Reflecting
on forty years of preaching, I realized that the content of my sermons has
changed in several ways. One of the most important changes is that I talk less
about experiencing the divine presence in and through nature and more about human
responsibility for the natural world. Four theses influenced my homiletical
shift.
First,
God created the world and thought it good. This thesis is basic Christian
theology. Yet, too often Christians (like me) have only paid it lip service. Scripture,
tradition, and reason agree that any creation of a good God would possess an inherent
goodness and value. Consequently, all nature—whether alive or not—is both good
and valuable.
This thesis
complements my prior homiletic emphasis on natural revelation. Emphasizing
natural revelation does not preclude highlighting nature's goodness and value,
but my earlier thinking, preaching, and teaching seldom explicitly addressed
those ideas. Instead, I tended to speak of the earth and cosmos as a means of
revelation (that is, an instrumental good) ignoring that they also possessed an
inherent goodness in their own right.
Second and
a corollary of my first thesis, when God delegated dominion over nature to
humans, God appointed humans as God's stewards. God thereby entrusted us to act
on God's behalf in caring for and preserving nature. I consciously reject the
notion that this delegation of authority justifies the unlimited exploitation,
perhaps even destruction, of nature. Polluting rivers so badly that they burn (an
obviously unnatural condition that happened with the Cuyahoga River more than a
dozen times since 1868), air to become so foul that it causes severe respiratory
problems for creatures (including humans) whose very life depends upon
breathing, and extirpating species at an unprecedented rate is both sinful and indisputably
bad stewardship. Even as a youth, while cherishing Maine's scenic beauty that
surrounded my home I keenly felt the irony of living less than half a mile from
one of the nation's ten most polluted rivers.
The prevalent
first century Palestinian concept of stewardship, the concept of stewardship
that Jesus presumably had in mind when he talked about stewards and stewardship,
presumed that a steward had a right to draw a living from the assets that the
owner had entrusted to the steward's care. In other words, good stewardship is
prima facie compatible with the general principle of using nature to sustain
and to enrich human life. However, this prerogative does not mean that humans
have an unfettered, unlimited, unilateral claim to the earth and all that dwell
thereon. A good steward cares for and preserves the assets the owner has
entrusted to the steward.
The
greater the analytical granularity, the less certain are our moral judgments about
what good stewardship requires, permits, and prohibits. For example, Christians
divide over whether good stewardship of God's valued creation enjoins, allows,
or bans humans from eating animal flesh. Instead of wasting time and energy
attempting to transform religious resources into pseudo-scientific sources, or
to seek uniformity in the midst of ambiguity and uncertainty, Christian
communities can more profitably anticipate, encourage, and benefit from discussions
of diverse opinions about the specifics of stewardship.
Third,
the biblical concept of stewardship presumes a covenantal relationship between
God and humans. In that covenant, God both delegates responsibility for
stewardship of the earth to humans and commits to joining with humans in caring
for and preserving nature. I am hopefully optimistic about the earth's future primarily
because of God's involvement and secondarily because I think that humans will
eventually fulfill their stewardship responsibilities with the requisite
wisdom, commitment, and perseverance. Incidentally, covenant engagement with
God as earth's stewards constitutes an initial step toward reclaiming an
essential ethical principle that the Church too often has marginalized by
equating stewardship with giving God gifts of treasure (and sometimes time and
talent) in the annual pledge campaign.
Richard
Niebuhr's succinct summary of the purpose of the Church and its ministry (to
promote the love of God and neighbor) has shaped my ministry. Connecting the purpose
of the Church and its ministry to the principle of stewardship begins to
identify loving God and neighbor with practical steps. Good stewards of the
resources entrusted to their care (time, talent, treasure, and the earth
itself) seek to promote the love of God and neighbor in the most efficient and
effective ways possible. Efficient
denotes using the fewest resources to achieve a specific goal; effective denotes achieving the goals likely
to produce the greatest gains. The criteria of efficiency and effectiveness are
one of way using human reason, in light of scripture and tradition, to discern
God's calling. These criteria advantageously offer more practical, and
potentially more reliable, heuristics for discerning God's will than do alternatives
such as taking the first opportunity that presents itself, doing what feels
right or appears appealing, etc. Efforts count, but so do results.
Finally,
I consciously situate this stewardship ethic within the context of ecological
science, because science is the only reliable lens for understanding earth's
condition and the dynamics that affect it. Unlike religion, science proceeds by
articulating a theory, testing the theory's reliability and validity, and then
revising the theory as appropriate. For example, science alone provides the
best prognostication about the amount of water that humans can annually draw
from an aquifer without depleting it. Astrology, crystal balls, and prayer are
no help in answering such questions. The Bible, ethics, and theology are completely
silent on these topics. Instead, religious and spiritual resources, unlike
science, point to the mysterious author of existence (the Creator God), offer
value judgments (nature is good), and call/motivate people to be good stewards
of this earth, "our fragile island home."
Indeed, ecology's
capacity to illuminate potentially efficient and effective ways in which human
stewards can best fulfill their covenantal responsibility to care for and
preserve the earth is a vital dialectical intersection between science and
religion. More broadly, the rapidly accumulating scientific evidence about the earth's
deteriorating condition and diminishing capacity to support life underscores
the urgency of this dialogue. Additionally, Christian scientists and activists
concerned about earth's well-being have repeatedly told me that our political
leaders not only welcome, but particularly listen, when people of faith speak
out about ways in which we can better care for and preserve the earth.
Thus, I
now intentionally and consistently strive to weave these four themes into my ministry:
(1) God created and values all
nature;
(2) God appointed us stewards of the
earth and all that dwell thereon;
(3) God assists us in fulfilling that
stewardship;
(4) Ecological science identifies
ways in which we can be good stewards by most efficiently and effectively
caring for and preserving the earth.
These themes have opened the windows of familiar
scripture texts in fresh ways, allowing God's light to shine with unexpected
intensity and clarity.
No comments:
Post a Comment