The Legacy of an Eco-Prophet: Remembering Thomas Berry

Cesar's first paragraph says it when he talks about, in less than complimentary fashion, those of us who believe that we are not of this world, that mankind has an exalted place in Creation, etc. But for what it's worth, I do agree with some of Berry's cited comments.
I agree with Celtic Christianity about Nature as our other Book along with the Bible.
And that earth has a privileged spot in Creation. It's the extremes to which some of these ideas are taken that I disagree with, primarily.

What global warming? My house was so cold last night that I needed a blanket!

s/Marie The Republican

Jesus commanded us to love the Lord our God - how can we do that without loving and properly caring for and protecting (cf Gen 2:15) his creation? I never personally knew Leonardo (!), but I would be disgusted if someone were to deface the Mona Lisa, as I think would most of us be. If we care that much about a work of human hands, how much more should we care when our own heavenly Father's creation is being desecrated, primarily as a result of the greed of our "civilisation"

He also commanded us to love our neighbour as ourself. That includes those in my grandchildrens' generation who will become environmental refugees if GHG emissions are not radically cut. It includes all those people who will be at greater threat from severe weather events. It includes people impacted by climate change already - like the Inuit hunters who can no longer support themselves because of the retreat of sea ice, or the people of the Carteret islands who have had to leave their homes because the sea level rise is filling their soil with salt so most of their crops won't grow any longer.

For myself, I would have no peace with God if I knew I was refusing to repent of the sins which are bringing this disaster upon the world. I wouldn't be able to pray. Maybe you are only able to through a practice of denial of reality, which is a shame, because Jesus enables us to face reality, however horrible or fearful it may be.

Another, yes, I'm well aware of other systems of interpretation of Revelation. Even some of my friends disagree with my own understandings. We don't break fellowship based on eschatology. Nonetheless, I feel that my own system of interpretation is a valid
one, and ties together more elements, including diverse biblical passages as well as what I see happening in the world.

Cesar's first paragraph says it when he talks about, in less than complimentary fashion, those of us who believe that we are not of this world, that mankind has an exalted place in Creation, etc. But for what it's worth, I do agree with some of Berry's cited comments.
I agree with Celtic Christianity about Nature as our other Book along with the Bible.
And that earth has a privileged spot in Creation. It's the extremes to which some of these ideas are taken that I disagree with, primarily.

Well, it's that too. It lends itself to many interpretations. That's why I have a difficult time with rigid understandings that only see it one way.

In fact, my take on Revelation interpretations is that my trust in a particular interpretation is inversely proportional to the confidence with which it is set forth.

But yes, if you take the consonants NRKSR, which is how one would spell "Nero Caesar" in Hebrew (which is written without vowels), the numerical equivalents of the Hebrew letters do indeed add up to 666.

D

Hi--chilling quotation. I don't really know where to begin with that, but it has been something I've bounced around before. It leads to questions like can the secular world advance the Kingdom of God as Jesus portrays? I tend to think it can--isn't it an artificial division we have set up between secular and sacred? Is there really such a thing as secular? Sometimes it is very difficult to see the difference between the two, between Christians acting like non-Christians and non-Christians acting like Christians.

Anyway--I did respond to Carl. thanks for the invite! See you over there!

Cheers

The beast was Nero? But I like Neuronurse! Oh, waitaminute...

I wonder if any beast is an actual person or an allegory. Spirit of the Anti-Christ may not actually be a person, but the spirit of the age.

Squeaky's a geologist, Alizam.

The Beast was Nero; that's true. I do hold out the possibility that a future Beast, emulating Nero but more powerful and more fearful, will arise just before the end of history. Many interpreters view the Apocalypse just this way.

And of course, there have been many Beasts throughout the almost two millenia between Nero and the present. The words of the Seer of Patmos apply equally to all of them.

None of that negates my belief that, in the end, God will never allow any "one world government" to arise and flourish. The Tower of Babel is the model for what God does to all human attempts to usurp his position.

Alizam -

Since you've rejoined the discussion, I do have a question for you. What would it take to convince you? Given that years of record high temperatures, devastating heat waves, rising sea levels that have already begun to submerge coastal habitats, rapidly receding glaciers throughout the world, and an ongoing litany of related ecological disasters haven't done the trick, nor has the astonishingly near-unanimous agreement among climate scientists that these are caused by human activity, what would convince you that global warming is real?

If you can't come up with an answer, I'll have to assume that you've simply made up your mind and there is no possibility that it will ever change.

BTW, many well-read, conservative Bible scholars will tell you that all the prophecies in the Book of Revelation, short of the actual appearance of the new Jerusalem, were fulfilled by the end of the 1st century. The Beast was Nero. I am open to the possibility that I/they may be wrong about this, though.

"How thoroughly have you personally investigated this? Or are you merely going along with the herd?"

I guess I'd have to ask the same of you.

There are several of us, but perhaps you haven't read our posts very carefully. Read Meurig's posts, for example.

I suspect that as long as you consider all scientists as "secular atheists" no amount of evidence will satisfy you. It's far too easy to dismiss what we might have to say if you think we are all atheists, as if God didn't give atheists the ability to understand His creation. I doubt you denigrate advances in medicine, even though much of those life-saving advances were discovered and made by so-called "secular atheists". Funny how we pick and choose that which is convenient.

Do you think the warnings in the Bible only apply to those who read the Bible? You don't think it is possible for so-called secular atheists to see armageddon coming? Don't the warnings apply to them as well? Won't armageddon affect them as well? Was Balaam's donkey a Christian? What happens to this world happens to all of us, and one isn't required to be a Christian to see it. The sun and rain fall on the wicked and the unjustified.

Alternatively, what if a significant number of scientists who study climate change are Christians? Would you believe it then? I'm not saying they are--I don't know, but then again, neither do you. Science isn't anti-God. How can a discipline that sheds light on His creation be anti-God? If you think it is, you give far too much weight to those scientists who do happen to be atheists. Why do you allow them to hijack God's creation?

And again, my other question was not rhetorical--what would your reaction be if I came to your work and told you how to do your job or what you were doing wrong, even though I likely know little to nothing about your job?

I'm pretty amazed that you have no questions. For one who seems to know very little about science or the science behind climate change, that is a shocking stance indeed. Why don't you have any questions? How can you think you know it all without taking the time to learn?

I'm not against conservation. Things that hurt the land are wrong and unwise and against God's mandate to be stewards, but the idea that global warming is going to destroy the earth is a farce. Al Gore won't debate it under the pretense that "we've ran out of time" because he knows the science just doesn't stack up. There are plenty of scientists who don't believe in the evidence and can show plenty of counter evidence, but no one will let them have a public platform.

"For myself, I would have no peace with God if I knew I was refusing to repent of the sins which are bringing this disaster upon the world. I wouldn't be able to pray. Maybe you are only able to through a practice of denial of reality, which is a shame, because Jesus enables us to face reality, however horrible or fearful it may be."

I have peace with God because I know that I am not bringing this "disaster," that has been created in order to justify more government control. As far as denial of reality goes, I would rather deny a "reality" built on false science than the reality of the lost state of those without Christ.

Do yourself a favor and look up all the scientists who deny global warming and then look at how they have been ostracized for daring to speak up.

Amen to all of this. Squeaky, you should respond to Carl's invitation above. We'd love to have you on board.

I guess part of the heat, at least for me, results when those who question climate change (and it is valid to be skeptical--I welcome questions) know little or nothing about the subject. If one knows so little about a topic, how can one have such strong opinions about it? And what is confounding to me, as a scientist, is that many non-scientists will talk about climate change as if they are experts at it, rather than doing what I would think is the more honest thing to do---ASK QUESTIONS. Why aren't you asking rather than telling, when it is clear you don't know much about this topic? When there are several scientists posting on this thread, why don't you ask questions instead of telling us about our jobs? If I came to your workplace and told you that you didn't know how to do your job, even though I know nothing about your job, what would you say? That isn't a rhetorical question--I really am hoping you will show me that you have thought about that point.

As for Revelation prophecy and Bible literalism, it occurred to me over the weekend that it is somewhat ironic that more Christians who would consider themselves Fundamentalist or who take a Literal view of Scripture, haven't eagerly accepted Climate Change. Let me explain.

I caught a snippet of a Discovery Channel "what does our future hold" kind of show. The Earth's carrying capacity, if climate change is real, could drop to 2 billion. 2 billion. We currently have a population of about 6 billion and are expected to rise to 9 billion by mid-century. 9 billion vs. 2 billion. What happens when the Earth's resources can't meet the needs of the human population?

War.

Conquest.

Famine (and disease).

Death.

AKA the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

Environmental degradation could very well bring those four horsemen upon us, and climate change just might be the agent.

Some would say this is inevitable because it is a Biblical prophecy. However, I've read plenty of Biblical Scholars who read prophecy, both that uttered by Jesus, and apocalyptic prophecy not as predictions of future events, but warnings. Warnings such as "don't run with scissors." Warnings that state, "if you continue along the path you are following now, this WILL happen to you." Warnings that give us a chance to avoid that certain future if we know enough and learn enough to turn aside from the path of destruction and start living in God's Kingdom.

Is it inevitable? Yes, if we continue on the path we are on. Is it avoidable? Yes, if we start living in the Kingdom of God, which is here right now. Kingdom of God living means valuing others more than ourselves, which moves us away from the "the global-industrial-consumerist economy" (to coin a phrase from Don).

In light of that, then, is it still un-Bibiical to believe Climate Change is happening?

The idea of a future one world government under a putative Antichrist is, according to my understanding of Scripture, an invalid interpretation. Yes indeed, we do interpret the Scriptures differently. God will deal with any such attempt to create a one world government in the same way he dealt with the original Tower of Babel. (See my comments about the global-industrial-consumerist economy, which follows the same Tower of Babel model and which is now under the same kind of divine judgment.) Antichrist involves false teachers within the church, not would-be world despots.

Caring for creation must involve both government and individual efforts. As I wrote earlier, I think the best efforts to date involve bottom-up work from concerned citizens, but once government begins to feel the heat, they'll see the light and pave the way for more solutions. I don't see government as the enemy, though governments are inertia-bound and often unable to act. But look at all the things you take advantage of that are part of government, such as highways, bridges, clean water and sewage treatment, public health, etc. Government is not the enemy, and I'm not worried about one world governments or conspiracy theories.

And regarding that last sentence of César's first paragraph, how does that make fun of people who believe in heaven? Rather, he questions the assumptions of those whose belief in heaven has given them an excuse to do nothing, and especially to make fun of those who think we should be doing something.

Finally, if you didn't want to be involved in a "heated" debate with others with whom you obviously disagree, why then did you post here in the first place?

Peace,

Another -- No, that doesn't make you a follower of the Antichrist, who hasn't come yet. But this type of thinking is exactly what will lead us to a one-world government.

So, no, I'm not going to apologize any further. And I'm also not going to post anything further on this topic,which has gone on for far too long. These blogs generate more heat than light, anyway.

You folks take care of the earth in your way; I'll do it in mine. Mine doesn't involve the government, however.

I do apologise. I did not realise that I was talking to a world expert who knows far better than the world's climatologists what is going on in the world's climate.

Of course, I have to acknowledge that because you have the truth on this you don't need to publish the evidence for your position, you don't need to open it up for scrutiny in peer-reviewed journals, and you don't need to debate with the climatologists, only moan about not being able to debate with one politician. And you don't need to bother yourself with little things like evidence of glacier retreat or mean temperature rise or sea level rise or increased incidence of severe weather events. Because you have the truth, so whatever anyone else says they must be wrong.

Have I got that right, jpost?

No, I think I got it right first time when I accused you of denying reality. You provide no evidence that you are doing otherwise. Just a bit of nonsense about "more government control" - why, I ask you, would the world's leading climate scientists have decided to conspire together to achieve that? Oh, and you think there are "plenty of scientists" who deny the current scientific consensus. Well I'll let you try to answer Anothernonymous on that one - maybe you'll do the research and learn something in the process.

Ah yes, good point. Indeed our task is to minister the Good News to all peoples and tribes to the ends of the Earth. And that should and can come hand-in-hand with our ministry of peace and healing to the Earth. Just as Jeremiah and Ezekiel warned of impending doom, so I believe, there is still room for modern prophets to exort humanity to repent of behaviors that separate humanity from God. There is a bottom line to our work here on this Earth and it is the soil upon which we must stand to deliver our message.

You have "proven" nothing. You have merely given a list of names - most of them working in fields that are nothing to do with climatology.

Mainstream climatologists had the debate long ago, in the scientific journals - a medium which permits much more detailed and seriously truthful cross-examination than any public platform. Testing your theory against reality and the inspection of your peers is a much more rigorous business than debating it in front of a mostly ignorant public.

Most scientists don't much enjoy public exposure - they prefer to do science - so they have left the public debate to the likes of Al Gore and George Monbiot. I think that is a mistake, but it is a perfectly understandable one, and certainly not evidence that they are hiding anything.

Now, we do know that the direction of scientific research can be distorted by powerful interests. It was, for example, done by the tobacco companies, and by the asbestos industry, and by the makers of tetraethyl-lead, for example. I can point to a number of large companies in whose interests it is to deny global warming. (No doubt most of the scientists you listed are directly or indirectly funded by one of these companies.) Can you point to any powerful organisation that would have a similar vested interest in making us believe in global warming? Few governments are managing to come close to the sort of targets they need to hit in order to keep the crisis from spinning out of control - no politician wants to have to tell his or her people that they need to consume less. They get elected on the basis of the mirage of endless increases in material wealth, not on the basis of policies of restraint.

Re the appropriateness of scientists entering into debate, here is a comment from a professional climatologist on the subject:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2...

"Global Warming is a false religion with its own sins, "prophets", and apocalypse."

One could say exactly the same thing about global warming denial.

The basis for climate change is the accumulated evidence, not religious faith. Do yourself a favor and read the scientific data that lays out the evidence.

César:

Thank you for the information about Father Berry. I was unfamiliar with his name and his work before reading this post. I must now look him up and put him on my reading list.

May he rest in God's peace.