Sunday 7/2/23

SERVICES & ACTIVITIES THIS WEEK:

• Saturday, July 1st, 5;30pm, NO VESPERS
• Sunday, July 2nd, 8:30am: Matins; 9:30am: Divine Liturgy followed by Coffee-Fellowship in the downstairs parish hall.

Global warming is an undeniable fact. How much of this warming is caused by greenhouse gases and/or the earth’s natural warming (and cooling) cycles is not fully known. There is no scientific consensus on this point. And yet, we are told that we must reduce our “carbon footprint” as much as possible to practice good environmental stewardship. Many take it a step further by elevating their environmental cause to a shrill moralism that demands stringent compliance. As Orthodox, we have our own unique approach to a more proper and effective environmentalism. Yet we stay away from the strident climate moralizing that has become so fashionable these days.

One reason for this is because “moralisms” of every stripe and type just don’t work. About this I will soon speak. Another reason we refuse to moralize about this issue is because anyone who knows even just a lick of history knows that it was “science” that put us in our present climate predicament in the first place. It was science that, 300 years previously, went on to lay the foundation for the “human conquest of nature”.

Thus began the great industrial revolution in 18th century England, and which spread across the globe in only a few generations. The assumption, back then, was that science and industry would free human beings from their slavery to religion, ignorance, and soil-scratching poverty. So here we are now at the beginning of the 21st century, thanks to scientific progress, with our world teetering on the verge of apocalyptic disaster. The genie has burst out of the bottle, and not only is it impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, but the genie itself has turned out to be less than docile. To say the least.

So my point, for the reason listed above, is that the moral voice of climate-science is moot, kind of like members of congress speaking on the immorality of insider trading. They can’t, for obvious reasons. They would be laughed out of office. (Maybe they should?) Or like Roman Catholic bishops speaking out against the horror of pederasty. Who in their right mind would take them seriously? And yet, we continue to be harangued on all sides about the morality of environmentalism from the same institution which is responsible for the fact that the forests are burning and that the oceans are warming.

This brings us to the problem of moralism, as I just mentioned. And here I must be clear about the difference between what is a positive and necessary “morality” (such as the divine virtues embodied in the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount), and a negative, critical “moralism” which is any “standard of behavior” that is an end in itself. Christians, for example, who fall into pharisaic moralism are those who see their faith as a path of moral improvement whereby they are able to stratify themselves as being ethical (holy) and others as being their opposite, unethical (sinful). Their only way of achieving righteousness is by comparing themselves to the unrighteousness of sinners. That is, their own (perceived) goodness feeds off of the blood of those whom they deem as evil. Instead of looking to God as the only righteous one, they start with themselves and work downward. This dead-end, legalistic moralism can be best seen in the distinct type of American Puritanism that was so revolting to 2nd generation Puritans such as Nathanel Hawthorne (“The Scarlet Letter”) and Henry David Thoreau (Walden). These 18th century offspring of the New England Puritans saw just how hypocritical their forebears’ religion was, and they opted out.

To be continued….