Lynn Townsend White Jr., Ecology and Christianity: Is modern Christianity under threat?

An interesting question might be posed to Pope Francis, who of late seems intent on changing the attitude held by those who follow the Vatican on climate change. On the 11^th December 2014, ZENIT published the Pope’s Message to the UN Convention on Climate Change, in which His Holiness stated that responsibility for the upheaval of the planet’s resource management is ‘a grave ethical and moral responsibility’.[1] It may well be so, and what I do not doubt is the Pope’s honesty in these words, for he must truly believe in the validity of climate change, for doing otherwise as a leader of a group of 1.2 billion people would be naïve. Especially when, as John Vidal writes in the Guardian (27^th December 2014) that Pope Francis’ position is likely to ‘attract resistance from Vatican conservatives and in right-wing church circles’, especially those in the USA.[2]

It is clear the pontiff is determined to this ‘green’ system, but Lynn White Jr., a significant medieval historian, suggests our negative attitudes to the planet are ‘rooted in’ Judeo-Christian teleology.[3] White’s 1967 thesis, ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis’, attracted significant resistance at the time and has continued to do so since, not because it was universally accepted but because it was it was debated, according to Willis Jenkins.

Lynn Townsend White Jr.

Despite the perception of White being generally sceptical, his thesis continues to be omnipresent in any reference to the origins of our ecological crisis even if only, as is frequently the case, it is debunked. However, the fact that this is the case tells us a huge amount about White’s perception and the stress under which Christianity has felt itself, and the recent desire for reform. Having sustained such an attack from White I think that neo-Christianity has reformed itself with validity, but a further statement of intent is, I feel, needed.

White’s 1967 argument boils down to the teleology that surrounds Judaism and Christianity; that being that the planet was created for man and therefore that everything has an explicit subservient role to mankind. He argues that having lived in this axiom for the last 1700 years it is unsurprising that man has established a monopoly over the world’s resources[4].

He explains away non-Western countries exploiting natural resources by attributing this to Western influence, by Imperialism and the imperialist tendencies that lead many in the West to draw a superior perception of themselves in comparison to those in the East. It is an apathetic conclusion that White draws, arguing that nothing ever ‘had any purpose save to serve man’s purposes’, as in a world created out of nothing by an intangible deity, we have taken it upon ourselves to self-promote rapidly and extensively. [5]

White’s words do ring true with common discussion of climate change and it is of course true that the Lord gives Adam dominion over the Garden of Eden in Genesis, and if one takes Biblical notions seriously (How many 21st Christians do this, though?) then it is an extricable conclusion that man might assume this gives him dominance over nature. However, such is the unwritten anthropocentric belief in nature’s subservience,  all of which, White would argue, stems from Judeo-Christian teleology, we as humanity do appear to follow these Biblical notions regardless.

Further, Elspeth Whitney has reminded us that White is not the first scholar to make a link between Christianity and the birth of Western technology, making reference to Max Weber and Robert Forbes. Where White goes further, she argues, is in constructing a stronger argument regarding European monks in the middle ages intent on exercising their God given stewardship over nature.[6]

Should this be the case, which is not universally or even majorly accepted, there is not necessarily an assumption that Christianity in 2015 has anything to answer for as a result. Jeremy Cohen, contrary to White’s argument, even suggests that medieval monks were far more concerned with the legitimacy of god’s covenant and human sexuality than they were by dominion over nature.[7] Human power over nature then, does have roots biblically, but as does placing women under house arrest during menstruation. The fact that these things are the case does not mean that in the 21^st century we, here and now, should look at Christianity as the antagonist in the struggle against climate change. Doing so is looking at the problem with an exceptionally narrow perspective.

However, what the Pope is currently doing is not narrow. He is drawing on historiographical context from White and demonstrating that the modern Catholic Church is reforming. Should any accusation of guilt be levied at them the Pope can point to the work the Church is already doing. There are grassroots Christian movements working for the environment worldwide, from Japan to Belize, from Honduras to Uganda.[8] These reformative views are not isolated in the Catholic gaze. The Russian Orthodox Church, on its website (http://www.mospat.ru) acknowledges that it is ‘deeply concerned’ about ecological problems and that these problems are caused anthropologically (that is, by humans), not by nature. This is a significant step in modern thinking and it is encouraging that the church shares the accepted scientific consensus.

The associated Christian churches have developed a redemptive attitude to the environment, exemplified in Pope Francis. He has consistently shown support for environmental causes, helping to rehabilitate the Church. Those who are drawn in by the controversial thesis of Lynn White Jr. must now realise that even were this anything approaching accurate, the modern Church is a far cry from this. Moving on from Lynn White is a challenge, as the argument he proposes remains frequented by contemporary scholars of ecology and religion.

Jenkins claims that Christianity should focus less on the aesthetic quality of ecological worldviews and more on what it can do to deliver a new worldview to Christians worldwide.[9] The Pope is the most visible, ostentatious ambassador for the Catholic Church, and his attitude holds deep implications for the followers. In the present and future this attitude is important. In the past, Christianity has been chastised for causing an ecological crisis, but his accusations appear largely unfounded. Christianity in fact seems in rude health in order to deal with the historical implications of climate change and move into a present sphere that can confront climate change directly. The challenge is proving to the public that what the Church did in the past (according to Lynn White) has no implication on its present. The challenge cannot be ignored, but Christianity seems to have adapted itself admirably to building a positive image for followers worldwide.

Tom Richards

[1] ZENIT, 11 December 2014, ‘Pope’s Message to UN Convention on Climate Change’, http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-message-to-un-convention-on-climate-change, [accessed 15/02/15)

[2] The Guardian, 27 December 2014, ‘Pope Francis’s edict on climate change will anger deniers and US churches’, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing, [accessed 15/02/15)

[3] Lynn White Jr., ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis’, Science 155 (1967), 1205

[4] White, ‘Historical Roots’, 1205

[5] White, ‘Historical Roots’, 1205

[6] Elspeth Whitney, ‘White, Lynn (1907-1987)’, Bron Taylor (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature’ (London, 2005), p. 1735

[7] Whitney, ‘White, Lynn’, p. 1736

[8] Willis Jenkins, ‘After Lynn White: Religious Ethics and Environmental Problems’, Journal of Religious Ethics 37 (2009), 296

[9] Jenkins, ‘After Lynn White’, p. 292

Book Review of Timothy Mitchell’s ‘Carbon Democracy’ (First Chapter)

I have recently read and studied Timothy Mitchell’s book, Carbon Democracy, focusing specifically on his first chapter, in which he discusses the link between the use of oil and it’s affects upon the world and its social order. Despite being a political scientist, Mitchell uses historical analysis in order to highlight the effects the development of energy sources has had on societies and their governments. Mitchell argues that our dependency as a society on fossil fuels has laid the way for living on “very high levels of energy consumption”. Not only did this reliance change the way in which the West functioned, it also, as Mitchell states, changed the way other non-Western countries conducted themselves.

Mitchell is fairly coherent in his outlining statement discussing the changes in the use of energy sources. He is able to use historical understanding to show the changes made over time that ultimately offer us a substantial account of twenty first century energy use and how it has come to change the way mass politics operate. After his introduction he highlights how time has caused for a change in energy sources. Technology began to develop and thus the supply of energy followed in pursuit. According to Mitchell, humans have always exploited coal, however only to a certain extent. Mitchell discusses in a chronological order the development of the use of coal. For a reader this is incredible helpful as it helps outline the major changes that caused this so called, carbon democracy. Mitchell goes on the highlight the changes in human relations in reaction to a coal dependent state.

Human settlement ultimately altered, according to Mitchell. Due to the development of coal, it was unnecessary for communities to live near their energy source and therefore they began to congregate together without, “immediate access to agricultural” [1]. Immediately, as the reader, we are able to see the impact coal had on society, without having extensive knowledge of the coal industry. Mitchell, with ease, allows us to understand the early stages of coal development before powering through into his overarching point, and confusing the reader.

These early stages of coal development are largely three fold, ending in a composition of both steam power and coal power. From this point, Mitchell begins to link his overall theme of the creation of democracy to these changes he has highlighted. When reading this next paragraph, Mitchell’s theory of a carbon democracy immediately began to make sense to me. The pace of energy creation and consumption altered and thus changed the way our society functioned, and in turn causing great political change. He discusses how time was to now be used differently. It was not the case now that your energy rate was determined on the speed of photosynthesis or the life span of your cattle. Fossil fuels were now “forms of energy in which great quantities of space and time… have been compressed into a concentrated form.”[2] We can now understand far more clearly the impact coal has had on societies and the changes it has forced upon them. Mitchell is yet to discuss democracy, however I felt content with his analysis so far, in order to allow the reader the opportunity to understand the background of coal development.

In order to offer a wider scope for his argument, Mitchell’s now begins discussing his theory of democracy and its link with oil to the ‘Great Divergence’. As a reader I found this useful in order to place his argument within a wider historical context. With Europe essentially winning the industrial race during the great divergence it was from here that faster energy sources really took flight. With Chinese coal reserves proving difficult for them to navigate, it was Europe who led the industrial revolution into its beginning years in the nineteenth century. This seems to set the scene for the reader, in order for them to understand the historical impact of coal and the flourishing of industry. As this blog is keen to highlight the importance of historical analysis in the climate change debate, Mitchell’s book, and this chapter in particular, is a great way to gain some historical context for climate change and in particular how the use of coal and oil has affected the way civilisation operates.

As the chapter progresses, Mitchell takes us further through the historical changes coal had upon our society. We are now becoming more and more aware of the differences that were created through the change from agricultural energy to fossil fuels. After the role of the landowner was introduced it became apparent that many were feeling like they were not included in the production of energy. This in turn led to mass political movements in pursuit of creating a new form of politics[3] and with this, new forms of political consciousness. Here, Mitchell’s argument states that due to the many strikes from coal miners a new form of democracy was created. This was due to the fact that we needed coal miners in order to gain our energy supply, so any striking on their part would be met with a instant need for them to return to their posts. From this, according to Mitchell, came a new democracy.

Mitchell is also very keen to highlight the very switch from coal based energy sources to oil. He highlights the three main elements that enabled America to convert to a largely oil based system. Like coal, oil enabled some members of society assemble themselves into new social forces. He goes on to state however, that over time, the movement of oil compared with coal had a major affect on political systems across the world. Unlike coal, oil was much easier to be transported, using underground networks that often resemble a grid format, much like to transportation of electricity. This in turn enabled energy networks to be less vulnerable to social and political claims to those whose labour kept the networks running. Due to this change in fossil fuel networks, the ability to make democratic claims was changed forever.

The first chapter of Timothy Mitchell’s book offers a brief yet detailed overview of the development of coal and oil use within societies. In a previous review, Mitchell is congratulated on his chronological layout of his entire book.[4] This is to be said also for his opening chapter. Mitchell allows for anyone, even with little background of coal, oil and the industry that surrounds it, to be able to understand his theory and the evidence he has to back it. For me, Mitchell’s work offers an extremely thought out view of the oil industry and the effect it has had. Previous to reading his work, I had little knowledge of the coal and oil industry and would never have thought to place the two industries with the creation of democracy. However, Mitchell is very persuasive in his argument, offering sound evidence of the very obvious changes that took place after agricultural energy sources were effectively exhausted.

Hattie Wheeler

[1] Timothy, Mitchell, Carbon Democracy (London, 2011) , p15.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Geoff, Eloy, Forging Democracy: The History of the Left in Europe 1850-2000, Oxford: OUP, (2002).

[4] http://sites.uci.edu/technoethno/2014/05/22/review-carbon-democracy-political-power-in-the-age-of-oil-by-timothy-mitchell-2/ [Last accessed 15th February 2015]