For Orthodox Christians interested in understanding the environmental movement as it has developed over the last 40 years, I would urge you to read “Saviors of the Earth ?” by Michael S. Coffman.

Mr. Coffman is an evangelical Christian who holds a Ph.D in Forest Science and has conducted research in Ecology and Ecosystem analysis for 35 years in both academia and industry.

I would also urge the reading of “Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1500 years” by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. Mr. Singer is distinguished research professor at George Mason University and Mr. Avery is senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

These books should be required reading for all serious Christians
who wish to understand how the forces of the environmental movement are shaping our world.

Christ is in our Midst !
neil Latanzi

Kevin, you may be right that’s why I’ve decided to become way circumspect regarding his theological take. My conserns are two-fold: 1. Does science buttress the concept of ecological crisis, and 2. Why doesn’t the EP provide an answer to this crisis other than give speeches.

Consider that Pope Benedict has provided a prescription: living more frugally, more repentently, less wastefully, etc. Things like eating less meat, fasting, giving more alms (which frees our money from buying unnecessary stuff), not taking as many drugs as we do (esp female replacement hormones), etc.

Had the EP given such a prescription, I would be giving him kudos. Unfortunately, he didn’t. Neither the political players nor the secularist elites within the GOA would have countenanced such talk.

Cynthia,

To be honest, I think most “Byzantines” would relate very well to what we in America deal with on a daily basis.

First of all, if you want to know what they thought, I’d encourage you to go right to the original sources, many of which have been translated (Psellus, Kinnamos, Choniates, Comnena, Sphrantzes). I say this, not because the histories are particularly accurate (they are not), but because in reading them, one acquires insight into their thinking which is sterilized in the modern historians (Runciman, Ostrogorsky, Norwich et al).

In the things we are talking about here, i.e. faith, religion etc, this insight into their world view is very helpful – particularly because it is so DIFFERENT than the way they have been painted by modern historians – which I would describe as Oriental versions of the Holy Roman Empire – nothing could be further from the truth.

This is particularly important to us in America, where we are constantly called upon to contrast Orthodoxy from our Roman Catholic and Protestant brethren.

The truth of the matter, I sincerely believe, is that Orthodox Christianity, as practiced during what I like to call “The Church of the First 15 centuries” is probably uniquely suited for modern America. the problem is that our history is so poorly understood, having been started out on the wrong foot by 18th century classicists, and then perpetuated by the likes of Gibbon – so enamored as they were with the Classical peoples, and wanted to insulate them from the corrupt “Byzantines”.

If we will only take the time to truly study that “Church of the First 15 centuries”, we will find that 1.) ethnicity played virtually no role in the Church (nor in their worldview for that matter), 2.) they lived in an era of one superpower – Rome (for much of the time anyway) 3.) they valued a person primarily based on his education and whether he was an Orthodox Christian 4.) their nation was the single economic colossus on the planet, and their currency was accepted the world over (sound familiar?) 5.) the laity were literate in many cases (particularly in the large cities) and 6.) the laity were engaged in the issues confronting Orthodox Christianity (probably to a much greater degree than most Christians today – participants of this blog notwithstanding).

If we take the time to study, we will find 1.) rules and qualifications of priests, bishops and patriarchs 2.) methods of selecting the same 3.) numerous instances of lay involvement in the Church, to a degree unheard of in any of the Western Churches, at least until the 16th century.

Finally, I think we would all find that many of the things the Church is suffering from on this continent, the overriding importance attached to ethnicity, lack of evangelism, overbearing authority of the hierarchs – these were all residue of a later period – I always think of them as a hangover of the Ottoman period.

Go and read how our forebears dealt with unworthy bishops and even patriarchs…it wasn’t pretty. There are stories of bishops, arriving from Constantinople, who were sent packing, essentially with a note pinned to their foreheads saying “and don’t come back!” Their normal mode of operations would make many Protestants cringe….and shames even OCL by comparison.

Taken in sum, I think our traditions may honestly be uniquely suited for modern day America – we just need to understand and resurrect them.

The histories tell quite a story…much of which will come as a complete surprise, even to most Orthodox.

Best Regards,
Dean

I brought up the “Byzantine history” issue only to make a point to Chrys, who expressed concern over the “shilling” of specific public policy (IE global warming) by the Ecumenical Patriarch. The point I was trying to make was that Ecumenical Patriarchs historically have injected themselves into civic affairs outside of the strictly “religious” sphere, and I reminded him that the “two heads of Byzantium” were the Emperor (secular power) and the Ecumenical Patriarch (religious authority). My point was that the E.P.’s position on ecological issues is not, if my argument holds water, some sort of “crossing over the lines” into secular or political spheres that should be closed to religious leaders. The Dalai Lama, for example, is an environmentalist, based on Buddhist religious views and no one seems to find that an aberration. So I think one can disagree with the E.P.’s specific views on ecology, but I think his right to speak to issues like it, are consistent with the E.P.’s historical role. That was my point.

I agree that the best argument against the E.P.’s P.R. campaign for ecology and global warming is that it is set against a backdrop (as you point out) of “while Rome is burning”. I too think there are many other (to me) more critical issues that could and should be addressed by the Phanar on behalf of worldwide Orthodoxy. However I don’t begrudge his personal interest and commitment to ecology, nor his theological basis (which I think he has articulated). I just hope he will be bolder and more courageous about a few more! As for “a few doctrines that strike me as panentheist“, we may just be panentheist (Orthodox)! Here’s the Stanford Philosophical Dictionary definition: “A type of theism that rejects any separation between God and the world by stressing the identity of God and the world ontologically.” While we don’t ascribe to the belief that God’s identity (essence) and created being are “identified” ontologically, we come close (if not spot on to panentheism) when we speak of God’s energies (by which we mean God Himself, but not in His essence!) being “…everywhere present and fills all things…”

Along the lines of my last comments, this from today’s news:

The United Nations . . . Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). . . warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

I find it curious that many of those supporting anthropogenic climate change insist on a difference between weather and climate (meaning short term variations) and then use the same combination (over a slightly longer period of time) to support their position. As I have said before, it smacks more of politics than science. Science offers a refutable hypothesis, yet Climate Changers see proof of their arguments in conflicting consequences – when there is little snow AND when there is a great deal of snow. (It is so bad – and the agenda so politically- and financially-motivated, that I can easily imagine proponents eventually arguing that a mini-ice age would be more proof of global warming.) What is needed – desperately needed – and thoroughly Orthodoxy is epistemological humility.

That should read; “Thanks, as always, for your insight.”

George, thanks – as always – for you sight. I have been critical in the past about the public focus on the political agenda regarding which I am in full agreement with you. My opinion of climate change science and politics remains utterly unchanged. So far as the EP – or anyone in the Church – promotes policies that I continue to see as economically-destructive, environmentally ineffective, politically oppressive (and largely politically-driven) I have no compunction about expressing critical opposition. These are prudential issues about which men of good will can and should be allowed to disagree.

However, where I have been particularly critical for which I am expressing contrition has been in two areas. First, the (apparent) absence of a theological argument for our stance toward the environment (see above). To me this remains the service that a Church leader can and should provide. I have not seen it though there is a lot I haven’t read), but both Kevin and particularly this Deacon indicated that it is definitely there. The second criticism has been directed at what I see as a public focus on a political – rather than pastoral – agenda. Here, too, it appears that I stand corrected. My apologies for any unwarranted judgments are primarily concerned with these two particular points as well as a general recognition that there is a lot going on behind the scenes which warrant the circumspection you describe. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, I owe our leaders and my brothers and sisters, a presumption of respect. So far as my criticisms were unfair and unwarranted, I repent. I will continue, however, to ask critical questions where – like you – I see reason for concern. But, owing others both an unwavering commitment to truth AND the love of Christ come what may, these will be questions rather than judgments, per se.

That said, while leadership has the burdens I described above (and the older I get the more the burdens outweigh any perceived privileges), our leaders still have the honor of and the requirement to bear that authority and must do so with care. While I believe that – in the main – here, too, we owe a presumption of respect (it is certainly so taught in Scripture), I completely agree with your expectation that they will apply that authority faithfully as they take up the issues of the day. As you said (and I can only Amen!) that is NOT too much to ask. My view of the Church’s moral authority and its need to apply its voice in a way that is rooted in that authority (rather than dilute it unnecessarily with prudential political and partisan concerns) remains unchanged. At least where I have seen this applied well – the MP and the pope – they have my wholehearted support. As a member of the GOA, I, too, would like to see more of that among our immediately leadership.

Chrys, my own concerns regarding the environmental writings of the EP are based on a careful reading of them as they are. Of course, being scientifically trained myself, I am on the lookout for methodological mistakes and I can honestly say that my criticisms of this entire new theology are grounded only in a regard for the truth. I’m sure this deacon was a well-educated man but I can assure you that the science behind AGW was flawed from the start. Now it has been proven to be so through the infamaous “hide the decline” e-mails from East Anglia.

As far as the theological implications, I’m way in over my head on that one. However the simple Greek peasant in me has picked up a few doctrines that strike me as panentheist. And as a father and working stiff who looks around and sees a generalized moral collapse, wondering what did I bring my children into?, I am more than a little concerned that the EP and his auxiliaries are missing from the field of the moral battle that is raging.

Yes, we should all be circumspect in our criticisms. We don’t all know what is going on behind the scenes. This is true. Yet what we do see in broad daylight are Christian pastors who are concerned with what is going on and are unafraid to tackle these issues, not worrying about the consequences. If James Dobson, Pope Benedict, and the late Jerry Falwell can stand up and make themselves heard, then EP/GOA bishops should as well. It’s not too much to ask.

I had an opportunity tonight to speak at length with a Deacon for whom I have very high respect; he is a man of considerable critical ability as well as a strong (even exemplary) commitment to his faith. Having spent time on Mt. Athos, being very fluent in a variety of forms of Greek, and have a good theological and critical mind, I felt he would be in a good position to answer my questions about the EP. What I learned was that he has indeed read quite a bit of his works, holds him in high regard and considers him to be of generally the same caliber as the MP and the pope. He was particularly impressed with his pastoral brilliance and theological depth, pointing me to his Christmas encyclical of two years ago. He concurred that the US visit was (intended to be) largely political rather than pastoral, and noted that his pastoral efforts have actually been exceptional, but that it was typically offered in different (and more suitable) venues. Though we had to cut our conversation short, it let me know that there is more there than I am in a position to assess and it has – once again – humbled me. (Of course, the desert Fathers constantly warn about judging, so I should have already known that.) God forgive me if I have judged wrongly.

Without setting aside the concerns I have expressed before, I would only note that I need to be learn a good deal more before commenting further. I also share this because I believe that good faith requires that I be as public in my acknowledgment of being so humbled as I have been in my criticism or judgment. (One of my big recent lessons has been to learn something of the burden of executive responsibility. It is a whole different matter to make real decisions with real consequences in real time. It is always much easier for those who do not bear that burden to have ready answers and quick criticism. This does not exempt anyone from scrutiny, but it does recognize the respect owed to those who bear the burden.) While I continue to have significant concerns, I must defer to those who know better.