Climate Change and the Symbol Deficit in the Christian Tradition

Expanding Gendered Sources

Jan-Olav Henriksen

• Editorial: T&T Clark
• Año: 2022
• ISBN:
  9780567705006
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Theology & Religion
• Categoría: Theology

Exploring how the climate crisis discloses the symbol deficit in the Christian tradition, this book argues that Christianity is rich in symbols that identify and address the failures of humans and the obstacles that prevent humans from doing well, while positive symbols that can engage people in constructive action seem underdeveloped. Henriksen examines the potential of the Christian tradition to develop symbols that can engage peoples in committed and sustained action to prevent further crisis. To do so, he argues that we need symbols that engage both intellectually and emotionally, and which enhance our perception of belonging in relationships with other humans, be it both in the present and in the future. According to Henriksen, the deficit can only be obliterated if we can develop symbols that have some root or resonance in the Christian tradition, provide concrete and specified guidance of agency, engage people both emotionally and intellectually, and finally open up to visions for a moral agency that provide positive motivations for caring about environmental conditions as a whole.

Part I

Contexts for the symbol deficit

This part aims to identify features that constitute, contribute to and testify to the deficit of symbols that a theological response to climate change needs to have in mind. The point is not to develop a complete picture of all relevant elements but to gesture towards a selection of features that can help interpret why this deficit exists and the challenges we need to be aware of when trying to overcome it.

Firstly, it addresses the radical change of the conditions for human agency in the Anthropocene before addressing the challenge against theology from Lynn White Jr – a challenge that will provide an important backdrop for a more careful and empirically based consideration later on. As a counterexample to White, who blames (versions of) Western religion, the work of Adorno and Horkheimer seems to suggest another version of the root causes of ecological problems, situated in modernity’s approach to nature, and with no reference to religion. Their contribution is significant because they also consider gendered aspects to some extent.

Moving on from genealogical approaches, a sketch of elements in Western consumerism provides an experiential backdrop that also displays the predicaments of the contemporary situation. The understanding of this context is then expanded with an analysis of an empirical contribution of religious responses to and denials of climate change. These denialists then cause us to consider more in detail the symbol deficit insofar as it represents doctrinal challenges and important lessons to consider from the point of view of context. Together, these chapters constitute a contextual horizon and contain elements to which I will point in the latter parts of the book, as well.

Chapter 1

From acts of God to the Anthropocene

Acts of God: events in nature outside human prediction and control. The notion signalizes a division of labour or differences regarding imagined agency. Acts of God are different from and need to be assessed in another way than acts performed by humans. The acts of God suggest a hiatus between nature and history, between that which passively befalls humans and that of which humans are the cause. Hence, the very notion suggests a way of considering the world that can ease the burden of human responsibility: as long as we can speak of ‘acts of God’ in nature, we are not responsible. Pious as it sounds, this notion has severe consequences nevertheless, if we employ it in the present global situation:

The notion ‘act of God’ separates nature and history, divine and human agency, control and contingency, responsibility, and lack of culpability. Although sounding like a theological or religious term, it is used predominantly in a legal context. There, an act of God is defined as ‘a natural catastrophe which no one can prevent such as an earthquake, a tidal wave, a volcanic eruption, a hurricane or a tornado. An act of God is generally considered an act attributable to nature without human interference’.¹ Such acts have legal significance because ‘acts of God’ provide a legal excuse for delay or failure to fulfil an obligation. But sometimes it is not clear who is responsible, or if anyone is responsible at all. In a legal context, disputes arise ‘as to whether a violent storm or other disaster was an act of God (and therefore exempt from a claim) or a foreseeable natural event’.² Hurricanes Katrina (2005) and Sandy (2012) were examples that point to the interaction of human agency (or failure of it) and natural causes, thereby also making it less evident if these events were acts of God.³

The neat separations suggested by the notion of ‘act of God’ do not work any longer, and the notion itself appears obsolete. In light of the systemic and interrelated changes in the eco-systems that are presently most apparent in climate change, it is, to speak with Sallie McFague,

elitist and self-indulgent to dwell on natural evil as if it were, as the insurance writers put it, ‘an act of God,’ perpetrated by natural (or supernatural) forces outside our control, when systemic evils of massive proportions, which daily destroy huge numbers of human bodies as well as other bodies, lie within our power – the power of the privileged – to alleviate.⁴

I will return to the potential wisdom in speaking about ‘acts of God’ later. Prior to that, however, we need to acknowledge that the planetary situation that once made it possible to operate with the distinctions suggested earlier no longer exists. We have moved from acts of God to the Anthropocene.

The notion of Anthropocene is relatively new, first presented by Paul Crutzen in 2000.⁵ He points to the geologic-scale changes humans have caused, such as how their activity has transformed between a third and a half of the planet’s land surface. Moreover, most of the world’s major rivers have been dammed or diverted, and fisheries removed more than a third of the primary production of the ocean’s coastal waters. Moreover, humans use more than half of the world’s readily accessible freshwater runoff.⁶ Although scientists discuss the dating of this epoch, it is not controversial to assert that ‘humans are not passive observers of Earth’s functioning: To a large extent the future of the only place where life is known to exist is being determined by the actions of humans’.⁷

However, in their considerations on the Anthropocene, Lewis and Maslin suggest that ‘the power that humans wield is unlike any other force of nature because it is reflexive and therefore can be used, withdrawn or modified’.⁸ Thus, they point to the human potential to act responsibly, which is a feature that will underly most of the considerations in this book. Moreover, the far-reaching changes that human actions cause to ‘the life-supporting infrastructure of Earth . . . may well have increasing philosophical, social, economic and political implications over the coming decades’, they argue.⁹ This comprehensive understanding of different perspectives and implications must be kept in mind as an essential backdrop for the following analyses in this book, as it entails that one cannot single out one element or factor as more significant than others. The Anthropocene is characterized by the fact that ‘the human imprint on the global environment has now become so large and active that it rivals some of the great forces of Nature in its impact on the functioning of the Earth system’.¹⁰ Hence, speaking of the Anthropocene points to human power over the fate of the planet. However, we cannot fully control or hamper the developments, control the consequences of our actions or foresee in detail all that will happen.

Accordingly, to speak of the Anthropocene as a new epoch in world history (or the history of nature) in which human activities impact all of nature is not sufficient to grasp the severity of what is at stake here: The Anthropocene is not a neutral term, as it points to the catastrophic effects and consequences that human action has on the biosphere, climate and species and to the deterioration of essential elements like water, air and soil, to name just a few. Accordingly, we should not back away from describing the present era as catastrophic: we are not only facing particular problems or challenges but a tremendous change in living conditions for all living beings on this planet. This change has devastating consequences both in the short term and in the long term. Philosopher Arne Johan Vetlesen does not hesitate to label this as Catastrophism, because this notion ‘captures the first thing to say about it, never to be lost from sight. It is, fundamentally, an unprecedented geological event, one lacking not only in predecessors but in valid comparisons and analogues as well, leaving us at a loss as to where to turn for lessons about how to understand it and – somehow – cope with it’.¹¹ Vetlesen further points to how the Earth System that is the new object of the Anthropocene has ontological significance because nature ‘as impacted and altered, as unpredictably and erratically changing owing to our practices’ thereby is also ‘profoundly impacting and altering us, human society, in a dialectic intertwinement of unprecedented vehemence’.¹²

Like Vetlesen, I want to point to the importance of practice for facing the situation – we cannot make it merely a matter of understanding. However, a change in understanding is also needed. However, whereas Vetlesen turns to a secular version of panpsychism, I want to investigate how there are, in fact, potential elements in the Christian tradition that can mediate action and practices that allow us to face the situation given with the Anthropocene. Of course, we cannot accomplish this unless we acknowledge that this tradition contains elements that are controversial at best and have had some devastating ecological consequences at worst.¹³ Hence, a reappropriation that leads to the development of practice-mediating symbols needs careful consideration of potential symbols and experiences with the environment.¹⁴ Such development needs to take into account insights and critical lessons learned about the separation of humans from nature, and the realization about how there are other agents in nature than humans, who exist in their own right and whose interests we need to acknowledge for their own sake, and not only for the sake of our own survival. The fundamental tenet here is to understand humans as part of – and therefore participating in – the web of nature – with our capacity for making history. We do not exist separate from nature, but history and nature are weaved together in the totality that theology calls creation.¹⁵

We cannot speak about creation without reference to God. However, it is not possible to think of God as an ‘interventionist’ – which is the image suggested when one speaks of ‘acts of God’ in contrast to human action. The main thing about thinking of God as a creator is not in terms of identifiable, otherwise inexplicable acts, but in terms of continually creating new chances for flourishing, love, care, compassion, interaction, relationality and diversity. Thus, God’s main act is one of gifting. This is the only wisdom when we speak of ‘acts of God’ – it means that God, as the creator, provides the planet with the conditions for flourishing life in all its various forms.¹⁶

Moreover, to speak of God as creator entails speaking of interdependence between creator and creation. God is dependent on humans for the full realization of the qualities just mentioned, just as much as humans are dependent on God’s continuous gifting activity as a creator when it comes to the possibility of realizing them.¹⁷ To be dependent on God as creator cannot be separated from being dependent on creation. The interrelation this dependency suggests prevents us from thinking about God, nature and humans as separate from each other: nature and humanity co-exist as creation within the divine source that enables them to be and become.¹⁸

Thus, theological imaginaries that aim at dealing with the Anthropocene situation will need to counter the notion of separate ‘acts of God’ that are set apart from our responsibilities. The optic that this notion entails about the world cannot articulate the problems at hand, and it also rests on an understanding of the world which – at least in part – may be seen as reflecting the causes for the present situation. History and nature are bound together, and humans cannot suspend their responsibilities for the present situation by employing conceptual distinctions that separate realms that are connected at the deepest level: it is the evolution of nature that is the root of our capacity for agency and to pretend otherwise is not helpful.

These short lines of reflection also suggest that we cannot place any...

Índice

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Series
• Dedication
• Title
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction: The deficit thesis and the task it presents
• Part I Contexts for the Symbol Deficit
• Part II Conditions for Symbolic Practices
• Part III Symbols For Practices
• Bibliography
• Names Index
• Subjects Index
• Copyright