EcoSpirit Volume 1

Issue 1

Issue 2

Issue 3

Issue 4

We live in an age when the fate of the earth is being determined by the wisdom and conduct of one species–the human. Whether that fate will be for the good of the whole planet largely depends on whether that one species can grasp the meaning of its place within the earth system and assume its proper responsibilities toward the process that birthed it and sustains it. Such an achievement requires a deep transformation of our attitudes toward and relationship with the earth. The goal is an harmonious state called ecosophy.

Ecosophy has its roots in two Greek words, oikos (household), and sophia (wisdom). Ecosophy means both human wisdom regarding the earth household and the wisdom of the earth itself as a biospiritual organism.

We consider that the earth has intrinsic value apart from its instrumental value for humans. Human action should be guided by a respect for and recognition of these other values. We are part of a web of interrelated and interdependent beings. Hence, we cannot realize our own identity or fulfill our own destiny, even in the realm of religion and spirituality, apart from these other beings and the whole earth. Thus, to paraphrase Whitman, all human activities, including economics, politics and religion must be judged according to how they reflect and corroborate the wisdom and dynamics of the earth.

Our institute hopes to explore all areas of human life in order to enable humans to overcome their alienation from and frequent antagonism toward this holy planet, so that its wisdom and power might heal and soothe our often frantic, distempered hearts. To aid in this task, we have instituted Ecospirit, our quarterly newsletter.

Ecospirit is both a voice for the earth and of the earth. More particularly, it is a voice emanating from the ancient land of the Lenni Lenape, rooted in the fertile Lehigh and Lebanon Valleys, echoing off the Appalachian Mountains and wetted by the waters of Monocacy Creek between the Delaware and Susquehanna Rivers. Appropriately, our first issue explores the themes of bioregionalism and the sense of place.

Upper Amazon Basin to Northville, New York
Intercontinental Missiles!–
chimney swifts
who wing each Spring
8000 miles between
the Upper Amazon Basin
& the chimney of a burned-out baseball factory
in the Adirondack foothills!

Miracolo! Miracolo!
Intercontinental missiles of Bird Migrations
should be worshipped by us
not nuclear missiles & The Book of Armageddon.
Factory ruins where chimney swifts nest
are more sacred
than the little bankvaults on high altars
where priests coop the Holy Spirit
in a gilded birdcage.
Northville, New York is blessed by a miracle
more cosmic than Fatima
and the route of those little gray birds
should be lined with people
the way people line the streets when
a pope or president goes by in a motorcade.

Plenary Indulgence Beatific Vision!

–Jeff Poniewaz

From Dolphin Leaping in the Milky Way, Homeward Press. Permission of author.

By Thomas Berry

Of all the issues we are concerned with at present the most basic issue, in my estimation, is that of human-earth relations. A multitude of interhuman issues at the national and international levels also confronts us; but even at their worst we can probably survive them much better than we can survive continued degradation of the earth in its basic life systems. The 20th century has eliminated the terror of the unknown darknesses of nature by devastating nature herself.

In mentioning our present situation we must also note that humans have, at least since the rise of agriculture at the beginning of the neolithic period some 12,000 years ago, been putting a certain stress on the natural world. This stress increased considerably with the rise of the classical civilizations of the Eurasian, African, and pre-Columbian American continents. Since the rise of the scientific technologies of the 1880s and the rise of corporate enterprises humans have gained an "ascendency," such that, with the coming of the nuclear age, we have finally developed the capability of determining whether the earth shall live or die in many of its major life systems. Thus, a unique situation has developed.

Ultimately it is not an American or European problem, but a species problem. How should humans live upon the earth in a mutually enhancing relation? How can progress be shared by all components of the planet? Can there be true or lasting progress, if it is not shared on a comprehensive scale? Are we really moving into a wonderland so magnificent that it is worth such a destructive presence to the natural world? Answers to these questions have been made by four groups that have developed in the past two decades.

The first and by far the dominant group is entranced with the sense of continuing progress, if not toward wonderland, then toward a constant improvement of the human condition through our scientific industrial processes. This group has almost no consciousness or sensitivity to the degradation of the earth that has been taking place in the 20th century, especially in the postWW II years when chemical engineering, electronic and nuclear engineering, space engineering, aeronautical and agricultural engineering took control of the North American continent and all its living forms.

When faced with the difficulties and dangers resulting as a consequence of the industrial process, individuals such as Julian Simon and Herman Kahn say that we should press on with our present industrial processes. Recently a new period of the entrepreneur has arrived and with the rise of new technologies comes a new mystique of the corporate enterprise. This mystique is absorbing the mythic and cultural language and even the attitudes and emotions formerly associated with our religious and humanist traditions. This absorption is reflected in such terms as corporate culture, the mythic meaning of the enterprise, the soul of the establishment, the belief structures. All of this attempts to overcome an instinctive awareness that the corporation is in the business of seducing the consumer while plundering natural resources and poisoning the environment – - not intentionally of course. That is the most poignant aspect of our times, the dedication of good and intelligent and competent persons to the improvement of the human situation, but individuals who do not understand the real consequences of what they are doing. They are totally dedicated but simply wrong in their judgment.

For those totally absorbed in the industrial cycle, however, these signs of the time point to an expansion of life into the future, rather than to a need for reintegration into the cycles of nature. Such is how one group is dealing with human-earth relations. This is the group presently in control of the earth and its resources, our consumption habits, our military and its destructive instrumentalities.

A second response to our present earth-human situation is a negative critique based on the humanistic and social consequences of our present technological-industrial processes. Among the most incisive and comprehensive of such critics are Jacques Ellul, Theodore Roszak, Ivan Illich, Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, the socialist party of Norman Thomas, Lewis Mumford, The Papal Encyclicals — all these form a moral judgment upon the inequality in carrying the burdens and sharing the benefits of the industrial order. They also deal extensively with the deleterious consequences of the technological order for the humanistic and spiritual dimensions of life.

The consequences for the natural world, however, do not appear prominently in their critique nor in the critique given by the Labor Movement. The Labor Movement in Capitalist countries, the Socialist Movement and the Communist Movement are all heavily committed to the technological-industrial process.

A third way of dealing with human-nature relations is represented by those who critique our technological-industrial society because of its disturbance of the natural world in its most basic life systems. The ultimate source of evil in the existing order of life is its homocentric norm of reality and value. This third group insists that nothing very helpful can be achieved until we move away from a homocentric to a biocentric norm.

The effort to present and defend the biocentric norm of reality and value is widespread, but among the clearest and most direct defenders of the biocentric view is the Deep Ecology Movement begun by Arne Naess and later taken up by George Sessions and a number of others. Many of these individuals have thrown their activities, their scholarship, and their life purpose into saving the living world of nature from industrial-technological destruction.

In addition to these three is a fourth group, a group that is evolving the alternative program needed for healing the earth and fostering a mutually enhancing human-earth relation. This group sees the need for confrontational methods such as those used by green Peace and by Earth First, but it pursues a more positive program. These are the true heirs of Henry Thoreau, John Muir, and Aldo Leopold, the leading personalities who articulated the intimate functional relationship between the human and the natural world.

In the international realm a sequence of important events took place in the 1970s and early 1980s. In 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Environment took place without immediately evident results. Afterwards, however, on their return home the conference representatives led the way in establishing Environmental Protection Agencies in most of the nations of the world.

More immediate to our purposes here are the alternative models of human-nature relations that could remedy or at least modify our present dysfunctional industrial patterns. The most effective models function in the areas of food production, energy, housing, architecture, craft skills, waste disposal, sanitation, health maintenance, and forestry.

Rather than outline specific programs that have been initiated in various other areas of human activities, it might be best to present the basic principles that govern the new patterns that are being presented as a way of moving toward technologies that will be mutually enhancing for both the human community and the earth process.

The first principle is that human technologies should function in an integral relationship with earth technologies, not in a despotic or disturbing manner or under the metaphor of conquest, but rather in an evocative manner. The spontaneities of nature need to be fostered, not extinguished. Nature has, during some hundreds of millions of years through numberless billions of experiments, worked out the ecosystems that were flourishing so abundantly when humans and human civilizations emerged into being. It is a brash and destructive thing for humans to intrude on this system without carefully observing just how these ecosystems work and how humans might best function within this context.

Secondly, there is need to realize the order of magnitude of the changes that are needed. Here we are not concerned with some minor adaptations but with the most serious transformation of human-earth relations that has taken place since the classical civilizations were founded. The industrial age has so alienated and so conditioned the human that survival outside the industrial bubble in which we are enclosed is difficult. Yet we must learn survival within the context of a more intimate relationship with the natural world, since the industrial bubble cannot long endure in its present mode of functioning. The urgency is all the greater when we consider that humans through technological cunning have now for the first time attained the power of life and death over the planet in many of its most basic life systems.

Thirdly, sustainable progress must be progress for the entire earth community. Every component of the community must participate in the process. For humans to progress by eliminating, degrading, or poisoning other life-systems is not only to diminish the grandeur of earthly existence but to diminish the chances for human survival in any acceptable mode of fulfillment.

Fourthly, our technologies need to be integral. They need to take care of their waste products. Waste disposal should be associated with the process, either the immediate process or a related process. This law of integrity is among the most widely violated. The brazenness of industrial establishment — blasting their refuse into the atmosphere or pouring it into a stream or dumping the trash onto the fertile wetlands -is difficult to understand. This refusal to deal with its own waste is one of the most universal, most consistent, and most replusive aspects of our contemporary technologies.

Fifthly, there is need for a functional cosmology, a cosmology that will provide the mystique needed for this integral earth-human presence to each other. Such a mystique is available once we consider that the universe, the earth, the sequence of living forms, and the human mode of consciousness have from the beginning had a psychic-spiritual as well as a physical-material aspect. We do not need such extrinsic spiritual interpretations of the earth process such as are sometimes proposed. What we do need, however, is a sense of reverence, a sense of the sacred such as we find with the great naturalists or such as we find with some of the foremost scientists of our times, scientists such as Freeman Dyson, Sir Bernard Lovell, Brian Swimme, or Ilya Prigogine. Until technologists learn reverence for the earth there will be no possibility of bringing a healing or a new creative age to the earth.

Sixthly, nature is violent as well as benign. Our technologies have a defensive role to play. Nature with its sullen droughts, its devastating floods, its hurricane winds, its termites ready to destroy our dwellings, its plague-bearing animals, its malarial infections, assaults and challenges us, and we need all our skills and effective technologies to defend ourselves against such forces that are ever ready to destroy us.

Seventh, our new and healing technologies need to function within a bioregional context not simply on a national or global scale. The functional divisions of the human should accord with the functional divisions of the earth itself and its life forms. The earth is not given to us in a single global sameness. The earth articulates itself in arctic and tropics, in seacoast and mountain regions, in plains and valleys, deserts and woodlands.

Everywhere, however, life is established on a functional community basis. These distinctive communities can be designated as "bioregions." A bioregion can be described as an identifiable geographical area of interacting life systems that is relatively self-sustaining in the everrenewing processes of nature. Our future technologies must function primarily on this bioregional scale.

The integrating element in this bioregional context would be the bioregional culture. The poetry and song as well as the architecture and painting, the construction and the transportation — all would take on the distinctive features of the bioregion. The norm would not be the boxes of Gropius but the more intimate forms suggested by Ian NcHarg and Gary Coates. The earth itself would be seen as the primary architect, the primary scientist, the primary educator, healer, and technologist, even the primary manifestation of the ultimate mystery of things.

A person cannot doubt that the technologists of the present are profoundly aware of the nobility and the urgency of their work and also of their competence to fulfill their role in the creative tasks that are before us. We can do nothing adequate toward human survival or toward the healing of the planet without our technologies. Extensive scientific research is needed, if we are to appreciate the integral functioning of the basic life systems of the planet and enter into a mutually enhancing relationship.

Our Western scientific effort over these past few centuries is the most sustained meditation on the universe ever carried out by any human group. If for a while our science became alienated from and antagonistic to the more humanistic and spiritual interpretatiions of the existing order of things, this was apparently a necessary interlude, a need for distancing to attain a wider and more authentic understanding. After the distancing a new intimacy, after the mechanistic a more biological sensitivity, after damaging the earth a healing. We need only look at the surrounding universe in its more opaque material aspects; look at it, listen to it, feel and experience the full depths of its being. Suddenly its opaque quality, its resistence falls away. What seemed so opaque and impenetrable suddenly becomes radiant with intelligibility and powerful beyond imagination. In this way has the work of the scientist been spoken of by Brian Swimme in terms of a shamanic journey into a strange and distant world. As with the shamanic personality so too "the scientist has returned to the larger culture with stories, awesome and frightening, but stories that serve to mediate ultimate reality to the larger culture."

So in our times technologists are discovering ways of interacting with this awesome inner world of mysterious forces. What we might hope for is not that technologists refuse to enter this world but that, as they participate in its powers, they become increasingly sensitive to those larger patterns of life into which these powers are organized, not simply into individual life forms but into those living communities that are indeed resilient but also extremely vulnerable to disruption by insensitive humans.

When we ask the more comprehensive question of where the human fits into the earth process, the answer is simple: The human is that being in whom the earth community reflects on and celebrates itself in conscious selfawareness. The earth is a celebratory event. The end and purpose of all science, technology, industry, manufacturing, commerce, and finance is celebration, planetary celebration. This is what moves the stars through the heavens and the earth through its seasons. The final norm of judgement concerning the success or failure of our technologies is the extent to which they enable us to participate more fully in this grand festival.

Thomas Berry Ph.D., is Director of the Center for Religious Research, Riverdale, N.Y. Professor Berry is President of the American Teilhard Association and in the forefront of contemporary movements in ecophilosophy, bioregionalism and ecological spirituality. His article on bioregionalism appeared in the first issue of Ecospirit.

Nature is a part of history, an object of history; therefore, "liberation of nature" cannot mean returning to a pre-technological stage, but advancing to the use of the achievements of technological civilization for freeing man and nature from the destructive abuse of science and technology in the service of exploitation. Then, certain lost qualities of artisan work may well reappear on the new technological base.

In the established society, nature itself, ever more effectively controlled, has in turn become another dimension for the control of man: the extended arm of society and its power. Commercialized nature, polluted nature, militarized nature cut down the life environment of man, not only in an ecological but also in a very existential sense. It blocks the erotic cathexis (and transformation) of his environment: it deprives man from finding himself in nature, beyond and this side of alienation; it also prevents him from recognizing nature as a subject in its own right–a subject with which to live in a common human universe. This deprivation is not undone by the opening of nature to massive fun and togetherness, spontaneous as well as organized–a release of frustration which only adds to the violation of nature.

Liberation of nature is the recovery of the life-enchancing forces in nature, the sensuous aesthetic qualities which are foreign to a life wasted in unending competitive performances: they suggest the new qualities of freedom.

Herbert Marcuse, "Nature and Revolution"

by Hwa Yol Jung

Ours is the epoch when technology has become totalizing, one-dimensional, planetary, and terrifyingly banal and normalizing; an epoch when technologization has become the rampant and sweeping norm of everything we do, think and know, that is, when everything is technocentric or technomorphic. Indeed, our dilemma lies in the fact that man is human because he is technological in the most basic sense of the term. And yet, on the other hand, man’s very physical survival hangs in the balance because of his own artifacts. He has reached the point where technology has the potential of destroying and obliterating himself and the world. In this setting, it is most appropriate to suggest that there should be a philosophy of the technological as an encompassing area of philosophical inquiry. It is clear, moreover, that this new inquiry will become the most important form of critique in this epoch.

In 1972 The Club of Rome issued its first report called The Limits to Growth which focused on the dismal condition of the world as evidenced by accelerating industrialization, rapid population growth, widespread malnutrition, depletion of nonrenewable resources, and a deteriorating environment. In the same year, the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess lectured in Bucharest on the intrinsic connection between philosophy and the ecology movement in the name of "deep ecology:"

"In so far as ecology movements deserve our attention, they are ecophilosophical rather than ecological. Ecology is a limited science which makes use of scientific methods. Philosophy is the most general forum of debate on fundamentals, descriptive as well as prescriptive, and political philosophy is one of its subsections. By an ecosophy I mean a philosophy of ecological harmony or equilibrium. A philosophy as a kind of sofia wisdom, is openly normative, it contains both norms, rules, postulates, value priority announcements and hypotheses concerning the state of affairs in our universe. Wisdom is policy wisdom, prescription, not only scientific description and prediction. 1"

For our purpose here, deep ecology may be defined as an ontological ordering of man and nature in their harmony. Its aim is to create a whole new way of thinking and doing, a new philosophy of life, or a new ecological paradigm. Its approach is radical and holistic.

Anthropocentrism propelled by the ideology of progress is without doubt the root cause of our ecological predicament today. As such, it is the antithesis of deep ecology. Anthropocentrism is an ordering of man at the apex of all creation. Technology is the kernel of anthropocentrism and the ideology of progress regardless of different political and economic systems. Because technology is a cultural artifact hammered out of the wilderness of nature, deep ecology, as a philosophy of ecological harmony, must include a critique of the technological as an integral component.

Science and technology go hand in hand. The conquest of nature through technology for so-called human progress has its foundation in the theoretical sciences of nature, especially physics. It was Francis Bacon who was the poetic spokesman for science and who built an intellectual edifice for the popular ethos of modern technological-industrial civilization. He was the eloquent, supreme spokesman for progressivist humanism and technomorphic civilization. In pursuit of "earthly paradise," his "enlightened" philosophy of man and nature justified the "greening" of modern scientific, technological, and industrial civilization and, despite all his good "humanistic" intentions, opened Pandora’s box. In his philosophy, nature was transformed into a world of inert matter and objects which can be manipulated by calculation and experiment for "utility" (utilitas and "power" (pptentia) For knowledge is power. By increasing knowledge through "the inquisition of nature," man is capable of extending his dominion over nature for his benefit. Bacon envisioned utility and power as laying the foundation for overcoming the necessities and even the miseries of humanity. The framework of modern technology as instrumental rationality was laid down by Bacon when he insisted on the meaning of human knowledge and power as one and found "in the womb of nature many secrets of excellent use."

The Baconian conception of technology as instrumentum or instrumental facilitation for human well-being and progress has now been replaced by autonomous technology. With this radical shift, the traditional end-and–means continuum is reversed: means has become end itself. As such, the traditional rationale of technology as instrumentum is obsolete. Nonetheless, we continue to justify the "end" of technology in terms of this outmoded idea of instrumentum In so doing, we still view technology as morally neutral and forget that in technology end has already been subverted by means. In today’s world which is dominated by technology, this anachronism constitutes the poverty of moral thinking p excellence

There can be no ethics in autonomous technology, because it makes obsolete the traditional rationale of technology as instrumentuxn that serves the telos of man. The reversal of end and means is endemic to technocratic mentality and peculiarly characteristic of autonomous technology. It is an integral and indispensable part of "rationalization" accompanied by the rise and dominance of scientific and technological thinking (i.e., thinking by calculation). To "rationalize" or "instrumentalize" ends is to norm/alize "efficiency" as the end of our conduct -the operational demand of technocratic mentality and society. The "rationalization" or "instrumentalization" of our conduct is the end of the Kingdom of Ends.

The "instrumentalization" of ends raises the celebrated question of the "banality of evil" whose opposite is the ethics of responsibility The "banality of evil" is the profound idea Hannah Arendt coined in order to characterize Adolf Eichinan — the man who even misconstrued Kant’s notion of duty as blind obedience — as the paradigmatic case of the violent terror of unthinking men or men of moral indifference and to justify the death penalty imposed on him by the Israeli Government in 1962. For Arendt, Eichinann as doer was neither monstrous nor demonic, but the result of this deed was, nonetheless, atrocious. Indifference or lack of intention to murder does not absolve one’s guilt and responsibility for a crime. Objectively speaking, therefore, Eichman was no less guilty and deserving of death than the monstrous or demonic.

In the same way, Arendt’s idea of the "banality of evil" can very well be applied to the unintended "evil" consequences of technology itself. First of all, the possibility of moral thinking depends on the notion that we are responsible agents, that is, our ethical conduct presupposes the intentional activation of meaning. To be responsible is to choose one meaning or value over others in the configuration of both ends and means. Second, the ethics of responsibility must not be equated with an ethics of pure intention and principles alone. Nor should it be confused with an ethics of consequences with disregard for intention and principles. One without the other is insufficient because it is one-sided: by focusing on intention and principles alone, one loses sight of consequences, whereas by weighing only consequences, one forgets intention and principles.

The ethics of responsibility must be an ethics of fulfillment in the sense that it fulfills the principled intention of an action in light of the consequences it produces or will produce, whether it be verbal or nonverbal. We do not have to go as far as invoking the uncommon jurisprudential principle that technology is guilty until proven innocent! The "banality of evil" points to the "guilt or liability of technology despite its allegedly "innocent," "benign," or "good" intention to serve humanity’s well-being. Quite often, good intentions produce bad consequences for which we ought to be held responsible. To reenchant the world, to deconstruct technology, in sum, is to restore the essence of man as moral being Otherwise, history will indeed be a nightmare from which there is no awakening. When we become "automated" and "cybernated," we cease to be morally responsible agents. The denial of man’s moral agency, or nihilism, is implied in, and the end of, autonomous technology. Critique of the technological must without doubt be the subversion of this nihilism.

I wish to propose the idea of ecopiety for subverting and transgressing anthropocentrism whose essence inheres in technological rationality. To reenchant the world is to harmonize man with nature and to deconstruct the technologization of the world. The aim of ecopiety is to harmonize man with nature. But what is harmony? It is a musical concept in which nature may be described as a gathering of many earthly beings and things as an ordered whole. As it assumes a pluralistic universe of living beings and nonliving things, it becomes a kind of symphony or orchestration of the differentiated many. By using the term differentiated I mean to accentuate the idea that all beings and things cannot be flattened to a single equation or a fixed formula of equivalences. In this regard, both anthropocentrism and naturalism are equally one-sided, that is, they are false: one overvalues man, whereas the other undervalues the existential eccentricity of man as moral who is capable of activating meaning and value. To use a Pascalian expression, man is somewhere in the middle between nothing and everything. The term in as in "man in nature" or "man in the landscape" is an ecstatic one in that as an intentional being man is not simply an inert object or matter. In other words, the harmony of man with nature is man’s way of attuning himself or herself to the world both natural and social. Mood modulates the tonality of his or her existence in or in relation to the world. Precisely because mood is not a psychological or subjective category, harmony too cannot be defined as an anthropocentric or mancentered category.

To recapitulate: harmony constitutes the keyboard of understanding reality as social process for only where there is social process is there reality, and where there is no social process, there is no reality. Harmony is thus not the unitariness of the undifferentiated but a polyphonic chord or orchestration of the differentiated many. By social process based on the musical conception of harmony, we mean an intoned nexus of relationships between man and nature on the one hand and between man and man on the other. These two spheres deeply affect each other. We name the encompassing principle of social process among all earthly beings and things as ecopiety, which may be divided into two subcomponents: homopiety and geopiety. Thus,

ECOPIETY = HOMOPIETY + GEOPIETY.

Homopiety refers to the conviviality of man with man and geopiety the connaturality of man with nature. As the Greek oikos from whose etymology both ecology and economics are derived, signifies the "household" (a circle of family, relatives, and friends), both conviviality and connaturality are similarly two different ways of saying filiality, the term for endearment for the Sinistic mind in weaving the basic fabric of social, political, economic, and moral relationships. The unity of ecopiety is "synchronized" in the yang of homopiety and the y of geopiety as complementary. One cannot do without the other, the combination of which, I might add, is multifaced.

Above all, ecopiety signifies the attitude of reverence for all earthly beings and things. It is the sacrament of interexistence that affirms the "I-Thou" rather than the "I-It" relationships, to employ the language of Martin Buber. The attitude of reverence should be applied to our own artifacts as well as things social and natural. What is so revealing and saddening about technomorphic mentality, however, is that man is irreverent even to his own artifacts. Junkyards and chemical dumps, for example, show no reverence for man’s artifacts and products. Geopiety as reverential composure for the "natural spontaneity" of nature confirms the intrinsic value of nature as it is itself rather than for its use value, its extrinsic value. It is, I think, the stark contrast between art and technology — art for intrinsicality and technology for extrinsicality. In Sinism there is an ineluctable connection between the aesthetic and the ethical: the beautiful and the good are intertwined. As the aesthetic is the harmony of man with nature, so is the good the harmonious relationship of man with man. Harmony is, therefore, the essence not only of the aesthetic (the musical) but of the social as well.

In the end, there is no science of the future since the future is unpredictable. That is, it is made by us as responsible agents. The future as history will, indeed, be of our own choosing and making. As Chinese ideography composes "crisis" in the combined characters of "danger" and "opportunity," our option is clear in this time of ecological crises: we-have an opportunity of subverting and transgressing the Great Chain of technocentric civilization toward the reclamation of ecopiety. The prospect of our future depends on his radical and momentous choice and switch. Indeed, at the edge of history, ecopiety offers us a radical way of defenestrating technocentric civilization.

NOTES

1. "The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary," Inquiry 16 (Spring 1973): 99.

2. In The Minimal Self (New York: W.W. Norton, 1984), Christopher Lasch lashes out and deplores what he calls the "siege mentality" and "survivalism" including the ecology movement. While I agree with his positive tone, I question his minimization of the issue of survival.

Hwa Yol Jung, Ph.D. is Professor of Political Science, Moravian College, Bethlehem, Pa. Professor Jung has written extensively in the areas of Ecology, Phenomenology and Poliitcal Science. He is presently working on a manuscript entitled Zen and Deep Ecology.

Our vast and sophisticated technological systems pose a grave danger to the Earth. Soil, water, air and life forms reel from the shock of technological power and wastes. Technology not only forms the cutting edge of human assaults on nature, it increasingly structures and dynamizes human society itself. The human community displays an ambivalence toward the impact of technology on its traditional values, its interpersonal relationships and its work ethic. Hwa Yol Jung, in his essay, raises the unsettling question of whether we are any longer moral agents in control of technology and its effects or whether it has not reached a stage of autonomy, shaping the future of the human and its relationship with the Earth. Jung argues forefully that to think of technology as an instrumentum or means to an end is outdated and only deepens our illusions about and control by technology. Science and technology are linked to an anthropocentrism and myth of progress that justify our domination of nature. Only a deconstruction of our technological mode of thinking and acting and a shift to a "deep ecology" and ecopiety is radical enough to overcome our present disastrous course.

Thomas Berry, while applauding the efforts of the Deep Ecology Movement, suggests that those individuals and communities involved in developing alternatives to our large-scale technologies point the practical way out of our dilemma. If we are to enter into a "mutually-enhancing relationship" with the Earth, claims Berry, we must move away from those economic, political and social arrangements that are energy-intensive, wasteful and ultimately unsustainable and toward a communal, decentralized and bioregional pattern of existence. The appropriate technology/bioregional approach will give us local control over our destiny, a more intimate relationship with the Earth and will place us within the self-renewing and self-sustaining dynamics of the planet.

The two essays presented in this issue are edited versions of much longer papers delivered at a conference on "Technology and Harmony with Nature," held at Lehigh University. The complete proceedings of the conference, of which the Institute was one of the sponsors, can be obtained by writing to Dr. Stephen Cutcliffe, Director, Technology Resource Center, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015. The cost is $6.00.

Don St. John

Introduction: Technology and Ecosophy – Donald P. St. John
The Arrogance and Banality of Technology: A Critique from the Perspective of Deep Ecology – Hwa Yol Jung
Another View – Herbert Marcuse
Technology and the Healing of the Earth – Thomas Berry
Cosmic Missiles of Epiphany – Jeff Poniewaz

NEWSLETTERS/JOURNALS RECEIVED

Creation Friends of Creation Spirituality, Inc., P.O. Box 19216, Oakland, CA 94619. Magazine. $3.00 per issue. Six per Yr.

The Deep Ecologist Newsletter of Australian Deep Ecology Network. 10 Alamein Ave., Warracknabeal, VIC. 3393 Australia. B i-Monthly.

The Eleventh Commandment Newsletter. Published by The Eleventh Commandment Fellowship. P.O. Box 14727, San Francisco, CA 94114. Write for information.

Harbinger. The Journal of Social Ecology. P.O. Box 328, Cooper Station, N.Y. 10276. Occasional. $3.00 per issue.

Institute of Noetic Sciences Newsletter. 475 Gate Five Road, Suite 300, Sausalito, CA 94965. Newsletter with membership. Write for information.

Minding the Earth A Thinly Disguised Journal of Environmental Ethics

Joseph Meeker, ed. do The Latham Foundation, Clement and Schiller, Alameda, CA 94501. $10/yr. A Quarterly.

New Options. A Newsletter.. Mark Satin, Ed. Every four weeks. 1346 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Ste. 924, Washington, D.C. 20036. $25/yr., $32/yr. Canada.

Regeneration Newsletter from the Regeneration Project, Rodale Press, Inc., 33 E. Minor St., Emmaus, PA 18049. $12/yr.

Teilhard Perspective. Newsletter/Journal. Teilhard Assoc., Box 67, White Plains, N.Y. 10604. Available with membership.

The Trumpeter. Voices from the Canadian Ecophilosophy Network. Alan Drengson, Editor, Lightstar, 1130 Richardson St., Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8V 3C8. Quarterly. $8/yr.

Editors:
Don St. John
Paul Larson
Ed Moran

Thanks to Jean Siska, typing and layout.

INSTITUTE FOR ECOSOPHICAL STUDIES
c/o Donald P. St. John, Ph.D.
Moravian College
Bethlehem, PA 18018

by Roger Timm

There are those who would find the combination of terms in this title, "ecological," "theology," and "the Bible," to be hopelessly contradictory or incompatible. There are those who believe that the Bible and theology based on it are anything but ecologically sound, or even ecologically-minded. They would share the position described by Lynn White, Jr., in his classic article, "The Historical Roots of the Ecologic Crisis" (White, 1967), that Biblical creation theology has served instead to undermine ecological concerns and to support exploitation and abuse of the earth and its resources. The Biblical command from Genesis 1 that humans are to subdue the earth and have dominion over it has been used to justify a whole host of ways of depleting the earth’s resources, of polluting air and water, and of endangering the continued existence of various parts of creation.

In fairness it should be noted that the previous position does not reflect White’s position accurately. He does not argue that the Bible in actuality does affirm such an exploitative approach to the earth; rather he argues that the Bible has in fact been interpreted to support such an approach. Furthermore, White argues that an interpretation of the command to exercise dominion in Genesis 1 that allows for exploitation of the earth and its resources has developed primarily from Latin Christianity, beginning already in the Middle Ages. White suggests that the way out of our ecological crisis is to undergo a spiritual conversation and recommends St. Francis of Assisi as a model of harmonious and respectful living with nature for this conversion.

While White’s article has been subjected to some well-deserved criticism (see, for example, Derr, 1975, and Berry, 1979), his main point is surely beyond reproach: Western Christians have used the creation account in Genesis 1 to support their abuse of the environment. Has this use of Genesis, however, been a legitimate one? Basically, the answer to this question is "No."

To support this claim it is important to examine the main theological points of the Biblical creation accounts. I refer to the "Biblical creation accounts" purposely, for there is more than one creation account in the

Bible. Most Biblical scholars agree that there are two separate creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2, and there is increasing recognition that the Bible’s creation theology is expressed in passages other than those of Genesis 1 and 2. Bernhard Anderson, for example, has argued that in the Hebrew Scriptures there are four strata of creation theology: the pre-monarchic level where creation is seen in the Exodus event as the creation of the human community of the people of Israel; the monarchic level where creation is seen as the creation of social order, which is represented in the Davidic monarchy — reflected in Genesis 2; the level of Wisdom literature where creation is seen as the expression of God’s majesty and wisdom, apart from historical events; and the priestly level where creation is seen as the inauguration of a series of covenants — reflected in Genesis 1 (Anderson, 1984).

In the first stratum of Biblical creation theology little distinction is made between God the Creator and God the Liberator of the people of Israel; in fact God is seen as displaying the power of the Creator in creating the community of Israel in the Exodus. In the "Song of Moses" in Exodus 15 God’s power over the waters of the Sea of Reeds is described in language reminiscent of the view of God’s power over the waters of the primordial deep in Israel’s creation accounts. In "The Song of Moses" in Deuteronomy 32 God is praised for the Exodus with words that depict God as Creator — interestingly enough with imagery describing God as both father and mother. Psalm 77, 16-20, explicitly connects an ancient hymn of creation with a reference to God leading God’s people "like a flock" by the hands of Moses and Aaron. Similarly, if somewhat anachronistically, Second Isaiah uses language of creation to depict how God will re-do the Exodus once again by returning the people of Israel to their homeland from their exile in Babylon.

Given the scheme of different levels of creation theology described above, the narrative in Genesis 2 represents a level that precedes that in Genesis 1. While the story undergirds the hierarchical social structure of the Davidic monarchy (God over Adam and Eve who were over the garden just as God was over the king who was over the people of Israel), the narrative does suggest a relationship with the environment that is less exploitative than the view in Genesis 1. Adam clearly is given power over the animals by being assigned the task of naming them, but the responsibility Adam and Eve have to tend the garden suggests a caring and nurturing relationship with the earth. They were to till the garden so that it would thrive and flourish; abusing the earth would jeopardize the well-being of the garden and contradict their God-given charge to keep the garden.

The third stratum is the level of Wisdom literature. The most representative passages of this level are probably Job 38-41 and Psalm 104. The creation event is viewed here as an universal, cosmological event, not one tied in with some particular historical event in the life of one certain people, Israel. Moreover, creation is seen as the expression of God’s wisdom; creation demonstrates the transcendent power and majesty of God and no mere mortal ought have the audacity to challenge God. It is in this level of the Biblical creation accounts that we see most clearly the remnants of the mythological view of creation as the result of a primordial cosmic battle between God and the forces of chaos, usually manifested in the form of monsters like Leviathan or Behemoth. In the Bible, however, these monsters have been created by God. They are not mythic rivals of God for the control of the universe, but they have been tamed by God, created to function almost like pets for God.

On the final level is the priestly narrative in Genesis 1 that continues the cosmological scope of the Wisdom level but that sees the creation account as the first in a series of covenants. This creation account contains those passages that have been interpreted in ways that have supported exploitation of the environment, but upon careful analysis it appears that this narrative does not support such an interpretation. Consider, first of all, the statement that humans are created in the "image of God." This phrase has been interpreted in a variety of ways, but most frequently it has been taken to mean that humans share some characteristic of God that no other creatures have, such as rationality. This interpretation has supported the view that humans are qualitatively distinct from and superior to other creatures. Such a dichotomy between humans and other creatures can serve to legitimate the use or abuse of animals for human purposes with little regard for how the animals are affected. It turns out, however, that the "image of God" probably does not imply that humans possess some divine characteristic, but rather that they have been assigned a special function by God. That is, just as kings in Biblical times would place their statue ("image") in distant parts of their realm to remind their subjects of who was king, so humans are to represent God in all parts of the earth. (See, for example, Westermann, 1974, pp. 55-60.) The phrase "image of God," then, implies that humans have the responsibility to represent God on earth and to treat and care for the earth in ways that are consistent with the Creator’s will for the earth.

Similarly, the Hebrew word that is customarily translated "have dominion over" does not mean that humans can exercise arbitrary power over the earth and do whatever they please with creation. This word is usually employed to describe the kind of rule that responsible and caring monarchs exercise over their people. "To have dominion over the earth," then, does not imply that humans may abuse the environment but suggests that humans are to exercise responsible and caring stewardship of the earth and its resources. (See Llmburg, 1971.)

Unfortunately, for the sake of my line of argument, I cannot make a similar case for the other word in the text of Genesis 1 at issue here, "subdue the earth." The word translated "subdue" is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to the conquest of nations or soldiers, the enslaving of people, or even to assaulting a woman. The word clearly supports the image of the conquest, or even rape, of the earth. The best I can do is to appeal to the historical context and suggest that for people in those earlier ages nature could indeed be threatening and need to be tamed or conquered for the sake of human survival — a sense that we have largely lost except perhaps in the face of natural disasters or when attempting to survive in wilderness or desert areas.

The strata of creation theology continue into the Christian Scriptures. Here I want to focus on only one passage — from Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Ignoring the environment, if not abusing it, has been a corollary of a Christian theology that has emphasized the entrance of Jesus Christ into human history to save or liberate all people — at the expense of any focus on creation theology. A passage in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Chapter 8, 19-23, suggests that it may be erroneous to separate God’s creative and liberating activities. There Paul writes that all creation "waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God." It seems clear that in this passage Paul envisions all of creation as participating in God’s final salvation. How much of this is metaphorical we can not be sure, but Paul seems to be countering two tendencies among Christians that were prevalent then and that remain today: a tendency that emphasizes the spiritual at the expense of the physical and another that so stresses hope for the end of time that present, earthly reality is ignored. Paul argues instead that God’s salvation includes the physical, not just the spiritual, and that we are bound up with all of creation in God’s liberating process right here and now. Paul’s argument envisions human reality as interconnected with the rest of creation even in matters of salvation (Bindemann, 1983).

In summary, Biblical creation theology — in different ways in each of the strata — supports the following affirmations:

1) There is one God with transcendent power over all of creation. This affirmation may seem less relevant today than during the polytheistic age in which the Bible was first written, but we may need to be reminded of this message as we worship at the shrines of success, money, upward mobility, consumerism, and human convenience.

2) God is essentially a good and caring God. This affirmation, too, may not seem to be relevant today, but it needs to be said to those who see God primarily as a judgmental and vindictive force.

3) God’s creation in its origin was essentially good. Surely the reality of evil in the world, as described already in Genesis 3, needs to be taken into account, but the Bible contradicts all those, including people within the Biblical tradition, who reject some aspect of the created order as evil or shameful. Whether it be human sexuality or the arts, the tiniest plant or the largest animal, the creation is to be valued and affirmed for its own sake, not rejected.

4) Humans have been given the responsibility of carefully and respectfully tending the earth and seeing that it thrives and flourishes. The creation accounts in the Bible do not permit the exploitation of the earth for any and all human purposes; rather they indicate that humans are to treasure the earth’s resources that have been entrusted to them. Whether humans deplete natural resources or pollute the environment, we are violating this divine trust.

5) Humans have been created in continuity with the rest of the created order, even as we have been given responsibility for it. Humans are bound up in solidarity with all of creation and are not separate and distinct from other creatures. Ironically, the continuity of all life forms that is a basic corollary of the theory of evolution is affirmed by this implication of Biblical creation theology. This affirmation has implications for, among other things, the issue of animal rights. The Bible supports the notion that animals as well as humans have the right to ethical treatment. Whether dealing with animal rights or other issues of environmental ethics, the Bible supports a position that makes ethical decisions not simply on the basis of the instrumental value of creatures for human purposes, but on the basis of the intrinsic value all the products of God’s creative activity possess.

6) The variety of Biblical creation accounts suggests that the message of the Bible’s creation theology may legitimately be applied in different ways in distinctive situations. The task of those who accept the Bible’s authority is to determine what specific actions are implied for today by the general principles of biblical creation theology. Whatever "having dominion and subduing the earth" may have meant in other eras, today it surely means protecting the earth from overpopulation, toxic wastes, and nuclear holocaust. While the need to limit our use of the earth’s resources may not have been obvious in previous ages, it surely is clear now that responsible caring for the earth requires some such limitation.

Based on this discussion of Biblical creation theology, I believe that I have shown that theology can indeed be ecological and environmentally-minded — that is, in fact, can be a valuable tool for supporting and encouraging appropriate care of the environment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Bernard W. "Mytho-Poeic and Theological Dimensions of Biblical Creation Faith," Creation in the Old Testament ed. Bernard W. Anderson. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. pp. 1-24.

Berry, Wendell. "The Gift of Good Land," Sierra 64 (November-December 1979), 2026.

Bindemann, Walther. Die Hoffnung der Schoepfung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983.

Derr, Thomas Sieger. "Religion’s Responsibility for the Ecological Crisis: An Argument Run Amok," Woridview, 18 (January 1975), 39-45.

Frye, Roland Mushat, ed. Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1983.

Limburg, James. "What Does it Mean to ‘Have Dominion Over the Earth’?" Dialog 10 (1971), 221-223.

Westermann, Claus. Creation trans. John J. Scullion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.

White, Lynn, Jr. "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis," Science 155 (March 10, 1967), 1203-1207.

Roger Timm, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Religion at Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Pa.

by William S. Falla, Jr.

What has been the response of Christian theology to ecological issues and concerns? Can Christian theology provide us with insights and strategies for dealing with current ecological dilemmas? Do those theologies which utilize a synthesis of Christian theology and natural science give one a quantitative advantage for dealing with ecological issues? What shape should theology take to effectively deal with ecological problems? These questions will guide this brief study because they lead us to the critical issues involved in any discussion of theology and ecology.

Historically, most theological reflection has been strongly rooted in scripture. But, as Richard Hiers points out, "ecology was not a topi within range of vision in biblical times." Thus, the nature of biblical witness with respect to the environment requires further theological reflection if one is to produce a substantial and coherent ecological teaching. The basic problem with the available biblical material is threefold: it is spotty in quality, contradictory in content and scarce in quantity, especially in the New Testament. This last factor has been exacerbated by the preference of the Christian faith for the New Testament over the Old Testament with the concomitant devaluing of the latter.

While some of Christianity’s lack of environmental and ecological concerns may be traced to it’s biblical heritage, that alone is not sufficient to account for the paucity of theological reflection. Historically, Christian theology has ignored questions centering on the care of creation because ecology and the environment have simply been non-issues. There were no compelling environmental needs which Christian theology felt warranted major attention. It must be remembered that it has only been within the last few decades that ecological concerns have become important to the world, much less the Church. Hence, other issues absorbed the attention of theologians.

Doctrinally, the primary theological categories that Christian thinkers have focused on have not in general been appropriate for stimulating ecological discussions. While most Christian theologians have developed a doctrine of creation, almost all of these have been dependent on and subordinate to other doctrines, such as salvation, redemption and humanity. As a result, few creationcentered theologies have emerged in Christianity.

This pushing of the doctrine of creation to the periphery of Christian thought has been deleterious to the treatment of the environment in several ways. First, the fact that the doctrine of creation serves other doctrines can lead to an instrumental view of creation itself. Hence, creation is merely a means for effecting the more crucial concerns of God or a backdrop to the great drama of redemption. The redemption doctrine, by theologically judging creation flawed and inadequate, opens the door to the historical denigration of creation.

Second, the redemption paradigm has been reinforced by a strong strain of Platonic metaphysics which has led Christians to view the world as inauthentic if not evil. Combined with a powerful "other-worldly" eschatology, this has provided the Christian theologian with a paradigm within which it is easy to ignore or deny the value of the created order.

Third, this notion of creation is reinforced by a view of humanity as suspended between God and the rest of the created order. Thus, the human being who may be "a little less than God," is nevertheless a lot better than the rest of creation. While this may not lead to exploitation per se, it does create a hierarcy in which the role of the lesser is to serve the needs of the greater. In any case, it certainly does not provide a paradigm that is conducive to discussions on environmental issues.

The question now to be asked is this: must it be this way? If not, then what sort of corrective actions might be taken? To the first question, we must answer, "No!" In responding to the second, one can choose several options. The option that I wish to choose is the one offered by the molding of natural science with Christian theology. Such theologians as Ralph Wendall Burhoe, Arthur Peacocke and John Bowker have attempted such a synthesis. Let us look briefly at this synthesis and its relevance for ecological issues.

It must first be noted that science in its own way has proven as ineffective in dealing with basic ecological questions. This
ineffectiveness is in large part due to science’s traditional insistence that it is an amoral discipline and that nature is an object to be studied. The result has been an instrumental view of nature not unlike that of Christian theology. This is not, however, to close the door to the possibility that either one, independently, could change in such a way as to produce an effective environmental paradigm. Yet it is to suggest that a synthesis of natural science and Christian theology provides a better possibility for the development of a Christian environmental/ecological ethic.

Before showing why this is so, it is necessary to clarify our use of the term ethic. E.O. Wilson defines an ethic as a "set of rules invented to meet circumstances so new and intricate, or else encompassing responses so far in the future that the averge person cannot foresee the final outcome." Thus an ethic implies a stable foundation of precepts and attitudes out of which environmental or ecological decisions can be made. This paradigm is stable but not static and can be significantly modified and informed by the dynamism of the natural order. Thus it weds the essential or foundational with the experiential.

In my opinion, this ethic, or paradigm, is best constructed by an open dialogical interaction between science and religion–an interaction where both science and theology make contributions of a foundational and experiential nature. While many may argue for a bifurcation of task with science and theology concentrat,ing on their "particular area of expertise," it can be shown that this strategy has, in fact played a major role in the current crisis in environmental ethics. On the one hand, scientific theories provide insights of a foundational, or paradigmatic, nature as well as means of organizing and reporting data. On the other hand, theology provides us with a means of reporting and organizing information as well as giving us a cosmological framework in which to operate. For example, Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory provides foundational insights into the operation of the cosmos in addition to a way of discussing species variation and development. Likewise, the Christian doctrine of creation tells us something about the universe as well as providing a worldview.

If the best ethic is developed from an interdisciplinary synthesis, does the synthesis between science and Christian theology provide the optimal ethic/paradigm? Could a synthesis between other disciplines be equally as effective? I would maintain that the disciplines of science and theology best provide the elements needed for an effective ethic because: a) each focuses on the operation of the cosmos at all levels, b) each does so in an attempt to understand the universals by which the cosmos operates, and c) each expands the view of the other because of differences in their approach and focus.

What shape then will this new ethic take? On a broad conceptual level it would integrate current scientific theories (Big Bang, NeoDarwinian evolution, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics etc.) with major theological categories (Creation, Christ, Humanity, Eschatology, etc.). While it is beyond the scope of this paper to completely detail this intergration, one can get an idea of its nature by looking at some of its characteristics.

First, the ethic would be creation-centered. In other words, the creation of the cosmos and the understanding of that creation must be at the center of the paradigm and define all other concepts and categories. It is obvious that science with its focus on the natural order does much to enhance the creation- centeredness. It does so by defining questions, providing an understanding of processes and events, and developing a modus operandi But, beyond this, science provides an evolutionary paradigm of creation. Theology in making creation its central doctrine must do so in a manner that is compatible with this evolutionary woridview, i.e., of a creation that is constantly active and ongoing. Furthermore, the creation doctrine must define other doctrines as well. One, therefore, arrives at a doctrine of Christ in which Jesus Christ is continuously active in the ongoing processes of the cosmos. While such a Christology is uncommon, it can be found in Col 1:15-20 and in those theologies which contain the idea of creation continua such as Irenaeus and Teilhard de Chardin. Such a Christology imparts a degree of sanctity to the universe now understood as a place where God/Christ is active in an ongoing manner. Therefore, when one interacts with this cosmos, one is, in a sense, interacting with God and Jesus Christ. The individual is thus provided with an understanding of the cosmos, with strategies for responsible interaction, and with a motivation for that interaction.

Second, this heightened view of creation implies a more modest view of humanity. This does not mean that humanity has less value but that humanity has no more value than the rest of creation. The incorporation of this view of the human presents a major challenge to Christian theology. Historically, the church has been reluctant to adopt this view, resisting both Darwinian evolutionary theory and later the Neo-Darwinian model for their suggestions that the human was no different from any other species in its development as a species.

Even those theologians who have a creation-centered theology maintain an exalted view of humanity, (with the possible exception of Francis). For example, Neister Eckhardt, in the collection of his sermons entitled Creation Spirituality has one sermon entitled "How all Creatures Share an Equality of Being" followed immediately by one entitled "The Greatness of the Human Person." In this latter sermon, Matthew Fox points out that Eckhardt argues that "Humanity, . . ., is the Creator’s masterpiece, a likness of the divinity that has no parallel." This leaves us, then, with an Orwellian-like system in which all creatures are equal but humans are more equal.

Some argue that a doctrine of humanity could be designed which translates privilege into responsibility. But this stewardship model has not and will not work to protect the environment because privilege is generally translated into rights. Thus, humanity, as a result of its position, has a right to use the universe in any way it sees fit. Even responsible use is use for humanity’s benefit. A truly meaningful environmental ethic will arise only when a use pattern is developed in which all creation has equal privilege. This can be facilitated within Christianity by a lessexalted doctrine of humanity.

Finally, a less other-worldly eschatology is needed within Christian theology if a viable environmental ethic is to be developed. The "play now, pay later" attitude, when coupled with the Christian doctrine of forgiveness, has traditionally produced little sense of urgency or necessity. Even evangelical eschatology which does produce a sense of urgency and upheaval does so in an other-worldly manner. In a this-worldly eschatology "eternal" judgment occurs here and all successive generations must endure it. This is precisely what science is telling us about humanity’s treatment of the cosmos. Our actions are so disturbing the environment that the results will serve as an "eternal" judgment of humanity. If for example, we poison the environment in an irreversible manner, that poisoning becomes not only an "eternal" judgment of humanity but something that creation must endure. In short, Christian theology must couch our actions in apocalyptic terms so that we come to grips with the gravity of our actions and need for an urgent response. Christian eschatology must recapture the immediacy felt by Paul and the early Church but it must do so in such a way that it remains anchored in the world of everyday experience.

This paper has been only a beginning in the exploration of a possible synthesis between science and Christian theology in the interest of an environmental ethic. I have merely tried to suggest some steps in a direction which will be beneficial for both and for creation itself.

NOTES

1. Richard Heirs. Zygon, March 1986, p. 45.

2. Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia Harvard Univ. Press, p. 120.

3. Thisso-called "two book theory" would have science deal exclusively with the physical world in as an empirical a manner as possible while theology would concentrate on metaphysical considerations.

4. Fox, Matthew. (1980). Breakthrough: Meister Eckhardt’s Creation Spirituality. Doubleday & Co., p. 107.

William S. Falla Jr., Ph.D. (Cand.) is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Religion and Chaplain at Cedar Crest College, Allentown, Pa.