![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Abstract
This article presents the potential of the Orthodox tradition to contribute to the contemporary conversation about how Christianity might respond to the environmental crisis. It especially examines the prominent ecological vision of the ‘green’ Patriarch Bartholomew I, supplementing it with the arguments of other Orthodox authors. It argues that Orthodox theological contributions to the ecological debate stress four different dimensions, evident not only in Bartholomew's writings and speeches, but also characterising most other Orthodox writings on this topic. While they initially seem to focus primarily on the importance of concrete ethical action (1), they also include more explicit theological reflections. Ethical action, for Orthodox thinking, flows out of (2) an ascetic attitude to the world. Such an attitude itself is grounded in a (3) eucharistic and thus ultimately a (4) liturgical ethos. Thus, Orthodox contributions to the current debate go beyond ‘environmental ethics’ to a fully fledged theological response.
Notes
1The most detailed of these is an edition of Epiphany Journal which focused entirely on Eastern Orthodox thought on the environment under the title ‘For the Transfiguration of Nature’, based on a symposium under the same title. Another sample is a collection on Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation, edited by Gennadios Limouris, conceived and published under the auspices of the World Council of Churches (WCC). The most important single authors are probably John Chryssavgis who focuses primarily upon icons (Beyond the Shattered Image), Paulos Gregorios who elaborates on humans' special task in creation (The Human Presence), and most recently Elizabeth Theokritoff who summarises various aspects of Orthodox faith for ecological living (Living in God's Creation).
2John Chryssavgis has collected many of the Patriarch's addresses, toasts, interviews, and encyclicals (from 1991 to 2002) in one volume, published under the title Cosmic Grace and Humble Prayer. He claims in his introduction to the text that ‘ecology is very much at the centre of his thinking and his action; it constitutes the central place on the altar of his worship, on the desk of his writing, as well as on the agenda of his ministry’. Bartholomew I, Cosmic Grace, 22. In-text citations refer to this work, unless indicated otherwise.
3For further information about these symposia, see www.rsesymposia.org. Chryssavgis' collection of Patriarch Bartholomew's writings on the environment only includes addresses from the first two of these symposia, since most of them have taken place since publication of the work. In this article I utilise primarily the published writings.
4Thus his recent book Encountering the Mystery contains a chapter on the environment and there are also frequent references to ecological issues in his conversations with Olivier Clément (Conversations). See also the recent work edited by John Chryssavgis (In the World Yet Not of the World).
5This day was actually first established by Bartholomew's predecessor, Patriarch Demetrios, in 1989. Father Gerasimos composed liturgical texts for its celebration.
6‘It is precisely here that the fundamental role of religion is revealed. Religion can inspire the behavior of every individual; it also plays a strong role in influencing the thought and actions of groups and mass movements’ (198).
7See 243ff. for a more detailed explication that focuses specifically on the Black Sea.
8Harakas, ‘The Integrity of Creation: Ethical Issues’, in Limouris, Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation, 79.
9‘Orthodox Perspectives on Creation’, in Limouris, Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation, 6. Khalil also identifies ecological devastation as sin in ‘The Ecological Crisis’, 201.
10 Encountering the Mystery, 108. The chapter on ‘The Wonder of Creation’ includes a section on ‘Poverty and Inequality’ and on ‘Environment, Poverty, and Peace’ (108–15). Furthermore, the entire final chapter (by far the longest in the book) is concerned with issues of social justice.
11‘By justice we mean not only the legal correspondence of giving and receiving, of transgressions and consequences, of offering and reward, but the more inclusive virtue that lies beyond the narrow fulfilment of obligation. The liturgical and patristic tradition of the Church considers as just that person who is compassionate and gives freely, using love as his or her sole criterion. Justice extends even beyond one's fellow human beings to the entire creation. The burning of forests, the criminal exploitation of natural resources, the gap between the wealthy ‘north’ and the needy ‘south’, all of these constitute expressions of transgressing the virtue of justice’ (193–4; emphasis in original).
12Theokritoff, ‘Orthodoxy and the Environment’, 18–23.
13Vigen Guroian has suggested that an Orthodox ecological ethics can be informed by Orthodox theology, especially as it is expressed by rites of blessing (Guroian, ‘Ecological Ethics’, 160). He argues that those who condemn the Christian tradition for speaking only of the domination and exploitation of nature have overlooked these essential ecclesial acts. Human beings as stewards of creation are to act as the priests of creation and bless it. Guroian sees this ecological activity of blessing grounded in the liturgy, especially in the rites of Theophany in which the blessing of water is prominent. This blessing restores the original harmony between humankind and creation which was destroyed in the fall. I will return to this idea of humanity acting as ‘priests of creation’ more explicitly below.
24Theokritoff, Living in God's Creation, 109–10.
14‘Fasting is more or less the direct opposite of contemporary advertising, which sees the fundamental human desire as the multiplication of needs. And voluntary abstention further allows for a fairer distribution of resources, favouring the justice that love demands.’ Clément, Conversations, 84. See also Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 90.
15He argues that ‘as the Church Fathers also teach, the root of all evils that plague humankind is selfishness, and the highest expression of virtue is selfless love. It is, therefore, not permissible for faithful Christians who are seeking sanctification to remain indifferent to the effects of their acts on their fellow human beings’ (250; emphasis in original). He ends this with a call for political leaders to take action on behalf of the environment.
16See also Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 66–8.
17He sees this again primarily in terms of ethics, which was indeed the theme for that particular conference. He spells out in detail what sacrifice means and what it might entail (306–7). Interestingly enough, he ends up linking his analysis of sacrifice and its ecological importance to a liturgical view of sacrifice rooted in Theophany. Sacrifice sanctifies and ‘transforms the entire world’: ‘Without the cross, without sacrifice, there can be no blessing and no cosmic transfiguration’ (308; emphasis in original).
18See his introduction to Cosmic Grace, 94.
19Rogich, ‘Ecological Soundings’.
20Khalil, ‘Ecological Crisis’, 210.
21Most Orthodox ecological writings cite the stories of ascetics' friendships with animals, but generally do not refer to less favourable stories of monks who display at times rather capricious power over animals or who wrap their faces so the trees and mountains do not distract them from prayer. There are indeed plenty of negative statements about materiality, corporeality, and the surrounding world in ascetic writings. This literature (both its positive and its negative statements) must be read with the original context and audience firmly in mind. See Theokritoff, Living in God's Creation, 96–8.
22Ibid., 93–116.
23Bartholomew also links asceticism and virtues: ‘the virtues are signs of a person restored and reestablished in its harmony and unity. The impulse of distorted nature, which leads to separation, causes the passions. The same impulse of a nature restored calls for the virtues. All the Fathers insist on the fact that we are not asked to reject and eliminate our natural activities, but to purify them’. Clément, Conversations, 85.
25Ibid., 117–54.
26Clément, Conversations, 105. He explores the same dimension in Encountering the Mystery: ‘In calling for a “eucharistic spirit”, the Orthodox Church is reminding us that the created world is not simply our possession but a gift – a gift from God the Creator, a healing gift, a gift of wonder and beauty. Therefore, the proper response, upon receiving such a gift, is to accept and embrace it with gratitude and thanksgiving. … A eucharistic spirit also implies using the earth's natural resources with a spirit of thankfulness, offering them back to God; indeed, we are to offer not only the earth's resources but ourselves’ (100–1).
27Clément, Conversations, 90.
28He mentions it again very briefly in Encountering the Mystery, 91. Most Orthodox writers, in fact, are much more explicit about grounding their comments on ecology in the tradition, often appealing extensively to Patristic writings on creation and the role of humans within it. Rarely do Orthodox theologians make any comments about contemporary issues without such appeal to Patristic thinking. The most thorough example of this is the first chapter of Theokritoff's book Living in God's Creation (33–91).
29The references to Maximus are abundant in most Orthodox writers on creation. For several thorough treatments see Theokritoff, Living in God's Creation, 51–67; Louth, ‘The Cosmic Vision of Saint Maximos the Confessor’, and Louth, ‘Between Creation and Transfiguration’. Kallistos Ware mentions Maximus as a predecessor to Palamas' doctrine of energies, which he interprets as a panentheistic vision of creation. See Ware, Through the Creation to the Creator (10–11) and ‘God Immanent yet Transcendent’ which focuses primarily on Palamas.
30Chryssavgis, Beyond the Shattered Image. Yiannias also speaks of icons but is far less enthusiastic about the role of nature in Orthodox iconography (‘The Transfiguration of Nature’). Although the icon reveals a transfigured world, this is primarily an affirmation of the spiritual world (43). He concludes, ‘Icons bear visual witness to the fact that it is not man alone who is reconciled with God, as if the rest of creation were destined to be a kind of irrelevant, unredeemed residue. It is in the created world, within the bounds of nature, that the reconciliation has taken, and continues to take place. The incarnation cannot be known except with reference to its effects in nature; yet it gives, restores, to nature a significance that nature would otherwise not have. It is a deep awareness of this significance, an awareness nurtured by the Liturgy, that is at the heart of the icon's transfiguration of nature … icons make nature over into a worthy setting for the world's reunion with its own Creator’ (45).
31Introduction to Bartholomew, Cosmic Grace, 91.
32Harakas, ‘Ecological Reflections on Contemporary Orthodox Thought’, 48. He highlights some Orthodox thinking on animal rights and on environmental ethics. All Orthodox writers he discusses place humans firmly within the cosmos instead of apart from creation and emphasise the human role in ‘offering’ creation to God in thanksgiving.
33Theokritoff also devotes a chapter to ‘sacramental living’ in her book (Living in God's Creation, 181–210).
37Khalil, ‘For the Transfiguration of Nature’, 35.
34Theokritoff speaks of it as a ‘special position’ of mediation on behalf of the earth, although it is still God who ultimately acts. She argues that God's primary action is the reason why this position is not anthropocentric (Theokritoff, ‘Orthodoxy and the Environment’, 17, 20–1).
35For example, he rejects the attitude (which he identifies with deep ecology) ‘widely held among certain ecologists that humanity is classified within the natural ecosystem, inasmuch as humanity is considered of equal significance with every other living being’. He sees this as a false ‘demotion’ of humanity that ultimately amounts to a ‘complete rejection of God’ and thinks of it as a ‘criminal and destructive’ attitude toward nature, in essence no different from an extreme anthropocentric stance (which he also rejects) because it renders creation ‘divine as a whole’ (301). See also Clément, Conversations, 102, and Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, 97.
36In fact, the notion of humans as microcosm goes back to Plato. Theokritoff summarises the Patristic account of the human role in creation, in Living in God's Creation (64–79) and argues that despite its connotations of human ‘dominion’ over creation, it did not imply abuse or exploitation.
38Rogich, ‘Ecological Soundings’, 64.
39Zizioulas, ‘Proprietor or Priest of Creation?’ See also Zizioulas, ‘Man the Priest of Creation’ and his King's College lectures (‘Preserving God's Creation’).
40He quotes this phrase frequently in his speeches. See also Encountering the Mystery, 98.
41George, ‘Eucharistic Ecology’, in Limouris, Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation.
42Ibid., 54.
43Gregorios, ‘New Testament Foundations’, 39, 42.
44Rogich, ‘Ecological Soundings’, 71.
46The conference ‘For the Transfiguration of Nature’, out of which several of the articles used here arose, concluded with affirming several central notions in Orthodox responsibility for creation, namely: Christ's incarnation is for all of creation, prayer is needed for ecological change, fasting is a good practice of conserving of resources, repentance for earth-desecrating habits is in order, sacramental living sanctifies the creation, icons teach responsibility for creation, dominion over creation can only happen in a blessed and sanctified way, asceticism and self-denial are appropriate in response to over-consumption and greed, nature can be transfigured in the resurrection and is part of the redemptive process and of theosis. The participants counselled a concern for justice and responsibility for creation (Epiphany Journal, 74).
45See also Encountering the Mystery, 106–7. It is interesting that so many Orthodox writers cite this famous exhortation to compassion for animals in St Isaac, although it is a rather isolated comment and there is very little concern for animals or other non-human creatures in the rest of Isaac's writings (to the point where he can envision the redemption of demons but not that of ‘irrational’ creatures or the earth). This might suggest that the heavy use of the Patristic tradition for justifying an ecological worldview must be treated with some caution.
47In Encountering the Mystery he very briefly refers to the feasts of Transfiguration and Theophany (93). There is a very brief section on ‘Orthodox Liturgy and the Natural Environment’ (98–100) which mainly mentions the symposia and then quickly moves on to speak of the eucharistic and ascetic dimensions already discussed above.
48In fact, Bartholomew himself admits that ‘it would constitute an unbearable and unjust “minimalism” if one were to judge the relative stance of the Orthodox Church solely from the perspective of an occasional document at a particular event or from the establishment of September 1st of each year as the day of prayer for the whole creation and environment. The entire lifestyle of the Orthodox faithful at every moment of every day is indicative of the sacredness of every created thing. By way of reminder, it is characteristic that the monk of Mount Athos will make the sign of the cross in a gesture of gratitude even before drinking a mere glass of water’ (325–6). One should admit, however, that in general Orthodox believers do not actually display more concern for the environment than the average person. Judging by the ‘lifestyle’ of most ‘Orthodox faithful’ (probably including many of the monks on Mount Athos) would present a rather grim picture of Orthodox ecological practice.
52Ibid., 8.
49Alexander Schmemann makes much of this liturgical movement, although he does not draw out any explicitly ecological implications from his analysis.
50To give just one explicit example (there are countless others): ‘The sun sings Thy praises; the moon glorifies Thee; the stars supplicate before Thee; the light obeys Thee; the deeps are afraid at Thy presence; the fountains are Thy servants’ (Vespers for the Feast of Theophany).
51Theokritoff, ‘Liturgy and Cosmology’. (This piece is an unpublished conference presentation. I thank Elizabeth for making it available to me.)
53Ibid., 12.
54Of course, much more work is needed to make these liturgical dimensions explicit especially in terms of catechesis and instruction on the parish level.
