Fire is a multivalent biblical symbol. Fire scourges the earth as the end of days approaches; fire also means the inspiration of the spirit.
The fires now burning in California are unprecedented in their scope and danger. Thirteen major fires are raging in the southern part of the state even as I write this. The instability in our weather cycles caused by global warming has not only heated the desert where the Santa Ana winds are baked and so increased the temperature difference that when the night’s cooler air comes down, it works like a giant bellows and they are blasted toward California, but has also increased the rainfall in that part of the country. That means that more vegetation grows, dries out and then becomes the fuel in this dangerous and accelerating cycle of heat and rain. This is a global warming catastrophe that portends more such to come.
Which biblical symbol of fire will this global warming catastrophe portend? The fire of the end of times, or the fire of inspiration at Pentecost? Will we collapse in despair and give the planet over to flood and flame, or will we come together, overcome our differences, and work to save the planet?
The collaboration of religion and science on this project of addressing global climate change is an imperative, clearly an imperative. There is a lot of good news today, not only the prospect of religious and scientific cooperation, but also the actual fact of it. I was at a meeting recently with Richard Cizik, the Vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals. Richard is sometimes nicknamed “the green evangelical.” He remarked to me that he thought that it is through the cooperation on the environment that the gulf that has arisen between science and conservative Christianity can and is being bridged.
And it may be the case that this bridge that is being built between conservatives and scientists on the environment will allow other cultural traffic as well, moving us a little beyond the culture wars. The aptly named group "The Third Way" has just recently released a well-documented paper “Come Let Us Reason Together: A Fresh Look at Shared Cultural Values Between Progressives and Evangelicals,” on the movement that is taking place, and that could take place, on the even more contentious “cultural issues” such as reproductive issues or gay rights. The cooperation on the environment and on HIV/AIDS prevention that is already taking place has cracked open the door that for so long has seemed nailed shut between these groups. There is inspiration to be found here.
We should not, however, overstate the progress that is being made on cooperation on the environment between scientists and evangelicals. The case for work on protecting the planet from the devastating effects of human generated toxicity is often quite different and this can make anything more than superficial cooperation difficult. Yet, here too there are openings.
In the broad case statement the National Association of Evangelicals issued in 2004, “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility,” both the possibilities and the differences are evident in the section on protecting “God’s creation.” Clearly these evangelicals want to make it absolutely clear that the planet is not an end in itself (“we worship only the Creator and not the creation"), but a means by which the biblical mandate for human stewardship is carried out. The principle of sustainability is lifted up explicitly, however, as “We are not the owners of creation, but its stewards, summoned by God to 'watch over and care for it.' (Gen. 2:15). This implies the principle of sustainability: our uses of the Earth must be designed to conserve and renew the Earth rather than to deplete or destroy it.” Younger evangelicals in particular are converting to ‘creation care’ in record numbers and working with their more religiously liberal or humanist peers.
The evangelicals have their case; in the introduction to his book “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore makes a different case. He describes the “epiphany” that comes when we as a human race discover a “generational mission; the exhilaration of a compelling moral purpose…the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the restless human need for transcendence; the opportunity to rise." That moment is upon us due to the global warming crisis, according to Gore, bringing the fundamental question of the future "habitability of the Earth. Or, as one eminent scientist put it, the pending question is whether the combination of an opposable thumb and a neocortex is a viable combination on this planet.”
Mr. Gore’s impassioned moral reasoning is not, frankly, a compelling case for the Christian evangelical/religious conservative. Their case, as noted above, is quite different. For the evangelical the continued existence of the planet is not an absolute condition for the salvation of the human being. Mr. Gore's view of the absolute value of the planet from a moral perspective may be, however, a compelling case for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) and its 2,000 members that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with him recently. But they too will have differences in their individual commitments to the work.
What we all need to respect in one another is that there are different cases for this work of keeping the planet habitable not only for humans but for the whole ecosphere.
Whatever the reason, we can agree that helping humanity commit “planetcide” is to aid and abet a grave and irrevocable harm. The problem is, we just can't wait much longer for people to come together and address this crisis. The people of southern California, like the people of the Gulf states know we can't wait.
I know that "Come, Holy Spirit" is my prayer as I watch these terrible scenes from the fires.
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
