Maybe it is because I’m still recovering from my 2 ½ hour, 3D cage fight with Mother Earth (to the right), but I was pleased run across an article on the Chronicle of Higher Education blog entitled “Green Guilt” that is helping with my deprogramming. Additionally, since it so closely mirrors one of my earlier posts–“Indulgences of the 21st Century Kind”–I can only assume that the author, Stephen T Asma, must be a regular reader of our blog:) Whether that’s the case or not, and for those of us who do not know any tree-spikers personally, this article is an insightful look into the ways traditional religious concepts: human depravity, holiness, apocalypse, mortification, sacrifice, etc. are manifesting through the current obsession with everything green. Asma writes:
Instead of religious sins plaguing our conscience, we now have the transgressions of leaving the water running, leaving the lights on, failing to recycle, and using plastic grocery bags instead of paper. In addition, the righteous pleasures of being more orthodox than your neighbor (in this case being more green) can still be had—the new heresies include failure to compost, or refusal to go organic. — There are also high priests of the new religion, with Al Gore (“the Goracle”) playing an especially prophetic role.
Aside from adding an additional analogy between early ecumenical church councils and the recent Copenhagen climate change conference, I wouldn’t change much about the parallels he has drawn, but, while I highly recommend the article, Asma’s (following Nietzsche and Freud) explanation for the primary cause of all of this hemp-fueled psychic energy, like Tofurkey, looks like something substantial, but ultimately fails to satisfy. After exposing the religious impulses couched in Envirozeal, he comments:
Environmentalism is a much better hang-up than worrying about the spiritual pitfalls of too much masturbation. Even if it’s neurotic, it’s still doing some good. But environmentalism, like every other -ism, has the potential for dogmatic zeal and obsession. Do we really need one more humorless religion? Let us save the planet, by all means. But let’s also admit to ourselves that we have a natural propensity toward guilt and indignation, and let that fact temper our fervor to more reasonable levels.
Given the fact that he is the author of the forthcoming Why I am A Buddhist, it is perhaps not surprising that the only advice Mr. Asma has for the fact that we have “a natural propensity toward guilt and indignation,” is to recognize it, chill out and try to put it in its proper Tantric perspective. Now, Asma’s secular move to explain that the roots of our problems are grounded in anything and everything other than the reality of legitimate and personal guilt incurred by sin is not surprising, and let’s just hope for his sake that this epigonus metaphysic withstands more psychic weight than did Nietzsche’s.
What is surprising, however, is how many contemporary Christian theological trends are attempting to do the same thing.
This started me thinking, and I wanted to illustrate how a few of these New Perspectives share Asma’s antipathy to what we would call a Theology of the Cross but have not abandoned its referential theological framework in favor of either secular psychologizing or mystic pantheism—yet. Like with most critiques, these are not totally without warrant, and some have really helped to clarify and correct some areas of imbalance; however, from our Mockingperspective, what is interesting to note is how each of these attacks on the doctrine of Justification, following Barth, in some way believe that the Law is a form of the Gospel. Again, this GLAWSPEL argument takes many forms, some sophisticated, many not, but at its root it denies any sort of universal affective power of God’s wrath (yes, wrath. I said it) on human idolatry. Wie immer, there is so much to be said about all of this, and if you stick around here long enough, I promise that we’re going to try to say it all! What follows is just the broad brush, general shape of things to look out for as theologians (and ecologians) learn more and more about just how little we need a message of absolution and redemption.
It was the West of Times, it was the Worst of Times. . .
From Snuggies to “For the Love of Ray-J”, everything that is tragically wrong with the world is, by some modern theologians, conveniently blamed on the ever-so-solid foundation of speculative-hemispheric-ontologizing: the dreaded “Western person/place or thing.” Throw in a few references to Kant, don’t forget to bash Capitalism here and there and add a few bits of Ziezek, and you’re ready to go. Now, I’ve never been a fan of tight Wranglers and starched shirts, but I just can’t understand what all of the fuss is about:)
This (supposedly new) argument is that modern, westerners have a deeply individualistic (and therefore flawed) sense of self; correspondingly, these poor, benighted people have read into the Bible their own steam-powered individualism and narcissism and, as a result, have missed the main thrust of the Biblical message of redemption. The arguments against this are many and varied, but it seems like they are losing the day, in part, because being part of a general mass of (emergent) humanity in need of redemption is cooler sounding, much less stinging, and not nearly as invasive as the old-fashioned Western, individualistic need for (even 8 seconds of) a Cross. For a clear sense of the direction this is all headed, see Douglas Campbell’s “The Deliverance of God.”
Go East, Young Man. . .
As a correlation to the above Western antipathy, the next coolest thing to bashing “narcissistic, Western individualism” is to embrace its (seeming) antithesis: Eastern Orthodoxy. Owing to its somehow non-individualistic view of Divinization—the ever so self-effacing theory that we become divine–proponents of this Eastward Move (and, usually, the downward dog) can’t stop talking about mimesis, perichorisis, theosis, participation and endless variations of “the Eucharistic community.” Again, this view is carrying the day, despite those of us who point out that if God wanted us to be a part of his eternal dance, the Cross seems like a fairly gruesome invitation. Nevertheless, if you want to see where this is all heading, read anything written by Robert Jenson in the last 8 years or so.
The end of Guilt, Fear and Shame:
One of the most surprising, but understandable, attacks on the Doctrine of Justification has come from those within Christianity who believe that “just being forgiven,” is not enough to motivate the Christian life. This is most clearly a result of the failure to properly distinguish Law and Gospel from the pulpit. Love is the Law, not the Gospel, and when you can’t tell the difference you’re forced to create ways of staying on life-support “beyond forgiveness.” One of the most popular contemporary ways of looking for meaning “beyond forgiveness” is by baptizing the ecological movement; and we’ve come full circle.
Ok, these are just a few thoughts. As always, I’m somewhat interested in what you think about all of this:) Until then, stay classy San Diego.
COMMENTS
22 responses to “It’s Not Easy Being Green (or Totally Depraved)”
Leave a Reply
Jady, you leave no stone unturned! What's most interesting for me is the connection between the ecological movement and the over-abundance of post-apocalyptic movies telling us about life after the climate disaster. Why do we feel as though our present actions will result in a final ecological judgment? Do we believe that the world will end because our actions ultimately stand under the judgment of God?
I think there's a window into this world in the two side-by-side movie posters I saw the other day. The first? THE BOOK OF ELI: "Deliver us." The second? EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES: "Don't hope for a miracle. Make one." While both of these movies look terrible, I'm much more attuned to the need to be delivered than I am to the requirement that I make a miracle.
There is definitely a rational middle road through this issue.
People who taint justification through imposing guilt over works undone have neither have a proper view of the Gospel nor God's law. However, on the other aisle are the "culture war" obsessed Christians who refuse to recycle because it is a part of the "liberal" agenda's mission to erode…something (they're not exactly sure what yet, but something conservative and wholesome is definitely being eroded!).
Why can't we recycle, be good stewards of our environment, and take assurance in the sufficiency of Christ's atoning work? Not enough white guilt…
Why can't we recycle, be good stewards of our environment, and take assurance in the sufficiency of Christ's atoning work? —
no reason at all! I'm all for recycling, but what is interesting is the religious overtones recognized by Asma—but I believe that the Law has ver clear implications on ecological stewardship—hence the "secular guilt"—
One of the problems, and Jady in your previous piece on the environment you make this point clearly, is that most people have confused recycling with the atonement of sin.
Awesome!
here's some worthwhile / similar reading on the subject. Although it's a little on the defensive "don't bother to recycle cos that's what the liberal crazies do!" tip. Still good reading though.
http://credenda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95:ecoguilt&catid=70:uncategorized&Itemid=123
Thanks for putting some time into this…apart from recycling as a form of self-justification, it is funny how churches began developing an eco-theology all of a sudden…though I'm wondering if much of what has been said from pulpits doesn't merely mimic the culture by making it all about showing one's faith…'if you love God's world, you'll take care of it.' I think this post represents the first theological critique I've heard on the matter.
A few years ago, people were (rightfully) getting worked up about Darfur and AIDS orphans–though I don't hear too much about those things any more.
[BTW, if recycling has a twin, her name is either 'fair trade' or 'organic']
Also, am I the only one who appreciated the 12 pieces of flair for this post?
Kathy, you are right on the money. And the ugly part is the Eco-Inquisition.
I know you don't need an echo chamber, but I've just got to say the thoughts (and flair!) on this post rule.
Jady,
Soooo good! I think this may be one of the best posts if not the best post on this blog. I couldn't agree with you more! Thanks dude. It really is a helpful critique and really funny too;)
This is my first blog entry so please bear with me. First, great site, I have been a fan for months. Second, I appreciated and enjoyed the link to the scene from The Apostle with Duvall. Duvall was awesome, without speaking a line, as Boo Radley in To Kill a Mockingbird. Movies with Duvall and Denzell Washington seem to always be fruitful. As for the subject matter of this post (disclaimer: I am a lawyer), when I find myself at the grocery store wrestling with the question of "Paper or Plastic?", well, perhaps I have wandered where I ought not to be. In some camps, plastic (remember the scene in The Graduate: "Young man, I have one word for you: Plastic! Plastic is the future." as spoken to Dustin Hoffman's character) is supposed to be bad, but I can and do reuse those little plastic bags? But then again… Paper comes from trees which we need to save? But paper is biodegadeable, plastic will be in the dump for eons? "Paper or Plastic" is a layered question posed by that 18 year old with the little name tag. I may not give know the right answer. The question might not even matter. But there I stand momentarily before the judge (or the solicitor leveling a charge at me– maybe the person in the line behind me is about to judge me, based on my answer??) in the form of a checkout clerk, very briefly wrestling with this question. For non-lawyers out there, I am offering a glimpse into the hyper questioning legal mind, fallen as it is. Lord have Mercy. Theological, logically, or ecotheologically, whatever the case, Guilt, like all pain, is a powerful force. But "False Guilt", that is likewise powerful but another issue altogether. The waters do become easily muddied. Perhaps paper or plastic is a foolish controversy– especially if my minister starts telling me I ought to use one or the other? So I will try and focus on what I do know. Without question, standing there before the checkout clerk, I definitely ought to be thankful for the stuff (i.e., "daily bread") in the bags. As the apostle once wrote, "Think on these things . . ."
Because this post reminded me of this video…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RnHVV988NM
Inspired post! Vintage JDK…
Did you come up with "The Goracle" or is that a popular nickname?! either way, it's sort of ingenius…
Nice article!
A few months ago The Economist reported the following:
SINS OF EMISSION
A judge in Britain ruled that, in line with laws tackling religious discrimination, the head of green issues at a property company could proceed with a claim that he was unfairly dismissed because of his "philosophical belief in climate change". The company insists the employee was simply made redundant; he says his push to implement green policy was unpopular with management.
Thanks for sharing that, Fisherman.
Fisherman, well said! The worst is when you go to a Trader Joes/Wholefoods. Now they don't even ask you for paper or plastic. Now it's simply "would you like a bag?" A question to which there is only one supposedly right answer – "no."
See South Park's Smug Alert for some more laughs about this issue:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103216
JDK–
"Now, Asma's secular move to explain that the roots of our problems are grounded in anything and everything other than the reality of legitimate and personal guilt incurred by sin is not surprising…"
A very important point. Let us never forget that "the reality of legitimate and personal guilt incurred by sin" is the real problem, not "the law". As St. Paul says, "the Law (of God) is spiritual" while it is, at the same time, unable to deliver me from my real and legitimate personal guilt. But we are surrounded by the illegitimate or at best secondary "demands" (i.e. laws) of this world which produce false guilt. Examples of these are myriad, and account for most of the posts seen here. Most of these demands (laws), unlike God's legitimate demands, should be rejected in and of themselves because they create false guilt. The Law of God, on the other hand, should be embraced because it shows us our true guilt and need of some outside source of absolution. It is crucial to maintain the "law-gospel" distinction, but it is equally crucial to maintain the "law of God" vs. "the law of this world" distinction. Otherwise, our "gospel" becomes merely a reaction to and rejection of these false demands, in which we see ourselves as "victims" of "the law" rather than as the guilty sinners we really are. That is the sad insight that is the only beginning point for real gospel hope.
However true it is that we’re wired for guilt and indignation which surely ought to temper our self-righteousness, I can’t help but think that caring for the planet has become a part of how we love our neighbor in the 21st century. (And therefore why it seems so “all of a sudden”, as Kathy says. We’re not just “taking our cues from the culture” –100 years ago we weren’t forced to reckon with war and famine which were directly related to human impact on the environment. So thought experiment: if we were living at the height of the Civil Rights era, when people were organizing for voting rights or against segregation or for a living wage for garbage workers, how much time would we devote to these cautionary words about guilt and indignation? Humor would have to live in tension with news of the gruesome murder of Emmett Til, no? In fact, wouldn’t there be something wrong with not even acknowledging that tragedy, and working against it happening again?
I guess when I see “law and gospel” I’m afraid we’re just about to forget or obscure the matter of loving our neighbor.
BTW, I’ve come to love the Grist webzine –they are environmentalists with humor, and they treat debates like paper and plastic with appropriate perspective.