UK alone announced 500 billion pounds towards banks-bailout!
In any case these are not long term solutions. For me, the real solution lies in our redefining development and change of lifestyle. Therefore, as Christians we need to revisit our spirituality of simplicity.
The Spirituality of the Essential
Jesus constantly invited his followers to a simplicity of life. Renunciation was his clarion call to the disciples. You might say, Oh, Jesus never went to a supermarket, he didn’t know even what a car is; he could not even afford a horse! But within the socioeconomic situation of his day, Jesus challenged the wealthy to live simple lives. It was a call to freedom, and a sensitivity to the needs of the poor.
In the Acts of the Apostles (Chap 2 & 4) the early Christians took this seriously. “They sold their goods and possessions and distributed the proceeds among themselves according to what each one needed” (Acts 2:45). When this ideal lifestyle was lost in the history of the Church in the 4th Century, Religious Life began as a radical form of living Christian life. Today, I think, religious poverty lived out radically, can take greater significance in terms of its implication on the environment, constantly challenging the culture of consumerism. The simplicity of St Francis could give him a status of the citizen of the universe. He could sing the praise of the Lord together with the “brother sun and sister moon.” In a similar vein, St John of the Cross could sing: “Mine are the heavens and mine is the earth. Mine are the nations … And all things are mine.”
This religious ideal can be extended to our Christian life in what I call, ‘a spirituality of the essential’. On the one hand this spirituality is based on needs rather than wants. On the other hand, it implies that we are owners of none yet stewards of all. As pilgrims on this earth we are called by God to till the earth and to care for it. We do not own the earth; we look after it for the next generation. This spirituality of the essential calls for a simplicity of life. It is a counter-witness to the culture of consumerism, extravagance and the superfluous.
So what does this mean in daily life? Consider the following examples:
- If I can travel by public means, should I use the car?
- When I can eat with one plate should I use more?
- When I can manage with one bucket of water, should I empty the whole tank?
- If I can study with one light, should I have others on?
- If I need just a cup of tea, should I end up boiling the whole kettle?
Perhaps the contemporary slogan of 3R’s could work: Reduce, Reuse, Recyle (in that order; remember, recyling also requires energy). Perhaps making this Christmas a little more spiritual, rather than commercial, could work! Perhaps the 2nd reading of Christmas liturgy could work: “we must be self-restrained and live upright and religious lives in this present world, waiting in hope for the blessing which will come with the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus” (Tit 2:12-13).