We seek renewed reverence for the biosphere as
the ultimate context for human existence....
We seek renewed reverence for the biosphere as
the ultimate context for human existence....
|
Home |
Eco-Religion:Remaking Man in Earth's Imageby Dave Workman with a Response by Harold WoodEditor's note: Pantheism is no longer being ignored by the Christian fundamentalist religious right. Member Walter Stewards sent us this article from the Chico Enterprise-Record, July 31, 1993. While Workman , minister of the "Grace Community Church", undoubtedly conceived this article as an attack on Pantheism, many of our members will perhaps actually find most of his fears to be our fondest hopes! A response by Pantheist Vision editor Harold Wood follows Workman's article.
As G.K. Chesterton once pointed out, "When a man ceases to believe in God, he does
not believe in nothing, he believes in anything." This has certainly been proven true
once again as we watch the Great Awakening of the environmental movement continue to gain
influence and strength across our land. And while many of the issues this movement has brought to the public's attention about
safeguarding our environment are vital and long overdue, one must look beneath the surface
of the frenzy of activity to ask which drum are they asking us to march to and where is it
leading? During the Enlightenment (1700's) it was Secular Humanism, not Christianity, that
turned the Protestant work ethic into a spiritually empty caricature of itself and allowed
it to quickly degenerate into mere workaholic mania. In that setting accountability to God
was replaced with raw pragmatism which said all purposes were equally valid, and all
methods equally valid ways to achieve them. As new technologies were developed, our powers
of dominion over our world increased exponentially. And guided by our new pragmatic
freedom, mankind embarked on the systematic rape of nature with a clear conscience. Now, looking back over time at man's departure from the eco-stewardship to which God
called us, we can see that our eco-abuse has taken its toll. Not only did man reap a crop
of plenty for the present, but he also sowed a crop of trouble for the future. And the
future has arrived! Today, our legacy of environmental exploitation should concern us all, But in response
to the accusations of radical environmentalists, many Christians -- believing that their
religion is responsible for all the eco-crises-real and imagined that intrude on our
attention today and at the same time not understanding the religious basis of
environmentalism -- have unknowingly alloyed their Christian faith with the incompatible
beliefs of New Age pantheism. These folks have moved toward pantheism and a divinized view
of Nature without even recognizing that it represents a fundamental shift in their
religious beliefs. But many environmentalists recognize it, for that shift is exactly what
they have been laboring to produce. According to Jonathan Porritt, of Friends of the Earth, "The present threat to
mankind's survival can be removed only by a revolutionary change in individual human
beings. This change of heart must be inspired by religion in order to generate the will
power needed for putting arduous new ideals into practice." And even scientists who have historically been self-proclaimed atheists, such as
astrophysicist Carl Sagan, have joined in the call to spiritualize Nature. Sagan has
proclaimed, 'There is nothing in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition that approaches the
cherishing of nature as in the Hindu-Buddhist-Jain tradition." Environmental writer Andrew Dobson identifies a virtually deified Nature as the
religion of environmentalism today, when he said, "Spirituality ghosts Green
politics; Green politics is a filling of the spiritual vacuum at the center of
late-industrial society..." Make no mistake about it. Today in our society within the environmental arena there are
two radically different religious world-views contending against each other for the
control of men's minds. In one corner you have Christian Monotheism, the belief in one personal God Who as the
Creator has given man the stewardship of earth; in the other corner you have Eastern World
Pantheism which views Nature as a divine entity with rights equal or superior to man. As
this pantheistic eco-religion labors to remake man in earth's image we can already see it
flex its religious muscles in several normal ways: in its establishment of new holy days
(e.g. Earth Day); in its demand for new ritual performances (e.g. recycling, carpooling);
in its identification of new religious taboos (e.g. fur coats, aerosol sprays, fossil
fuels); and in its writing of new moral laws (Human dominion over Nature, once a religious
mandate, now becomes a religious crime.) Underlying all this is an eco-theology which believes that mankind achieves peace with
God by attaining peace with divinized Nature, that is, by assuming our appropriate status
as one equal element of nature among many. What should be our response? While we should be appreciative of the reminder this
movement has given us to be better stewards in safeguarding our world against human greed,
we should also be aware of the need to safeguard our own minds against replacing our
Father God with their Mother Nature and thus "exchange the truth of God for a lie,
and worship and serve created things rather than the Creator, Who is blessed
forever." (Romans 1:25) As this new world view attempts to re-write history, re-structure society, and
re-define human nature we might be tempted to evaluate its radical core ideology as an
unworkable fantasy, rather than a practical option for human life in the 21st century. But
unfortunately, I don't think that will prevent it from being attempted - much to the
sorrow of us all.
Pantheist Vision Editor Harold Wood's Response: I always find it amazing that critics of Pantheism from traditional Christianity can do
nothing more than quote the Bible for their reasoning against us! Scientific discovery has
revealed the Bible itself to be "an unworkable fantasy", not only from the
viewpoint of modern physical sciences like astronomy, geology, physics, and biology, but
also from the social sciences of archeology, anthropology, and psychology. Yes, the
"core ideology" of modern environmentalism is radical, in the sense of going
back to the roots, finding our values directly from Nature itself, rather than from mere
culture. But first, I take issue with Workman's characterization of Pantheism as "New Age'.
The New Age movement is associated not only with Shirley MacLaine, crystal and pyramid
power, spiritual "channneling", and entrepreneurial spiritual gurus with mammoth
fees, but with a forthright and frightening advocacy of the position that humans must now
take over the Earth's evolutionary processes. I would submit that all of these ideas are
foreign to modern Pantheism. When looking at Nature, Pantheists accept the concepts of "ecological
egalitarianism" (the equal "right" of all species to live and
flourish", and a fundamental humility which recognizes the profound human ignorance
of biospherical relationships. These ideas are the antithesis of the New Age idea that man
can perfect nature, that man should be some kind of godly engineer of planet Earth. Thus,
Pantheism shares an opposition to both New Age attitudes of human transcendence over all
other life forms as well opposition to the standard Christian belief in
"stewardship" of a planet that is basically "ours" to do with as we
think best. Pantheism asks us to look at ourselves on this planet from a galactic perspective, not
a mere anthropocentric one. For Pantheists, spiritual growth comes not from looking to the
past or to imaginary beings from outer space, but from developing an ever-widening circle
of Earth-focused ecological identity, recognizing the divinity within ourselves and the
ecosystems in which we live. Spiritual growth for Pantheists, in stark contrast to both
New Age philosophy and the Judeo-Christian heritage, doesn't look strictly within for
answers, but without . Way without -- not to the world of men but the world of life and
nature that was here before humans came on the scene. When we look to Nature for our help, rather than to mythology, we do not find easy
answers. We find the answers change over time as our understanding of nature changes. The
lack of easy answers may prevent Pantheism from ever becoming a large main-stream religion
too many people demand quick and easy answers to the difficult questions of life. But neither are Pantheists devoid of answers. We find living to be an adventure, as we
strive to get closer to our world. As we get closer to the natural world, the closer we
get to ourselves; the less we resent our little human failings and the greater our
individual self-esteem rises. Our self-esteem rises because we increase our appreciation
and wonder for our own natural endowments, and any feelings of personal awkwardness give
way to loving care for all of the fascinating features of the Universe. The Way of Knowledge is the first step in this spiritual adventure --- rejoicing in the
wonder of new life-forms constantly being discovered under our very feet; tracing the
water cycle on our planet; learning more about volcanoes and earthquakes and oceans and
atmospheres; studying the behavior of ants and baboons, of elephants and moths;
discovering the wonders of Jupiter and Venus and M31. When we focus on these things, we
are less likely to be caught up in our own failings and weaknesses. I also believe that if
more people could appreciate the wonder and beauty of our universe, crime and suffering
would decrease. The next step in Pantheist spiritual growth is the Way of Devotion, which can be done
in a myriad of ways, from bird watching to backpacking, from song and dance to art and
literature, from ritual celebrations to a simple walk in the woods. If one goes in quiet
to nature, one will be rewarded beyond your wildest dreams. Finally, the Way of Works allows for human expression of giving and making a
contribution which does not depend upon political opportunity or social change alone.
Rather than seeing "Works" as a political obligation to try to implement a
change of society to accept our world view, our works are more directly a result or
expression of our world-view. We care to see nature protected because we recognize its
divinity, but we don't have to ask everyone to recognize its divinity as we do. Despite
what Alexander Skutch states (see Pantheist Viewpoints in this issue), we don't
have to wait until everyone becomes environmentalists or pantheists before working for
environmental improvement. After all, the Earth doesn't care whether a tree is planted by
someone who does so out of an ethic of appreciation and love, or by someone who does so
because he can get a development permit only if he or she agrees to plant the tree. All
that is important from the planet's perspective is that the tree gets planted. Economic
incentives become pragmatic solutions to spiritual problems in this case. As Pantheists follow the Way of Works, we will try to get others to recognize that
non-human life forms have inherent value, but our efforts do not utterly depend on their
conversion. Our activism in defense of the Earth may be motivated by our world-view, but I
don't believe that requires us to proselytize our own religion. We don't have time to
persuade everyone. In fact the changes we need don't depend upon everyone becoming
Pantheist, unlike the Christians whose faith does seem to so depend. As for me, I will
promote Pantheism, yes, but I will work just as hard to fight for other species using
economic and social arguments -- yes, even anthropocentric arguments. But what motivates
me is a reverence for life, and I suspect that many others can be persuaded to protect our
planet from the same motivation more than from belief that we are all some kind of
temporary caretakers on Earth until God comes to blast it into pieces as the Book of
Revelations predicts. So, Rev. Workman, you can bet that I will indeed reject "Christian Monotheism, the
belief in one personal God Who as the Creator has given man the stewardship of
earth". I reject that idea as both a political view and as a world view. I don't
think man is steward of the earth any more than I believe man is the Captain, engineer, or
stevedore of what Buckminster Fuller called "Spaceship Earth." On the other
hand, as we re-sacralize the Earth, we will resurrect true divinity within human nature. Yes, Rev. Workman, I do indeed embrace instead "World Pantheism which views Nature as a divine entity with rights equal or superior to man." A stewardship approach to nature is filled with human hubris, it is as corrupt spiritually as what David Ehrenfeld called the "arrogance of humanism". I am not the steward of the Earth, I am a plain member and citizen of it. It was here before I was, in fact, it is my Mother, my Creator; it deserves not only my respect and admiration, but my reverence. I am a part of the Earth; the Earth is part of the Universe, and it all is divine. Humans can recognize and celebrate their divinity only by recognizing it as part of the divinity of the natural world as a whole. If we attempt to ascribe divinity upon ourselves and no others, that indeed is the true sin. The anthropocentric idea that God created the world for our exclusive benefit is doomed to die. |
Copyright is held by the indicated organization
and/ or author. All rights are reserved.
Best viewed at 800*600 High Color |
