Christian hope in reflecting challenge of climate change Peter Pavlovic Conference of European Churches/European Christian Environmental Network 1. Theology of hope revisited Theology of hope has become part of theological history marking specific theological efforts in the second half of 20th century. Hope, however, is the key theological term. It would not be correct to speak about the relationship between theology and hope only with regard to this particular period of time and in the past tense. Robert Jenson in highlighting this side of theology is very clear: ‘A theology that did not examine why and for what Christians may and must hope, and make the results of that examination normative for the resolution of other questions, would not be Christian theology at all. Therefore there is a way in which the designation 'theology of hope' is superfluous, there being no other kind.’1 Hope as the shaping category of theological vocabulary has become more frequently used in the recent period of time again. This in reacting to multiple crises and calamities of the world we have to face nowadays. Climate change has a prominent place among them. The UN Climate conference in Paris was the focal place for the culmination of climate action in a political and diplomatic arena, as well as the place for manifold contributions from civil society. Churches were part of these efforts. The word “hope” has become one of the most frequently used terms in different contributions to climate talks. It was marked as the key theological building element in phrasing the Christian response to the challenge of climate change. It is, therefore, worthwhile to look at what sense can hope, as the theological category, contribute to framing churches’ response to climate change. The challenge theology has to face in this respect is twofold. On the one hand to avoid linking hope with elements not having support in Christian resources and thus capitulate to secular and other influences. On the other side, failure to use genuine richness which Christian insights offer. The outcomes of the Paris conference, in spite of positive reactions from different stakeholders all over the world has prompted, nevertheless, reactions coming especially from the scientific community that curbed overall enthusiasm. Steffen Kallbekken, Director of the Centre for International Climate and Energy Policy was in this respect clear: ‘To have a two-thirds chance of limiting warming to 2C, emissions have to fall 40-70% by 2050. To have even a prayer of respecting the 1.5 C target, those mid-century cuts would have to be even deeper: 70-95%. These are dizzyingly difficult goals which effectively require the total decarbonisation of the world economy within four decades…..By the time the current pledges enter into force in 2020, we will probably have exhausted the entire carbon budget for the 1.5°C degrees target." Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Manchester was, in this respect, even more direct when saying: ‘the current text is not consistent with science.’
1
Robert Jenson, Second thoughts about theologies of hope, 4
1
Against this background the question which cannot be avoided is: what is exactly the substance of Christian hope in facing climate change? In the follow-up of Paris it might be worth some efforts to return to the roots and get firm ground under our feet. Then we can specify in what sense we talk about Christian hope when linking this specific virtue with our reflection of climate change. 2. Biblical prophesies on guard against false hope, wishful optimism and utopia Hope in the biblical perspective is both straightforward, as well as a challenging virtue. The intention here is not to summarize the main features of the theology of hope. For our purpose we want to limit our scope in highlighting some specific aspects of hope which may have not received the required attention in relating hope to climate change discourse. Particular attention will be given to the content linked with the term of hope in the Old Testament prophecies and in the theology of the Apostle Paul. The first thing which catches one’s attention in focusing on hope while reading the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel is the prophets’ effort to avoid outlining hope as a simplistic one dimensional virtue. Hope is indeed the power to open the human mind to the future and the virtue of helping to manage uncertainty of the future. The problem which prophets face, as the key concern linked with hope, is in fact the reality of false hope. To outline the complex relationship of true and false hope and the difficulty to align personal and collective preferences in giving priority to mistaken hope is a significant part of the prophetic narrative. Ezekiel 7 can be taken as an example. This is a description of the immediate pre-exilic situation of Israel at the moment when all Israel‘s founding hope is over. The prophet is a messenger of an absolute end without any hope. God is revealing his power not as a merciful Father; what Israel has to face is the other side of God’s identity, a wrathful judge. What makes the reading of prophets worthwhile more than anything else, is their struggle with the bottomline question: where is the place of hope in facing God’s wrath? In facing the reality of climate change this may not be a distant and awkward question. The prophetic response reminds the crucial aspect: hope is personal, and its quality, as well as its significance, is measured by the character of the person who is at the centre of hope, not by the quality of that which is hoped. Hope is the description of the relationship of a person with the will of God. It is then not surprising that the substance of biblical hope, measured by the standards of personal participation, actually depends on where this or another person, or even a nation, stands in relationship to God and those who are the enemies of the Lord. It may turn out that these are not those whom Israel supposes them to be. The hard conclusion is that God may fight not against foreigners, or those who seem to be enemies, but against the Israelites. It means, hope for a positive outcome from the Israelites’ perspective was in the specific situation described by prophets simply not appropriate, because the nation itself, collectively and its individual members, did not act accordingly. If the precondition, given by the relationship to God in word and action, is not fulfilled, even hope cannot help. The same can be found in other prophetic books of the Old Testament as well, e.g. Zeph 1,4-9, Jer 46,10 and related texts. Hope can be in some instances, as happened to Israel, be a false hope. 2
Hope in this way is not reduced to psychology, emotions and cheap escape from reality to the future. It is something which has a direct impact on the way in which history unfolds, here and now. Outcomes of biblical hope are linked with expectations of God’s intervention in this world. Such an intervention can indeed be of a very different nature and may have occasionally astonishing outcomes. Talking about real and true hope in language of the prophets can then mean only one thing: ‘absolute reliance on God’s unqualified victory.’2 Such a victory, though, may appear in an unexpected form. And: ‘as to which side of a particular conflict God is in fact on, we must not presume to know that, since we will inevitably think he is in fact on our side - the very error that according to Ezekiel 7 led to the destruction of Judah.’3 Israel’s calamity was the false expectation and protection sought on the wrong side of the battlefield. It has to be recognised that hope was certainly not a missing article. It was simply misplaced. Or in another words, the real hope was replaced by a wishful outcome. The message of the passages, in the centre of which is the warning about false hope, has its place in an overall context of salvation history. We should read it with particular attention nowadays in facing the challenge of climate change. False calculations with hope and false expectations happened not just on this particular occasion, which attracted the prophets’ attention, but certainly many times before and afterwards. The next stage for Israel was an experience of exile, which has become part of the well-known history and national trauma. It may be particularly refreshing in this regard to read those texts written on the theology of hope at its apex, which focus on careful differentiation of hope from an earthly utopia. Jürgen Moltmann is in this respect clearly differentiating between salvation positivism (Heilpositivismus) and Christian hope: ‘Christian hope is not utopia of faith.’4 He is in this regard very careful to distinguish Christian hope especially from Marxist ideology of achieving a wishful utopia though societal progress. Similar expressions can be found in arguments of another well-known protagonist of theology of hope Karl Rahner, who reminds: ‘[The hope] is not the ‘opium of the people’ which soothes them in their present circumstances even though these are painful.’5 The need of an active personal approach is underlined in elaborating on the distinction between hope and utopia.. What do we hope for cannot be just expected. Moltmann underlines that Christian hope is shaped by life, acting and by personal capacity for overcoming troubles and tribulations. The mission of Christians is not exhausted by spreading hope and faith, but by the encouraging the change of life. This includes active efforts on changing of existing social, economic and juridical structures. It is in this respect that Moltmann speaks about present and realised eschatology. ‘Present eschatology means nothing else than creative expectation (schöpferische Erwartung).’6 With an emphasis given here on the ‘creative’ aspect. In the 2
Robert Jenson, Ezekiel, 75 Ibid., 4 Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of hope, 333 5 Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations 10: 257 6 Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of hope, 304 ff. 3
3
words of Rahner: ‘those who hope are called to set out ever anew from social structures that have become “petrified, old and empty.’7 In striving for structural change he identifies two false responses to this kind of situation. One is that of the idealist, who finds reality hopelessly wanting and seeks to escape it. The second false response is that of the realist. This includes those who take their stance in the shabbiness of life, in the survival of the fittest, and make the most out of it for themselves. Both the ‘pseudo-idealist’ and the ‘pseudo-realist’ seek to escape the tension, indefiniteness and complexity of existence. Rahner argues that genuine hope will not collapse the tension between what we hope for and what we experience. Hope lives in tension. It lives with the perplexity. At the same time a Christian in full awareness of tension and perplexity has to be clear in refusing utopia. In this context, Rahner advocates a ‘Christian pessimism’ that accepts perplexity and refuses to allow it to be repressed. 8 He points to Paul saying that we are ‘perplexed but not driven to despair’ (2Cor 4:8). This should not be taken as a cheap resignation, but as an encouragement for action. It is an invitation to an action, which is realistic, fights and wins partial victories and soberly and courageously accepts partial defeats.9 All in all, theology of hope is an invitation to act. For Christians it means an invitation to a very specific type of an action marked by metanoia and calling, which refers to a specific wording of theology of reformation. In applying this approach and relating hope to the actual situation of the climate change narrative, doubts about the Paris outcomes cannot be avoided. Although many will argue that an idea of transformation is implicitly present in the final wording of the generally praised Paris agreement, the simple reality is that the term ‘transformation’ was carefully edited out of the final text. The document drafts initially proposed ‘pursuing of a transformation towards sustainable development’ as one of key aims of the agreement and the follow-up process, which the agreement was supposed to generate. However, in the final stages of the negotiations all instances in which transformation, similarly as justice or decarbonisation have been mentioned, were carefully edited out of the text. Commitment to transformation has been replaced by the commitment to mobilise financial funds for climate resilient developments. In an occasional commentary on the text this was even expressed as a positive step forward, while arguing that it is preferential to have a concrete text on financial transfers rather than something as vague as transformation. Even if a number of other reflections on the Paris outcomes would argue that the idea of transformation is present in the text, although not expressed verbally, suspicions remain. Is this narrowing down in wording indeed a correct reflection of the need of how climate change has to be faced? A theological approach based on hope needs to be aware of this argument. Transformation, metanoia, needs to be an inseparable accompaniment of every Christian argument related to hope. The task is to be vocal about the need for transformation. If wanting to interpret 7
Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, 10: 259 Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, 22: 155 9 Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, 22: 158 8
4
outcomes of Paris positively, precisely this element must achieve a prominent position, not only for political and practical purposes. It is for the utmost theological reasons. There is no way to achieve what we hope for without metanoia, transformation. This is a theological experience, anchored in the sacred texts. In facing challenges of climate change, added to which come insights of the science of climate change which offers warnings as well. 3. Hope, eschatology and the concept of time For faith communities reacting to climate change has become one of the popular strategies to call for temperance. This is a welcomed and encouraging step, especially for offering a frame for a meaningful personal action. A Christian response to climate change, a response taking into account the full concept of hope needs to go beyond it. As highlighted in all substantial writings which framed theology of hope in its time, hope is an eschatological term. Theology of hope cannot stand without the concept of time. Neither theology, nor the living God can be detached from time. ‘Eschatology is a specific ground on which the concept of theology of hope is unfolded.’10 Time and space, as both describing the reality, are interrelated. Time is what has something to do with our life. Jenson undertakes an additional step and associates time and creation with God’s Trinitarian relations. In order to do that he introduces an idea of envelopment, through which he specifies: ‘to be a creature is to be in a specific way bracketed by the life of the triune persons. We are ‘worked out’ among the three. God creates through accommodating his triune life for other persons and things than the three whose mutual life he is. In himself, he ‘opens room’ and that act is the event of creation. We call this accommodation in the triune life – time.’11 Time thus becomes not an external parameter, but a building block, through which God realizes the act of creation and through which he makes human beings participate in it. We have been given time; time to act and time to react. It can be falsely understood or misused but it can be used as well for good. This is nothing less than the full unfolding old dictum of Ireneus from the second century underlining that the glory of God is a human being. Against this background is the care for creation more than a simple a ‘green theology.’ It is a new and fresh look at theology, in which eschatology, in the sense of describing not only what will happen at the end of time, but which takes time seriously as a description of everyday reality, needs to be part of it. Theology developed in these terms is that of realised eschatology. It is a counter dose in the society of spectacle, dominated by consumerism and cynicism. It is an incarnational theology which links ‘word’ with ‘action;’ the ‘word’ which is not just a sound, but the substance of the life of Jesus Christ, who is the word incarnated. Incarnational theology of creation needs to look seriously at all aspects of life. Consequently, while seeking real signs of characterising such a community it leads then to the conclusion that it is not only openness, activity and responsibility which should play a role in this regard.. Christian action is a call for transformation. But this cannot be just a transformation of external 10 11
Robert Jenson, Second thoughts about theologies of hope, 5 Robert Jenson, Systematic theology, vol.2, 25
5
structures. Jenson reminds that it needs to be a transformation which counts with the reality of sin. Sin, is something that is much more serious than wrong doing. As something, which takes personal responsibility seriously, not limiting itself to the acceptance of an abstract structural evil, or some kind of a mistake. Consequence of such an attitude will be cultivation of gratitude and respect for others as well as to nature, and cultivation of the link of material (spacious) and non-material (temporal). Jenson is in this respect underlining the importance of repentance, and, especially, the importance of the close relationship between the need for transformation and the reality of God’s judgment.12 Talking about hope nowadays without taking into consideration all of these is simply neither credible, nor sincere and trustworthy from the theological perspective.. As much as we cannot say anything else than that without hope the Christian message would lose its substance, at the same time this statement cannot go without the second part of the same sentence: hope without repentance, without transformation and without taking seriously the reality of God’s judgment cannot be the Christian understanding of hope. In order to stay consequent in talking about hope this might be perhaps the most demanding challenge: in a culture of a consumer society facing climate change to remind and to communicate the reality of God’s judgment. This is, though, an unavoidable and substantial component of all biblical prophetic narrative about hope. 4. Paul and creation; pneumatic and natural order The apostle Paul has very peculiar worries about nature. Even if they are not explicitly ecological worries, nature is for him, as we are reminded by analyses of Jacob Taubes very important category, eschatological category. Taubes’s approach is particularly appealing, since he does it, as a Jewish rabbi bearing his particular sensitivity to Jewish experience and specific character of the contextual link between both Testaments. For ecological concerns, the difference between pneumatic and the natural order is of crucial importance to Paul as underlined by Taubes. In the letter to Corinthians Paul differentiates between pneuma tou cosmou and pneuma tou theou. Paul expresses his negative approach to pnemua tou cosmou, and still avoids being negative about creation. For him the appreciation of creation is done through pneuma tou theou and not through pneuma tou cosmou.13 Paul introduces the concept of pneumatic as life of a particular experience of Christ presence. This is crucial for all New Testament talk about creation. Taubes intentionally describes the situation ironically: ‘[Paul] He’s never seen a tree in his life. He travelled through the world just like Kafka – never described a tree, or mentioned one.’14 The central issue is for the New Testament redemption. The link between redemption and creation is the key in this respect. ‘The treat between creation and redemption is a very thin one,’ reminds Taubes. In focusing on redemption Paul underlines that salvation is near and the time is short. In facing this, Paul’s instruction is to avoid doubts and worries: I want you to be free from anxieties (1 Cor 7,32). To be free 12
Robert Jenson, Story and Promise, 2 Jacob Taubes, Political Theology of Paul, 43-48 14 Jacob Taubes, Political Theology of Paul, 73 13
6
from anxieties does not mean to close one’s eyes, does not mean not be informed, Paul’s strategy is different. Under this time pressure Christ’s followers are encouraged to do something different: demonstrate obedience to state authority, pay taxes, don’t do anything bad, and don’t get involved in conflicts, because otherwise it’ll get confused with some revolutionary movements. Don’t be negative, be constructive and act with hope, because: now comes a subterranean society, a little bit Jewish, a little bit gentile, nobody knows what sort of lowlifes are these anyway – for heaven’s sake, don’t stand out! Vital for making this approach effective is to respect the other. This is the concept of personhood which is not centred on myself, but rather on a recognition of a need of the other. The other person is needed. I can’t do it without the other. 15
This is where ecological concerns in the New Testament perspective are inherently related to eschatological questions. Care for creation is inseparable from taking care about the other. Ecological concerns of a Christian are not exhausted by taking care of nature. It is about the relationship to other persons and to God. Since this relationship is dynamic, ever changing and developing in time, the ethical community of the church, as underlined by Robert Jenson, is guided eschatologically: ‘the moral life of the church is determined by the fact of the eschaton, by the fact of the coming a kingdom; and the moral life of the church therefore is always in at least potential radical discontinuity with the moral life of other communities around it, that make up the human world.’16 The ethics that operate within the Christian church is freed from the necessity of agreement with the ethics of other communities to which believers also belong. Belonging to such a community is characterised by accepting internal variability, still united by the understanding that whatever we may do in everyday activities, all our deeds, motivations and considerations are guided not by achieving material prosperity. The time factor is relevant. Our action may be ethically irrelevant, if it comes too late. The ethical character of any action is not valued only by the final material benefit. Putting it more bluntly we may use the words of Robert Jenson: if virtue is not its own only reward, then we are of all men most miserable, because it is too late for us to receive any other. As the Augsburg Confession puts it in Article VI: "It is taught among us that one must do good works of all sorts as God commands them for his sake." Period. The Christian church is the polity within which the question, "But why should I do good?" can only have the answer, "If you have to ask, don't bother.’17 This leads then to the conclusions that in the actions of the ethical community the difference between rights and duties simply does not apply.18 This is to be reflected in theological evaluation of vocabulary of rights. In sheds light as well on the intrinsic connection of hope with transformation. 5. Conclusion There is no doubt that hope is unavoidable in Christian action on care for creation. Hope, however, in the shape of which is reflected and qualified. Without taking hope in all its 15
Jacob Taubes, Political Theology of Paul, 54-56 Robert Jenson, Christian Initiation – Ethics and Eschatology, 2 17 Robert Jenson, Christian Initiation – Ethics and Eschatology, 3-4 18 Robert Jenson, Christian Initiation – Ethics and Eschatology, 5 16
7
intricacy, it is then a very short distance to its degenerated face, or to cheap substitutes bearing the same name. Thus the content is lost and instead of fulfilling a positive function can become a misleading factor guiding towards a mistaken direction. We should not fall into this trap.
8