I think the idea that wealth should be multiplied is not very traditional: traditional Christian morality would just have it shared or given away. The idea that wealth can be multiplied doesn't go back much before Adam Smith.
I think the idea that wealth should be multiplied is not very traditional: traditional Christian morality would just have it shared or given away. The idea that wealth can be multiplied doesn't go back much before Adam Smith.
Parable of the talents ?
Why on earth would you think that's about money? It's a parable.
When Jesus taught plainly about money he said "don't lay up treasure on earth. "
But, the question isn't whether the desire to have more and display it is a common human experience. The question is whether that's traditional Christian morality, and that's a much harder thing to demonstrate.
I think the idea that wealth should be multiplied is not very traditional: traditional Christian morality would just have it shared or given away. The idea that wealth can be multiplied doesn't go back much before Adam Smith.
Parable of the talents ?
Why on earth would you think that's about money? It's a parable.
When Jesus taught plainly about money he said "don't lay up treasure on earth. "
Nevertheless, it's a parable about a unit of currency. Thinking it has some relevance to the original meaning of 'talent' is not a completely crazy idea.
But, the question isn't whether the desire to have more and display it is a common human experience. The question is whether that's traditional Christian morality, and that's a much harder thing to demonstrate.
It is next to impossible to argue that getting more and seeking to display one's success are traditional Christian morality. Anyone who sought to maintain such a thing would self-evidently be distorting the message. On the other hand, it is extremely easy to demonstrate that it's the opposite, a temptation that we're all supposed to resist and work against, a manifestation of the kingdom of the prince of this world.
I thought what @KarlLB was saying is that until Adam Smith came along and invented acquisitiveness in the eighteenth century, nobody had thought of it. Greed, selfishness etc are just an invention of post-enlightenment, individualistic western society, something known first only in Western Europe and North America and a blight spread elsewhere by the modern world. Everybody before him was all caring, sharing and generous to the poor.
One often hears similar ideas expressed. I happen to think they are nonsense.
The idea that wealth can be multiplied doesn't go back much before Adam Smith.
Parable of the talents ?
That just shows the idea that wealth can be accumulated. There's no suggestion that the economy as a whole has more talents in it. Nor that the purpose of accumulating wealth is so that the servant with the one talent can have some.
I thought what KarlLB was saying is that until Adam Smith came along and invented acquisitiveness in the eighteenth century, nobody had thought of it.
I brought up Adam Smith, so I don't know why KarlLB is getting the blame. The point isn't that nobody was acquisitive before Adam Smith. It is that before Adsm Smith - it was actually Bernard Mandeville - mainstream morality thought acquisitiveness benefitted nobody other than the person who was acquiring. I think that's the point you were making in the first part of your post.
I confess to having all sorts of problems with this post, setting aside the symbolism of marking the sin of global warming with the unnecessary burning of palm fronds.
What 'sins' are we being called upon to repent for in relation to the contemporary ecological crisis? I find it difficult to accuse those applying the principles of science and technology to industrial production from the middle eighteenth century as being engaged in intrinsically 'sinful' activity, though the methods used have from time to time been ethically questionable. The outcome, particularly in the latter half of the last century have been hugely beneficial to most of those living in societies that have industrialised, so much so that in the third world economic development was seen as the key to benefiting from political independence. Social progressives on the left and right pursued economic growth in order the advance the common good. Their motives were entirely virtuous and philanthropic in their desire to improve the human condition. I suspect most shipmates are among the beneficiaries.
It now appears we are faced with a very serious problem, global warming, much of which is a consequence of the economic and social progress achieved in the last two hundred years or so, which needs to be recognised. It is, to say the least, unfortunate, but could not have been anticipated until quite recently, and is a consequence of good rather than evil intent. To my mind sinfulness in the matter, assuming global-warming is man-made, lies in refusing to recognise the reality of the phenomenon and/or reluctance to address it.
Addressing the issue: What to do? is a monumental problem, that requires considerable intellectual effort across a wide area of human activity, involving technology, the global distribution and sharing of resources, institutions to agree and enforce international understandings, and a consensual framework of world-wide values. Such progress requires collective action. It cannot be resolved by individuals confessing their sins or volunteering to amend their patterns of consumption, except within a general social framework that rewards such changes. Each generation has evil sufficient unto the day, and if Greta Thunberg and her friends are to be applauded for skipping school to advertise the crisis, the solution needs them to get back into the classroom and laboratory to study very hard and conscientiously.
@Kwesi what are we guilty of that perhaps we could repent of? To list examples, I plan to fly to visit my sister for Christmas with my whole family. Is that really ecologically appropriate? Do we all really live sustainably? I know I'm not a vegetarian, so maybe not. Do we even do enough research to find out whether we are living in a way that leaves an Earth for future generations? Is our energy use sustainable or should we be lowering the thermostat and putting on another sweater in the winter and doing the opposite in the summer? Do we really need to drive as much as we do?
Sometimes the answer is yes we are doing all we can personally in that regard. And that's when corporate repentance comes up. Could we be doing better as a society? Are we willing to try or are we just going to persist in saying we personally are doing it all perfectly while other people's islands are being swamped by rising tide? When I go back to my young raised-in-an-evangelical church self, I don't think "Not my fault! I was all the way over here being perfect!" is going to be an answer to impress God. We'll see.
In addition to what @Gwai said, the things we personally may need to repent of could easily include many of our choices over the last five decades - where we chose to live (did we follow the aspiration of a detached house in the suburbs, or for more sustainable high density housing in the city?), what job we took (including in relation to where we live, is there a big commute?), what car (if any) we bought, who we voted for ...
And, as the context of this thread is a church service, we need to ask what the church, corporately, needs to repent of. How sustainable are our buildings? Is our location convenient for public transport or do we force members to drive long distances? Do members car share if there is no public transport option? Where are the church reserve funds (if any) invested? Is the after-service coffee fair trade and sustainable, served in reusable or single-use cups? ...
Gwai: What are we guilty of that perhaps we could repent of? To list examples, I plan to fly to visit my sister for Christmas with my whole family.......
The point I would want to make, Gwai, is that your decision whether or not to go to Canada will have virtually zero impact on the problem of global warming. Ditto any change in your diet. To my mind it's a no brainer that you should go and visit your sister because you will fulfil your family responsibilities and enhance human happiness and well-being. The future of the planet rests on social action not individual morality.
AllanCresswell: In addition to what @Gwai said, the things we personally may need to repent of could easily include many of our choices over the last five decades - where we chose to live (did we follow the aspiration of a detached house in the suburbs, or for more sustainable high density housing in the city?), what job we took (including in relation to where we live, is there a big commute?), what car (if any) we bought, who we voted for ....
I fail to see why you should repent of the choices you have made, unless you made them in the full knowledge that you were hastening the end of life on planet earth. A choice of where to live is to a large extent determined by the structure of the housing market and the resources at your disposal. The location of available property had largely been determined by local government planning department years before you purchased, and the development (or not) of commuter services such as roads, railways, and availability of public transport. The detached house in the suburbs (which are mostly populated by semi-detached houses) would be occupied by someone if not yourself. These days a decision to live in central areas is beyond the pocket of most people in metropolitan areas.
AllanCresswell: Is the after-service coffee fair trade and sustainable......
If I were to be fastidious, I might ask what you are doing by serving coffee at all, or tea, for that matter. Why not serve cold water? Think of the carbon footprint created by the importation of foodstuffs. Indeed, perhaps you should confess to consuming any food transported any distance into your local area from other regions of the UK, never mind from abroad.
There is no denying we are in a mess ecologically, but to see it as the product of human sinfulness demanding repentance rather than a most unfortunate unintended consequence of progress seems to me bizarre. What is sinful, to repeat myself, is to deny the existence of a serious problem and not to address it with the rational urgency it deserves.
The point I would want to make, Gwai, is that your decision whether or not to go to Canada will have virtually zero impact on the problem of global warming.
Of course not. But if a million of us make decisions like that, they add up.
Baptist Trainfan: Kwesi wrote: »
The point I would want to make, Gwai, is that your decision whether or not to go to Canada will have virtually zero impact on the problem of global warming.
Baptist Trainfan:. Of course not. But if a million of us make decisions like that, they add up.
I'm extremely sceptical that the crisis in global warming can be resolved in such a manner. It's a mega social problem, not one of individual choice.
I think that a mega social problem is exactly a problem of individual choice on a massive scale. And my sister doesn't happen to live in Canada, but it is that kind of thing. Flying is conspicuous consumption of environmental resources, but family is very high priority for me. I find that very hard to resolve.
And I clearly am aware that my choices affect the earth, so the part about not mattering if you are aren't aware doesn't apply to me. I would go further than you did though and say we all have a responsibility to be aware of these things. It's my job to know traffic laws if I drive, and it's my job to know whether it's ethical--not just legal--to punch someone before I do it, just so it's also my job to think about whether it's ethical to fly, in my opinion.
AllanCresswell: In addition to what @Gwai said, the things we personally may need to repent of could easily include many of our choices over the last five decades - where we chose to live (did we follow the aspiration of a detached house in the suburbs, or for more sustainable high density housing in the city?), what job we took (including in relation to where we live, is there a big commute?), what car (if any) we bought, who we voted for ....
I fail to see why you should repent of the choices you have made, unless you made them in the full knowledge that you were hastening the end of life on planet earth. A choice of where to live is to a large extent determined by the structure of the housing market and the resources at your disposal. The location of available property had largely been determined by local government planning department years before you purchased, and the development (or not) of commuter services such as roads, railways, and availability of public transport. The detached house in the suburbs (which are mostly populated by semi-detached houses) would be occupied by someone if not yourself. These days a decision to live in central areas is beyond the pocket of most people in metropolitan areas.
As others have noted, our society is to an extent the product of individual choices. The location of vast areas of low density housing in the suburbs is a result of the choices of people wanting to live in these areas. If for the moment we leave aside those who have little choice about where to live, either as a result of unaffordable prices or the need to live in a particular location because of work or family commitments. Anyone who's made a choice where to live in the last few decades would at least have been aware that there's a potential environmental aspect to that choice - and, if we made our choices without considering those potential impacts then that is also something to consider in our Lenten disciplines. Not that I'm perfect, but when I moved here almost 25 years ago I made the decision to rent, then buy, a flat close enough to walk to work - saving me the need to commute and reducing my carbon footprint, a deliberate decision based on what was known of the impact of CO2 emission on the climate. At the time I was unusual at work - others living in the town were raised here, most people lived in Glasgow and commuted, usually one person in a car.
OK, Gwai, let me put the issue of air travel this way: A major contribution to global warming is the density of air travel. To address the problem it is decided by an international forum that globally the amount of air craft fuel to be consumed is X gallons. The next stage might be to agree a formula for decided what each nation's share of that total should be. The next stage would be for each nation to decide how its share should be divided between civil and military users. It would then have to be decide how the aircraft fuel would be allocated for commercial and private purposes. At the end of the rationing process each citizen would receive an annual air-mile allocation. How the heck one is going to get there is a sizeable problem. Over to Greta, I guess.
The other thing, it seems partly from reading some comments on this thread, that "traditional Christianity" tends to do is divorce the soul from the body and decide that the eternal fate of one, on an individual basis, is far more important than the home of the other which we're all sharing.
Which is actually unbiblical, as I've come to realise from listening to some excellent episodes of the BibleProject podcast. The conception of human beings presented in the Bible is not of some disembodied eternal bit that carries on without the body. We declare in a creed that we believe in the resurrection of the body.
If we're going to live on a new earth, it'd be nice if we paid a lot of attention to how the one we've currently been given is supposed to work.
Yes, indeed.
It's interesting that the discussions points to a conclusion I reached many years ago. The privatised gospel is not the gospel, since it can very easily elevate the self interest of one against the needs of the many. Indeed, it can contribute to a culture of self interest, producing for example an endorsement of prosperity gospels.
Indifference towards the needs of others, whether conscious or otherwise, is the subject of the sheep/goats warning in Matthew 25 and the swingeing condemnation in Amos 5. You have to take a very selective view of our traditions and scripture to miss that. And the climate change issue is a challenge which asks simple questions. How collectively responsible do we think we have been to the present and future needs of others? Is there a need to repent "in dust and ashes" of our collective indifference?
This. And I think both the Evangelical ("Jesus died for my sins") and the more sacramental ("I go to make my Communion") approaches can lead toward this kind of privatised religion.
Mind you, on Sunday I was preaching about Temptation. I made the suggestion that most of us are actually pretty decent people, so that our sins might be more likely to be those of omission (being self-centred and lazy when we ought to be doing something positive for our neighbours or our community) than of commission. This seemed to strike a chord.
Just today I listened to a podcast episode that pointed out, in an entirely different context, that our entire economic model is based on consumption. Consume because we measure our wealth in terms of production, and there isn't any point in producing all that stuff if you won't buy it from us. Growth. Producing more, never mind whether or not more is needed.
But climate change is happening because of some of the waste products, which we've ignored. We're also going to hit problems with running out of the basic resources that we use to make all this stuff. Oil. Fresh water. Sand for concrete (which was the podcast context).
Also the podcast context: creating cement, which is necessary for concrete, is responsible for 8 to 10% of the global greenhouse gas emissions.
Any talk of rationing NOW runs into exactly the complaint that the developing world is making to the developed world - we got to where we are by consuming the world's resources to excess, and now that we realise this is fundamentally unsustainable we want everyone ELSE to cut back along with us, when they weren't participating in the gluttony.
Sorry, but if people can't at least see the relevance of this to the season of Lent, then the problems are even worse than I thought.
To clarify, my comment was not directed at you but at Kwesi's line of argument, which started by asking "What 'sins' are we being called upon to repent for in relation to the contemporary ecological crisis? "
And my answer is: gluttony. I mean, to me the connection with Lent, a season traditionally associated with giving things up, is pretty darn obvious. The fact is most of us still lead a lifestyle that requires multiple Earths to sustain.
Given that I haven't travelled more that fifty miles from home in the past year (and that was a one-off and by public transport) I have a rare opportunity to feel holier-than-thou
OK, Gwai, let me put the issue of air travel this way: A major contribution to global warming is the density of air travel. To address the problem it is decided by an international forum that globally the amount of air craft fuel to be consumed is X gallons. The next stage might be to agree a formula for decided what each nation's share of that total should be. The next stage would be for each nation to decide how its share should be divided between civil and military users. It would then have to be decide how the aircraft fuel would be allocated for commercial and private purposes. At the end of the rationing process each citizen would receive an annual air-mile allocation. How the heck one is going to get there is a sizeable problem. Over to Greta, I guess.
I don't agree with that as a solution because I'm too cynical about world co-operation. Who would decide what the annual limit was or how it was distributed?
However, if one were to do that, it would strike me that there is an inescapable logic of making the initial allocation per capita.
Having done that, the fairest next step would be to allow each person who didn't use their annual allocation to sell it to someone else AND get the money themselves - i.e. it would NOT be haggled between governments and governments of states that didn't use their allocation would NOT get the refunds under whatever international financial balancing mechanism was used.
Many possible solutions are possible. It would also help if people began to consider air travel a wasteful thing to do. If people were a bit embarrassed to admit they were flying somewhere, they'd do it less. I know how my circle would regard say crossing a picket line and that would definitely be part of why I wouldn't if I had a choice, that and my own principles. If my circle regarded flying the same way, presumably that would also influence my decisions.
It might depend on one's economic circumstances, too.
My sister lives in SE France, which is relatively easy (in theory) to reach by cheapish air flights, BUT means driving to/from airports quite a few miles away from where I live (or from her home, come to that).
OTOH, Eurostar train to Paris, then TGV to southern France, is even easier (I'm 20 minutes' drive from Ebbsfleet International Station), but the cost in £££ is quite a bit higher than by air.
I'm in the fortunate position of (a) being near the railway, and (b) able to afford the fares, but there must be very many people for whom this is not the case.
Actually, at the moment, I'm not very mobile at all, so in much the same position (albeit not voluntarily!) as @Colin Smith. Not sure that makes me feel holier-than-thou, though...
Enoch: I don't agree with [your scheme] as a solution because I'm too cynical about world co-operation. Who would decide what the annual limit was or how it was distributed?
I couldn't agree more! My intention in proffering the scheme was to underline the difficulties in arriving at one which would be generally acceptable and capable of implementation. It's difficult to see how the United States and China, for example, would be willing to accept direction from another party, or that Western states would agree to a per capita-based formula, while 'developing' countries would baulk at a solution that solidifies the prevailing pattern of distribution. Perhaps Greta and her friends can tell us how progress can be made.
OrfeoTo clarify, my comment was not directed at you but at Kwesi's line of argument, which started by asking "What 'sins' are we being called upon to repent for in relation to the contemporary ecological crisis? "
And my answer is: gluttony.
I don't think the sin of gluttony is adequate to explain the present crisis, even less a solution to it. Even if it were agreed that human beings have become inordinately acquisitive, the problem would be how to create an economic culture in which individuals would be satisfied with much less. The models which we have of societies where demand has been significantly reduced or kept as a low level, Zimbabwe, Venezuela and North Korea are not at all attractive. Maybe the remaining Kalahari Bushmen and their like have cracked the secret of sustainable living, but I doubt most of humanity would wish it for itself. Any solution to our problem, ISTM, would need to have a strong element of enlightened self-interest to stand a chance.
Many possible solutions are possible. It would also help if people began to consider air travel a wasteful thing to do. If people were a bit embarrassed to admit they were flying somewhere, they'd do it less. I know how my circle would regard say crossing a picket line and that would definitely be part of why I wouldn't if I had a choice, that and my own principles. If my circle regarded flying the same way, presumably that would also influence my decisions.
I always thought it ironic that Gore Vidal flew to many places to spread his low-consumption message (and he was probably not flying up the back of the bus).
@Kwesi , the question of what to do is quite different from the original question of what the problem is. You asked what the sin was, not how to stop sinning.
You asked what the sin was, not how to stop sinning.
At a simplistic level, our sin is to fail to live according to the 5Rs. How to stop sinning, live according to the 5Rs.
For those who've missed the entire Green message of the last few decades, the 5Rs are:
1. Refuse - just say no to the social expectations to be excessive consumers with the newest gadgets, wearing the latest styles, holiday in the hottest destinations etc
2. Reduce - when you do need to buy something, get just what you need
3. Reuse - don't get something for a single use, but keep using things as long as possible
4. Repair - if it's broken, fix it. Buy things which can be repaired. Don't just bin it and buy another
5. Recycle - if it can't be repaired or reused then recycle
TBH ISTM that the bottom line is a failure to love our neighbours as ourselves. Once we know how our behaviour is playing a part in harming others, then we need to do something about it.
TBH ISTM that the bottom line is a failure to love our neighbours as ourselves. Once we know how our behaviour is playing a part in harming others, then we need to do something about it.
You asked what the sin was, not how to stop sinning.
At a simplistic level, our sin is to fail to live according to the 5Rs. How to stop sinning, live according to the 5Rs.
For those who've missed the entire Green message of the last few decades, the 5Rs are:
1. Refuse - just say no to the social expectations to be excessive consumers with the newest gadgets, wearing the latest styles, holiday in the hottest destinations etc
2. Reduce - when you do need to buy something, get just what you need
3. Reuse - don't get something for a single use, but keep using things as long as possible
4. Repair - if it's broken, fix it. Buy things which can be repaired. Don't just bin it and buy another
5. Recycle - if it can't be repaired or reused then recycle
This, too.
(But, although I'm a member of the Party, I have to admit to often failing some of these, especially 5).
While one might applaud the sentiments behind the 5Rs there are questions as to how individuals and societies are to be persuaded to act virtuously, and how one is to deal with the consequences of a severe reduction in global demand, which is likely to impact severely on the most necessitous.
Bishops Finger: Perhaps - but what would you do @Kwesi ?
Surely the 5Rs are a start in the right direction...
To be honest, Bish, I've no idea as to how the necessary changes can be implemented, and unconvinced that individual choice (5Rs) constitute an alternative to action at societal level, partly because they are not an overall plan, and even with their limits are unlikely to attract anything like a sufficient number of adherents. I suspect things will have to get a lot worse before they can get better. It may even be that humanity lacks the resources to get out of this one and its extinction a welcome solution to the preservation of life and a large variety of species on planet earth. Perhaps the human game is up. What we can hope is that human ingenuity will come up with answers at present unanticipated, which is why I urge Greta (whose activities I welcome) and her generation get back to the classrooms and laboratories, having publicised their points. What is certain is that "the whole of creation groans and travails."
Incidentally, even if the problem of sustainability is resolved there will come a time when the earth passes away. Nothing is forever in the dimension of time.
It won't make any difference if Greta and her generation get back to labs. By the time they've finished schooling there won't be time to do anything. It's the people who are currently working in labs across the world who need to invent a clever solution (other than those which appear to have been rejected - keep fossil fuels in the ground, stop felling forests and plant more trees).
Alan Cresswell: It won't make any difference if Greta and her generation get back to labs. By the time they've finished schooling there won't be time to do anything. It's the people who are currently working in labs across the world who need to invent a clever solution (other than those which appear to have been rejected - keep fossil fuels in the ground, stop felling forests and plant more trees).
Alas, Alan, you could well be right. We know some of the things that ought to be done, the problem is how do we get there. For example, how do we arrive at the point where we "keep fossil fuels in the ground?"
I mean, look, for years political folk in this country were saying how solar was too expensive and unviable.
Meanwhile, several entrepeneurs in China got to work on making it cheaper, and have consequently made billions of dollars selling cheap solar to places that could never afford it before.
And this is the thing that truly shits me about all this. It's NOT that there aren't solutions. People are in fact finding solutions on a regular basis when they look for them. If we actually put resources into that in a concerted way we'd already be a lot further advanced. The whole bloody point of the Stern report way back in 2006 was that penalising emissions-heavy methods and creating incentives to go low-emissions wouldn't have a massive economic impact if it was done early (and some people think he was too pessimistic).
There are smart people out there. Innovative people. If we spent more time encouraging them and less time moaning about how nothing could be done, the solutions would be there. Why the hell do people believe that somehow we can't keep innovating?
Orfeo: [We keep fossil fuels in the ground] By using all the other energy resources we have........I mean, look, for years political folk in this country were saying how solar was too expensive and unviable........
Meanwhile, several entrepeneurs in China got to work on making it cheaper, and have consequently made billions of dollars selling cheap solar to places that could never afford it before.........
There are smart people out there. Innovative people. If we spent more time encouraging them and less time moaning about how nothing could be done, the solutions would be there. Why the hell do people believe that somehow we can't keep innovating?
It makes one wonder, doesn't it why, China is consuming such vast amounts of coal itself.
So the thrust of your argument, Orfeo, is that the pessimistic "End of the World" position of the Extinction Rebels is way over the top, that the means of salvation already exist in renewable energy technology, and that human ingenuity is capable of filling the gaps.
Just because I think many of the solutions already exist ("means of salvation"? really?) doesn't mean I have a belief that we'll actually implement them.
orfeo: Just because I think many of the solutions already exist ("means of salvation"? really?) doesn't mean I have a belief that we'll actually implement them.
What you say, orfeo, is at the root of my scepticism. Politicians of all kinds consider that their survival in power rests heavily on their ability to increase consumption. The problem is getting to the point where it is advantageous for them to pursue a green agenda before it is too late.
The problem is getting to the point where it is advantageous for them to pursue a green agenda before it is too late.
These things only change when there is a strong social movement behind them, which means winning hearts and minds. So one good way could be to use any platform (or pulpit) we have to stress how incredibly vital it is...
goperryrevs: These things only change when there is a strong social movement behind them, which means winning hearts and minds. So one good way could be to use any platform (or pulpit) we have to stress how incredibly vital it is...
While I agree that social movements require leaders to persuasively articulate the message, success also depends on there being a public longing to hear the appeal, ripe for mobilisation. In this case the fear is that the tipping point for "saving the planet" has already passed.
Incidentally, even if the problem of sustainability is resolved there will come a time when the earth passes away. Nothing is forever in the dimension of time.
Sure, that's why I never bother checking if the road is clear before I cross.
goperryrevs: These things only change when there is a strong social movement behind them, which means winning hearts and minds. So one good way could be to use any platform (or pulpit) we have to stress how incredibly vital it is...
While I agree that social movements require leaders to persuasively articulate the message, success also depends on there being a public longing to hear the appeal, ripe for mobilisation. In this case the fear is that the tipping point for "saving the planet" has already passed.
ISTM that those two things motivate each other (chicken/egg). You’re probably right that the tipping point has/will pass and we’re on damage limitation now, but that’s all the more reason to pull our fingers out and actually do something. It’s sad that the OP’er felt alienated in the service, but the two things that are most pertinent from my point of view are that we need to drop this idea that sin is an individualistic thing and not a corporate thing, (if we realised this then maybe we wouldn’t have screwed up society and the planet so much); and also that if we’re actually going to save this planet, then some feathers are going to be ruffled. If feeling a bit uncomfortable at church is part of that, then so be it.
If you're not a member of a severely disadvantaged community (eg: on Universal Credit dependent on food banks) and don't feel a bit uncomfortable at church then there's something wrong with your church. Church should be confronting people with the effects of the choices they have made, calling for repentance. Church should be calling us to take up our cross and daily follow Christ on the path to crucifixion. The Church should offer comfort to those who need it, but for the majority it should challenge our comfortable lives.
You asked what the sin was, not how to stop sinning.
At a simplistic level, our sin is to fail to live according to the 5Rs. How to stop sinning, live according to the 5Rs.
For those who've missed the entire Green message of the last few decades, the 5Rs are:
1. Refuse - just say no to the social expectations to be excessive consumers with the newest gadgets, wearing the latest styles, holiday in the hottest destinations etc
2. Reduce - when you do need to buy something, get just what you need
3. Reuse - don't get something for a single use, but keep using things as long as possible
4. Repair - if it's broken, fix it. Buy things which can be repaired. Don't just bin it and buy another
5. Recycle - if it can't be repaired or reused then recycle
The Greens pissed me off a long time ago, but I am fairly long on the five Rs anyway - mainly because owt else is a waste o'brass!
Comments
Parable of the talents ?
Why on earth would you think that's about money? It's a parable.
When Jesus taught plainly about money he said "don't lay up treasure on earth. "
He wouldn't be likely to have said that if people weren't already doing it.
Sorry, but I think that both the desire to have more and to display it are built into human beings of all creeds and cultures.
Nevertheless, it's a parable about a unit of currency. Thinking it has some relevance to the original meaning of 'talent' is not a completely crazy idea.
I thought what @KarlLB was saying is that until Adam Smith came along and invented acquisitiveness in the eighteenth century, nobody had thought of it. Greed, selfishness etc are just an invention of post-enlightenment, individualistic western society, something known first only in Western Europe and North America and a blight spread elsewhere by the modern world. Everybody before him was all caring, sharing and generous to the poor.
One often hears similar ideas expressed. I happen to think they are nonsense.
What 'sins' are we being called upon to repent for in relation to the contemporary ecological crisis? I find it difficult to accuse those applying the principles of science and technology to industrial production from the middle eighteenth century as being engaged in intrinsically 'sinful' activity, though the methods used have from time to time been ethically questionable. The outcome, particularly in the latter half of the last century have been hugely beneficial to most of those living in societies that have industrialised, so much so that in the third world economic development was seen as the key to benefiting from political independence. Social progressives on the left and right pursued economic growth in order the advance the common good. Their motives were entirely virtuous and philanthropic in their desire to improve the human condition. I suspect most shipmates are among the beneficiaries.
It now appears we are faced with a very serious problem, global warming, much of which is a consequence of the economic and social progress achieved in the last two hundred years or so, which needs to be recognised. It is, to say the least, unfortunate, but could not have been anticipated until quite recently, and is a consequence of good rather than evil intent. To my mind sinfulness in the matter, assuming global-warming is man-made, lies in refusing to recognise the reality of the phenomenon and/or reluctance to address it.
Addressing the issue: What to do? is a monumental problem, that requires considerable intellectual effort across a wide area of human activity, involving technology, the global distribution and sharing of resources, institutions to agree and enforce international understandings, and a consensual framework of world-wide values. Such progress requires collective action. It cannot be resolved by individuals confessing their sins or volunteering to amend their patterns of consumption, except within a general social framework that rewards such changes. Each generation has evil sufficient unto the day, and if Greta Thunberg and her friends are to be applauded for skipping school to advertise the crisis, the solution needs them to get back into the classroom and laboratory to study very hard and conscientiously.
Sometimes the answer is yes we are doing all we can personally in that regard. And that's when corporate repentance comes up. Could we be doing better as a society? Are we willing to try or are we just going to persist in saying we personally are doing it all perfectly while other people's islands are being swamped by rising tide? When I go back to my young raised-in-an-evangelical church self, I don't think "Not my fault! I was all the way over here being perfect!" is going to be an answer to impress God. We'll see.
And, as the context of this thread is a church service, we need to ask what the church, corporately, needs to repent of. How sustainable are our buildings? Is our location convenient for public transport or do we force members to drive long distances? Do members car share if there is no public transport option? Where are the church reserve funds (if any) invested? Is the after-service coffee fair trade and sustainable, served in reusable or single-use cups? ...
The point I would want to make, Gwai, is that your decision whether or not to go to Canada will have virtually zero impact on the problem of global warming. Ditto any change in your diet. To my mind it's a no brainer that you should go and visit your sister because you will fulfil your family responsibilities and enhance human happiness and well-being. The future of the planet rests on social action not individual morality.
I fail to see why you should repent of the choices you have made, unless you made them in the full knowledge that you were hastening the end of life on planet earth. A choice of where to live is to a large extent determined by the structure of the housing market and the resources at your disposal. The location of available property had largely been determined by local government planning department years before you purchased, and the development (or not) of commuter services such as roads, railways, and availability of public transport. The detached house in the suburbs (which are mostly populated by semi-detached houses) would be occupied by someone if not yourself. These days a decision to live in central areas is beyond the pocket of most people in metropolitan areas.
If I were to be fastidious, I might ask what you are doing by serving coffee at all, or tea, for that matter. Why not serve cold water? Think of the carbon footprint created by the importation of foodstuffs. Indeed, perhaps you should confess to consuming any food transported any distance into your local area from other regions of the UK, never mind from abroad.
There is no denying we are in a mess ecologically, but to see it as the product of human sinfulness demanding repentance rather than a most unfortunate unintended consequence of progress seems to me bizarre. What is sinful, to repeat myself, is to deny the existence of a serious problem and not to address it with the rational urgency it deserves.
I'm extremely sceptical that the crisis in global warming can be resolved in such a manner. It's a mega social problem, not one of individual choice.
And I clearly am aware that my choices affect the earth, so the part about not mattering if you are aren't aware doesn't apply to me. I would go further than you did though and say we all have a responsibility to be aware of these things. It's my job to know traffic laws if I drive, and it's my job to know whether it's ethical--not just legal--to punch someone before I do it, just so it's also my job to think about whether it's ethical to fly, in my opinion.
Yes, indeed.
It's interesting that the discussions points to a conclusion I reached many years ago. The privatised gospel is not the gospel, since it can very easily elevate the self interest of one against the needs of the many. Indeed, it can contribute to a culture of self interest, producing for example an endorsement of prosperity gospels.
Indifference towards the needs of others, whether conscious or otherwise, is the subject of the sheep/goats warning in Matthew 25 and the swingeing condemnation in Amos 5. You have to take a very selective view of our traditions and scripture to miss that. And the climate change issue is a challenge which asks simple questions. How collectively responsible do we think we have been to the present and future needs of others? Is there a need to repent "in dust and ashes" of our collective indifference?
Apparently we think that gluttony is confined only to food...
Mind you, on Sunday I was preaching about Temptation. I made the suggestion that most of us are actually pretty decent people, so that our sins might be more likely to be those of omission (being self-centred and lazy when we ought to be doing something positive for our neighbours or our community) than of commission. This seemed to strike a chord.
But climate change is happening because of some of the waste products, which we've ignored. We're also going to hit problems with running out of the basic resources that we use to make all this stuff. Oil. Fresh water. Sand for concrete (which was the podcast context).
Also the podcast context: creating cement, which is necessary for concrete, is responsible for 8 to 10% of the global greenhouse gas emissions.
Any talk of rationing NOW runs into exactly the complaint that the developing world is making to the developed world - we got to where we are by consuming the world's resources to excess, and now that we realise this is fundamentally unsustainable we want everyone ELSE to cut back along with us, when they weren't participating in the gluttony.
Sorry, but if people can't at least see the relevance of this to the season of Lent, then the problems are even worse than I thought.
To clarify, my comment was not directed at you but at Kwesi's line of argument, which started by asking "What 'sins' are we being called upon to repent for in relation to the contemporary ecological crisis? "
And my answer is: gluttony. I mean, to me the connection with Lent, a season traditionally associated with giving things up, is pretty darn obvious. The fact is most of us still lead a lifestyle that requires multiple Earths to sustain.
However, if one were to do that, it would strike me that there is an inescapable logic of making the initial allocation per capita.
Having done that, the fairest next step would be to allow each person who didn't use their annual allocation to sell it to someone else AND get the money themselves - i.e. it would NOT be haggled between governments and governments of states that didn't use their allocation would NOT get the refunds under whatever international financial balancing mechanism was used.
My sister lives in SE France, which is relatively easy (in theory) to reach by cheapish air flights, BUT means driving to/from airports quite a few miles away from where I live (or from her home, come to that).
OTOH, Eurostar train to Paris, then TGV to southern France, is even easier (I'm 20 minutes' drive from Ebbsfleet International Station), but the cost in £££ is quite a bit higher than by air.
I'm in the fortunate position of (a) being near the railway, and (b) able to afford the fares, but there must be very many people for whom this is not the case.
Actually, at the moment, I'm not very mobile at all, so in much the same position (albeit not voluntarily!) as @Colin Smith. Not sure that makes me feel holier-than-thou, though...
I couldn't agree more! My intention in proffering the scheme was to underline the difficulties in arriving at one which would be generally acceptable and capable of implementation. It's difficult to see how the United States and China, for example, would be willing to accept direction from another party, or that Western states would agree to a per capita-based formula, while 'developing' countries would baulk at a solution that solidifies the prevailing pattern of distribution. Perhaps Greta and her friends can tell us how progress can be made.
I don't think the sin of gluttony is adequate to explain the present crisis, even less a solution to it. Even if it were agreed that human beings have become inordinately acquisitive, the problem would be how to create an economic culture in which individuals would be satisfied with much less. The models which we have of societies where demand has been significantly reduced or kept as a low level, Zimbabwe, Venezuela and North Korea are not at all attractive. Maybe the remaining Kalahari Bushmen and their like have cracked the secret of sustainable living, but I doubt most of humanity would wish it for itself. Any solution to our problem, ISTM, would need to have a strong element of enlightened self-interest to stand a chance.
I always thought it ironic that Gore Vidal flew to many places to spread his low-consumption message (and he was probably not flying up the back of the bus).
For those who've missed the entire Green message of the last few decades, the 5Rs are:
1. Refuse - just say no to the social expectations to be excessive consumers with the newest gadgets, wearing the latest styles, holiday in the hottest destinations etc
2. Reduce - when you do need to buy something, get just what you need
3. Reuse - don't get something for a single use, but keep using things as long as possible
4. Repair - if it's broken, fix it. Buy things which can be repaired. Don't just bin it and buy another
5. Recycle - if it can't be repaired or reused then recycle
This, too.
(But, although I'm a member of the Party, I have to admit to often failing some of these, especially 5).
While one might applaud the sentiments behind the 5Rs there are questions as to how individuals and societies are to be persuaded to act virtuously, and how one is to deal with the consequences of a severe reduction in global demand, which is likely to impact severely on the most necessitous.
Surely the 5Rs are a start in the right direction...
To be honest, Bish, I've no idea as to how the necessary changes can be implemented, and unconvinced that individual choice (5Rs) constitute an alternative to action at societal level, partly because they are not an overall plan, and even with their limits are unlikely to attract anything like a sufficient number of adherents. I suspect things will have to get a lot worse before they can get better. It may even be that humanity lacks the resources to get out of this one and its extinction a welcome solution to the preservation of life and a large variety of species on planet earth. Perhaps the human game is up. What we can hope is that human ingenuity will come up with answers at present unanticipated, which is why I urge Greta (whose activities I welcome) and her generation get back to the classrooms and laboratories, having publicised their points. What is certain is that "the whole of creation groans and travails."
Incidentally, even if the problem of sustainability is resolved there will come a time when the earth passes away. Nothing is forever in the dimension of time.
Alas, Alan, you could well be right. We know some of the things that ought to be done, the problem is how do we get there. For example, how do we arrive at the point where we "keep fossil fuels in the ground?"
Fixed code. BroJames Purgatory Host
I mean, look, for years political folk in this country were saying how solar was too expensive and unviable.
Meanwhile, several entrepeneurs in China got to work on making it cheaper, and have consequently made billions of dollars selling cheap solar to places that could never afford it before.
And this is the thing that truly shits me about all this. It's NOT that there aren't solutions. People are in fact finding solutions on a regular basis when they look for them. If we actually put resources into that in a concerted way we'd already be a lot further advanced. The whole bloody point of the Stern report way back in 2006 was that penalising emissions-heavy methods and creating incentives to go low-emissions wouldn't have a massive economic impact if it was done early (and some people think he was too pessimistic).
There are smart people out there. Innovative people. If we spent more time encouraging them and less time moaning about how nothing could be done, the solutions would be there. Why the hell do people believe that somehow we can't keep innovating?
It makes one wonder, doesn't it why, China is consuming such vast amounts of coal itself.
So the thrust of your argument, Orfeo, is that the pessimistic "End of the World" position of the Extinction Rebels is way over the top, that the means of salvation already exist in renewable energy technology, and that human ingenuity is capable of filling the gaps.
What you say, orfeo, is at the root of my scepticism. Politicians of all kinds consider that their survival in power rests heavily on their ability to increase consumption. The problem is getting to the point where it is advantageous for them to pursue a green agenda before it is too late.
While I agree that social movements require leaders to persuasively articulate the message, success also depends on there being a public longing to hear the appeal, ripe for mobilisation. In this case the fear is that the tipping point for "saving the planet" has already passed.
Sure, that's why I never bother checking if the road is clear before I cross.
ISTM that those two things motivate each other (chicken/egg). You’re probably right that the tipping point has/will pass and we’re on damage limitation now, but that’s all the more reason to pull our fingers out and actually do something. It’s sad that the OP’er felt alienated in the service, but the two things that are most pertinent from my point of view are that we need to drop this idea that sin is an individualistic thing and not a corporate thing, (if we realised this then maybe we wouldn’t have screwed up society and the planet so much); and also that if we’re actually going to save this planet, then some feathers are going to be ruffled. If feeling a bit uncomfortable at church is part of that, then so be it.
The Greens pissed me off a long time ago, but I am fairly long on the five Rs anyway - mainly because owt else is a waste o'brass!