Chapter 12

When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you ...’ (John 16:13)

Christianity was never intended to provide ready packaged, dogmatic sets of rules to cover every possible situation. Had Christ predicted distant future developments such as invitro fertilisation or the testing of nuclear weapons and moralised about them, the powers of the day would have found no need to crucify him; he would have been laughed out of Jerusalem! Yet these things are a reality today. God, in His wisdom, allowed us to make such discoveries as part of our ongoing exploration of the universe, but we must always be guided by conscience in the light of responsibility and love.

It would be impossible to discuss every current moral issue, so only a few will be considered here.

Abortion

The most crucial question related to the premature termination of pregnancy by deliberate interference, is ‘when does the life of a person commence?’. Is it at conception, after birth, or somewhere in between? Theologians and scientists may theorise, but the truth is that nobody knows for sure. If the answer turns out to be ‘at birth’ then abortion is probably no more serious than any other form of self abuse, and even justifiable under certain circumstances. However, if life in the personal sense really does begin when fertilisation takes place, then the number of murders committed through abortion makes the biggest mass killing in history a sideshow by comparison.

Most of those who have abortions or carry them out, either do not care sufficiently about human life or they prefer to believe that it begins later. If the participants are honest about their uncertainty in this respect, they must recognise the possibility that they are killing a real person. Would a responsible and loving human being take such a risk in anything but the most extreme circumstances?

One on-going emotionally charged debate revolves around the situation of rape resulting in pregnancy. Added to this is the psychological trauma of carrying it through its full term as a constant reminder, followed by the responsibility of having to care for an unwanted child. This is a very serious matter. Even more serious is the question, ‘Do we have the right to kill an innocent third party to remedy a gross injustice done by someone else?’

Birth Control

The central question in birth control is whether or not it is good to alter (some would say ‘pervert’) the function of the body so as to remove the natural connection between intended cause and effect. This dilemma is not confined to sex, but may be broadened to other pleasurable activities such as eating and drinking. Certain citizens of Ancient Rome had practices whereby they could continue eating indefinitely without digesting food!

It is pointless to argue that the only ‘intended’ purpose of sex is the procreation of the species, because that could have been accomplished without building pleasure into the activity, simply by providing human beings with an irresistible urge. Human sexual interaction clearly performs more than one function.

Whilst the general teaching of the Christian Church is against separating sex from procreation for valid reasons, it concedes that circumstances can exist where the practice of contraception may be the most responsible course of action. The decision is therefore left to the individual’s informed conscience.

Euthanasia

It is very difficult to see any person, particularly a loved one, suffer. It is considered morally appropriate to take reasonable steps to ease suffering even if they tend to shorten the person’s life as an eventual consequence. However, euthanasia, or ‘mercy killing’, is essentially different in that it seeks to end life in order to remove suffering. For a Christian, who considers God the final arbiter of the termination of human life, at least in natural circumstances, there is little room for debate. Nevertheless, there is a situation that is not entirely clear-cut. Is it moral to switch off the life support system of a human being who is kept ‘alive’ in what could be described as a near vegetable state?

There is a crucial difference between killing a person and allowing him to die naturally when we have taken all reasonable steps to keep him alive in a state of dignity. In cases where there is very little hope of restoring the person at least to consciousness, one must seriously consider what would be the most loving decision in a greater context. The relevant considerations extend beyond the individual who is on the life support system. Keeping such a person ‘alive’ is usually beyond the affordable resources of individual relatives, and even society as a whole may not be justified in bearing the burden if it means curtailing its capacity to help others in need.

Divorce

The control of modern marriage has almost completely been taken over by the state, and where religious ceremonies are used, they are seen by many as having only symbolic or sentimental value. Despite the explicit teachings of Christ, almost all countries which have predominantly Christian populations now recognise divorce and allow remarriage.

The traditional view is that a valid Christian marriage is generally indissoluble due to the nature of the contract. The participants call upon God to witness their agreement and join them together in an exclusive sexual relationship until one of them dies, and accept the permanence of that relationship for better or worse as part of their destinies. In the words of Christ, ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder’ (Mark 10:9).

To initiate divorce for reasons other than desertion or adultery is not only a repudiation of the promises made when the marriage took place but an abandonment of one's confidence in the viability of such an agreement. If one has just despaired in the face of ‘worse’, is it logical and consistent to make the same promise again with a new partner? From another point of view, if a person proves by deserting their spouse or indulging in persistent sexual infidelity that they are unable to be loyal to a marriage for better or worse, then it is highly questionable whether they have the capacity to enter such contracts on those terms. In these cases it could be argued, at least morally, that there was no valid contract to dissolve. Either way, the suggestion is that in Christian marriage valid means indissoluble.

It is often contended that while the original promises may have been made with honest intentions at the time, it would be unfair to condemn a person to a life of misery when he no longer feels able to honour his commitment. However, in Christian morality, intentions are meaningless without responsibility. It cannot be denied that some marriages can be extremely difficult owing to the circumstances or the personalities. No divine law dictates that a couple must occupy the same residence or share the same bed regardless of the consequences, and there is definitely a place for partial or total separation. The right to life, personal safety and sanity take precedence over the obligations of marriage. However, the existence of serious difficulties in the relationship, finding they ‘no longer love each other’, or falling in love with someone else, do not morally release a person to start again with a new partner.

In fairness, it must be conceded that decisions to end a once committed relationship are rarely taken lightly, especially where children may be affected. When partners in a valid Christian marriage resolve to divorce, the morality of another ‘marriage’ under state law, is a matter of conscience for the parties involved, and it is not for outsiders to pass judgement on any particular case. Nevertheless, as long as the original partner survives, no contract with another person can become a valid Christian marriage.

Sexual Behaviour

The Christian's attitude to sex should be a natural and positive one that is free from unfounded inhibitions and superstitions. However, many of the long standing rules are based on sound reasoning and experience, and a person who ignores them does so at his own risk. The admonition against sexual intercourse outside marriage is not unique to the Old and New Testaments, and in view of the severe health risks, promiscuity is particularly irresponsible. Christian morality, however, demands a higher standard of sexual behaviour than one that is based solely on a fear of the possible physical consequences such as unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Sexual interaction takes place at many different levels of intimacy, and not all of these need be confined to marriage. However, as in human relationships of any kind, the closer and more trusting the interaction, the greater the potential benefit and also the deeper the vulnerability of the persons involved. Every level of intimacy, therefore, carries with it a level of responsibility that requires an appropriate commitment to the happiness of those who are affected. This responsibility extends to the impact of the relationship on the person as a whole. When sexual interaction of the most intimate kind takes place, it should be an extension of a genuinely loving relationship, never a casual encounter.

To better appreciate the moral side of sex from the viewpoint of happiness, it is necessary to recognise that sexuality is not detachable from the rest of the personality. Deliberate attempts to withdraw emotional involvement from sex, rather than ‘liberating’ a person, tend to become a hindrance to sexual fulfilment. The deepest experience of sex is impossible without the sensitive participation of the entire person. This, however, entails openness and vulnerability, and is clearly safer in an atmosphere of commitment. In any case, stable relationships have long been recognised as necessary for sound emotional development.

Two other areas are of common concern:

Although the moral perspective and the level of tolerance in these areas have varied in Christianity over the centuries, the sexually active lifestyles often associated with them could never be regarded as morally equivalent to mature, responsible heterosexual relationships.

It is one thing to talk about sexual morality and quite another to realise that feelings and natural drives can be so strong as to override all reasoning. That, however, is not unique to sex, and humanity has wrestled with this problem throughout recorded history. The answer does not lie in the repression of sexual feelings or a denial of their value, but in learning to respect the natural forces at work, and having a deeply ingrained spirit of love and responsibility.

De-Facto and Other Relationships

De-facto relationships, trial marriages and casual sexual partnerships are generally regarded as unacceptable in Christianity. The principal reason is that they tend to imply a lack of permanent commitment and responsibility. Having said that, it is essential to distinguish between formality and reality. It would be no exaggeration to suggest that some de-facto relationships are more committed or ‘wedded in spirit’, without the certificate, than many officially married couples who recognise divorce as an option if the relationship doesn’t work out, or fail to love each other as they should. Ideally the formality and the reality should go together, but ultimately it is the reality that counts more, and it is inappropriate to pass judgement on individual cases simply because the protocol has not been fulfilled.

There is no basis for ‘same sex marriages’ in Christianity. However, aside from the subject of sexual behaviour, which has already been covered, there is no reason why any two people regardless of gender should not have a life-long committed loving relationship that never has to be formalised as a contract.

Politics and Social Justice

The particular form that government takes is not, in itself, an issue in Christianity. In theory, democracy ensures government by the people, but often it degenerates into rule by the loudest noise that threatens popular support. On the other hand, while there can be abundant personal freedom under benevolent dictatorship, absolute power that is not accountable is highly prone to corruption.. No political system is without its advantages and disadvantages. The crucial issue, however, is not who rules, but who benefits or suffers and in what ways. What is of paramount importance is the well-being of the individual and society, and this calls for due emphasis on justice, freedom, long-term viability and prosperity that is not only of the material kind. By Christian principles, the primary purpose of government is to be servant to all (Mark 9:35).

The responsibility of government may be illustrated with an example from the economic sphere: All too often, influential groups succeed in persuading authorities to further their vested interests, virtually giving them a licence to exploit the rest of the population with impunity. It is fundamental to the Christian concept of justice that the earth and its resources are for everyone to use and that no group has the right to monopolise them to the exclusion or exploitation of others. Governments have a duty to structure their economic systems so as to ensure that this is avoided, and that every person has an adequate opportunity to do sufficient work to enable him to support himself and his dependants in dignity. The neglect of such basic justice, is a tested recipe for social unrest and an escalator of crime and other evils. Semi-automated charity in the form of minimal ‘government handouts’ is no substitute. Apart from the likely material hardship, the more insidious effect of being denied the opportunity to work, is the damage to the person's self respect, and the sense of frustration and alienation that comes from insufficient meaningful involvement with others through the mutually beneficial use of his talents. This is compounded by the feeling of powerlessness over his own life in being totally dependent on assistance at other people's discretion.

The need for justice, however, runs deeper than the setting up of fair legal and economic processes, for there is no system devised by man which other men cannot circumvent, frustrate and pervert. Although good systems are indispensable, the ultimate basis of social well-being will always remain the sense of justice that lives within the people themselves. Without individual moral awareness and initiative, the power of any form of government to ensure social justice is very limited. This is where education and religion play a vital part.

Should the Church get involved in politics? This question is impossible to answer in an unqualified way. There are good reasons to suggest that the clergy should not seek power or become politically active at the party level, for their role must remain consistent with Christ’s mission in that his ‘kingdom is not of this world’ (John 18:36). Nevertheless, it is entirely appropriate that they speak out on matters such as morality, justice and human rights. At the same time, the Church is not just the clergy but the community of all believers. As part of society, practising members of all faiths have a duty to participate in its effective government, and presumably, the state is better run by people of developed conscience and moral convictions.

The Limits of Legislation

Christianity recognises the vital role that secular law plays in society at every level. The ‘rule of law’ is an essential safeguard against anarchy and the arbitrary use of power, whether by private individuals, organisations or public authorities. Nevertheless there are substantial difficulties with law that cause concern from the Christian point of view.

Law is of little use unless it becomes part of human behaviour, and people cannot absorb unlimited complexity. Rather than creating a deeper awareness of obligations, the growing volume either becomes a ponderous burden consuming an increasing proportion of time and other resources and a disincentive to involvement, or it creates a major compliance problem due to ignorance. Christ’s comment that the Pharisees ‘bind heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with a finger’ (Matt. 23:4), is equally applicable to many civil authorities today. Law rapidly reaches a phase of diminishing benefits and considerable wisdom must be applied when attempting to regulate any area, for there is a big difference between accomplishing a specific objective with more regulation, and optimising the whole with the limited resources available. Excessive law is highly counter-productive and eventually cripples society. Equally, too much emphasis on the rule of law, as if it were an end in itself, tends to promote legalism where the ‘spirit’ of the law is overshadowed by the ‘letter’, and the fundamental supremacy of justice, responsibility and love is forgotten. Just as ‘man does not live by bread alone’ (Deut. 8:3, Luke 4:4), society does not function by legislation alone but by an optimum combination of factors that include educated awareness, good example and community support.

An ongoing dilemma is whether a politician should vote in favour of a law that offends his religious convictions. If the law forces people to act immorally, then he cannot in conscience support it. However, if it merely permits certain immoral practices, there is no uniform answer. A Christian politician who votes in favour of legalising divorce, prostitution, attempted suicide or the worship of ‘false gods’ is not necessarily condoning these practices, but may see a need to tolerate them and allow people to make their own moral decisions where they (arguably) do not cause unmanageable disharmony within society. He is simply refraining from imposing civil penalties in addition to those that the person might be destined to face at the spiritual level. We must remember that the purpose of secular law is limited to the peaceful coexistence of society, and there are many immoral acts that do not essentially violate this such as over-indulgent practices that harm one’s own health but nobody else’s. In the interest of preserving the communal benefits of personal freedom, it is often necessary to (reluctantly) tolerate some degree of evil, and even God appears to do so at this time. Where good and evil are closely mixed, prematurely rooting out the evil is not always the best strategy (Matt. 13:24-30).

Responding to Evil and Injustice

When a person observes or experiences a gross injustice, it is natural and morally appropriate to take reasonable action to rectify it and attempt to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence. Civilised societies have evolved processes whereby these objectives can be pursued in orderly ways, but sometimes the system fails due to its own inadequacies. A classic example is the situation where we know the identity of the person who committed a serious crime against our family, but we cannot prove it with sufficient evidence. Another case might be a corporation engaging in very detrimental practices that are not covered by law. Should one ‘let them get away with it’ possibly to continue doing harm? When may we ‘take the matter into our own hands’ with forceful unilateral action? Could we try some unconventional means whose broader consequences are still unknown?

There is no moral justification for human revenge in Christian thinking, however, the pursuit of the common good outside the existing legal framework has long been the subject of debate. There is no single answer to cover all scenarios, but a very important principle always applies: An orientation of love and responsibility demands that we expand our perspective beyond the original objective, to embrace the full consequences of our strategy. In the pursuit of justice, as in all areas of decision-making, it is vital to ensure that proposed solutions do not create even greater problems in the long term, at a deeper level or in a wider context. If they threaten to do so, then the appropriate action may be to bear with the injustice and have confidence that God will eventually rectify it in His own way.

Another question is whether perpetrators of evil and injustice should be exposed. Again the full consequences of any such decision must always be assessed before any action is taken. It is sufficient to suggest that the moral answer is not always ‘yes’. This issue is illustrated by the situation of the unfaithful husband: Should his wife be told? The answer to this question depends on the relative good or harm that might result either way, but the real moral issue is that he should stop doing it. What about the truth? We must remember that concepts such as ‘the right to know’ do not override all other considerations. How much of the truth one reveals in any given instance must be governed by the basic principles of ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ and ‘do unto others as you would have them do to you.’ Of course we should avoid telling direct lies, but we have no moral license to hurt people with truth unless it is necessary. If the perpetrator of evil voluntarily changes his behaviour, that may be a far greater achievement than the doubtful deterrent effect of public humiliation.

Historical Injustices and Reconciliation

Throughout the ages, the strong have traditionally exploited the weak, majorities have persecuted minorities, indigenous peoples and established communities have suffered at the hands of invaders, and children have inherited the consequences of decisions made by their forebears. Innumerable conflicts from family feuds that continued for generations to wars that lasted for decades, had their roots in the un-forgiven injustices committed by those who could no longer be brought to account. Resentment festers wherever there is perceived unfairness, and no less so when people have reason to attribute their existing disadvantages to the ancestors of a more privileged group.

The individual cases are varied and often very complex, but if this unproductive cycle is to end, a number of principles need to be implemented.

Guilt is neither hereditary nor contagious and any attempt to make it so is a gross violation of truth. It is far more conducive to reconciliation to openly forgive the culpable ancestors than to seek apologies from the descendants for events that were beyond their control. At the same time, the beneficiaries of past injustice also have a moral obligation to use their relative advantages to improve conditions and opportunities for those who inherited misfortune.

Globalisation

Whether globalisation is beneficial or not depends on how it is defined, what is being globalised and how the objective is pursued. The concept of globalisation is not new, but the world scene has changed in terms of the awesome power that humanity now controls. The global view is therefore becoming increasingly important especially where decisions affect the greater physical, social and economic environment. The principles of Christianity suggest that our awareness and love must grow with the extent of our influence.

There are several perspectives. The idealistic image of globalisation as universal connectedness has merits, and in some areas such as communication and information availability, considerable benefits are being achieved for an increasing part of the world’s population. The economic interpretation of the concept envisages the free movement of business interests, and here some of the ‘advantages’ become more questionable especially when they entail diminished control over life at the local level. The advantages that come with greater interdependence are often gained only at the cost of increased local imbalance and vulnerability.

The political perspective might suggest the eventual establishment of a World Government, or at least a consistent overall system of guiding principles. Throughout history, many have sought the globalisation of their ideologies or influence through a variety of means including writing, negotiation, invasion, missionary propagation, subversion, intimidation and terror. Jesus Christ sought the spreading of the Kingdom of God through teaching, example and invitation. When he commanded his disciples to teach all nations, he intended that there should be a globalisation of hope and reconciliation with God and with one another so that someday all of humanity would live in harmony as one. At this stage, globalisation is largely dominated by greed and powerful commercial interests. We still await the globalisation of responsibility, compassion, environmental care and the freedom of people to live and work where they choose.

International Conflict

Peace cannot be equated with the absence of war or the unconditional willingness of the disadvantaged to accept the way things are. It requires positive progress towards justice to manage the underlying enmity. This is true at all levels from the personal to the international. World peace will never be achieved while nations pursue their own interests to the detriment of their neighbours. Neither can lasting peace be based on fear. Whilst you may succeed in coercing others into reluctant submission with your power to do harm or make life unpleasant for them, you can only attract them and elicit their active cooperation by being good to them. It requires us to recognise that the principle of ‘love your enemies’ (Matt. 5:44) is far more effective in converting enemies to friends and generating peace than the concept of ‘an eye for an eye’ or the inclination towards disproportionate retaliation.

Should nations disarm? Christ did not say ‘trust your enemies,’ and total disarmament is unlikely to be conducive to effective diplomacy and mutual respect between cultures of differing values, especially before a sound basis for friendship is established. However, while the key to peace does not lie in the surrender of power which may be needed to discourage active aggression or contempt, the intimidating presence of power does not resolve the underlying conflict. The attention must be focused on the causes of hostility, and once there is substantial progress towards a satisfactory resolution, both sides may be naturally motivated to reduce their wasteful weapons expenditure.

It cannot be denied that international diplomacy requires considerable skill, but we must remember that ultimately we are dealing with human nature. Some unilateral initiative in good-will without conditions attached is very effective and too often neglected. A complementary step is open communication towards a public understanding of one another’s perception of the truth. In contrast, nearly all wars have been based on a substantial component of lies, manipulation, hidden agendas and the relentless pursuit of vested interests by all sides, while they were sold to their own people under a banner of honourable motives. Lasting peace depends more on truth, justice and good-will than on clever strategy.

The Terrorism Problem

Fanatical terrorists often regard themselves as legitimately at war with an enemy culture where all people are seen as responsible, if not directly, then by their indifference or tacit approval. However, such arguments are fallacious, for they grossly over-estimate the knowledge and power of most ordinary citizens. Deliberate indiscriminate violence also stands in sharp contrast to God’s way of thinking, where He was willing to spare an extremely corrupt society if destroying it entailed harming even a small minority of just people (Gen 19:23-32). Terrorism is indisputably contrary to the teachings of Christ and can never be justified from a Christian perspective.

What is controversial about terrorism is the explanation for its existence and the appropriate response. Isolated acts can occur in any society, for there will always be people who are willing to go to any extent to pursue their unaddressed grievances, frustrations and other agendas. Organised fanatical terrorism, however, only thrives in an environment where there is extensive support. Combinations of internal poverty, perceived injustice, external threats and general outsider apathy to basic human needs provide an ideal fertile ground for endemic hatred to flourish, and when we add a suitable belief system that condones violence in the name of a holy cause, it is hardly surprising to find a ready supply of terrorists whose ‘mission’ overrides the value of all human life including their own.

Many naive responses have been attempted, such as insisting that militant groups disarm and unconditionally renounce terrorism before any negotiation can take place. Vast resources have been used in trying to defeat invisible enemies by deploying massive military power, and this has almost never been successful regardless of which side of an ideology border one represents. There are the advocates of covert operations of questionable legality which occasionally backfire. Finally some sink to the level of attempting to control the guilty by threatening the innocent close to them and try to terrorise terrorism out of existence. In the meantime we move ever closer to crippling our own societies with even more restrictions that do little to prepare us for the next surprise attack. We fail because we try to fight this evil mostly with force and fear. We fail because of our exclusive views of ourselves and our human responsibilities, and because of our apathy to the suffering of those with whom we do not identify. We fail because we do not hear the message of Christ.

Regardless of the ideology that drives terrorists or condones their activities, the inescapable fact remains that happy individuals in a prosperous society do not volunteer for suicidal martyrdom, and people surrounded by active good-will have no reason to go to war with their neighbours. The truth that terrorism is evil, does not mean that it is a one-sided issue. To conquer it, we also need to look into ourselves. Christianity condones neither terrorism nor apathy.

The Only True Religion

It is natural that every religion should claim to be the ‘one true path’, and of course, Christianity does the same. In fact, each denomination within the major religions repeats the assertion for itself that they have the truth, and everyone else is mistaken. This presents a dilemma: On the one hand, if a person does not believe his philosophy is better, then why is he preaching it? On the other hand, regardless of which one is destined to be verified, it seems the majority of humanity comprising the ‘non-believers’ could be condemned!

A person who expects a decisive contest ending in conclusive proof will have to wait. At this stage, we are all forced to live by faith, and ultimately the matter of who will be ‘saved’ is for God to decide, not us. However, regardless of whether we are correct or otherwise, no belief system makes us personally superior to any other human being. The individual who holds an erroneous idea is just as precious to God and must be treated accordingly.

Freedom of Religion

The extent to which freedom of religion is viable depends on what is included under the banner of ‘religion’ and the way freedom is defined. Unless technology advances to the point of being able to read private thoughts at a distance, religion in the sense of belief systems will always be free regardless of legislation. On the other hand, religion as behaviour can never be completely unrestricted for then even terrorism and ritual human sacrifices could be regarded as lawful! ‘Freedom of religion’ may be a catchy political slogan but largely an impractical myth. Within every society, incompatible behaviour must inevitably be curtailed regardless of whether its origin is religious or otherwise. While most religious practices pose no real threat to society and much of the evident intolerance is baseless, some behaviour may be manifestly offensive to other groups. This presents a few dilemmas and challenges for both the individual and the democratic state.

Most major religions, including Christianity, entail more than private belief or worship. They encompass a total way of life. A person who practises any religion with integrity does not separate his involvement in business or politics from his higher convictions. They necessarily influence his values and everything he does, and not even local secular law will take precedence over them. Whether this is good or bad depends on what the beliefs prescribe. Either way, if practising his religion poses a threat to those who have more power, it is inevitable that he will become victim of some form of ‘persecution’ in subtle or obvious ways, whether lawfully or not. Christ warned his own followers to expect this. In reality, freedom of religion always exists for any person who is prepared to pay the price of living by what he believes in. It is somehow significant that in the history of almost every religion, their finest hours were usually when the external conditions were least favourable.

While religious intolerance is seen as undemocratic, the reality is that freedom of religion can itself lead to social friction, and pressures build up in the opposite direction. Recently, some countries have moved to ban the public display of religious symbols such as the veil, the scull cap and the cross in an attempt to promote equality and reduce division. However, the real threats to social harmony do not come from symbols but from ways of thinking and acting. The damage is done by indoctrination that encourages contempt for non-believers, unjust discrimination in public matters such as business dealings, and incompatible standards of public behaviour that are religiously prescribed or licensed. This is the level at which the problem needs to be addressed. Failing some agreeable resolution, separation inevitably takes place by one means or another such as imprisonment, ghetto formation, apartheid or national division. Otherwise the antagonism runs its natural course.

Where there is no essential conflict between religious and secular ideals, it is entirely appropriate that all people (including clergy) who commit crimes should be treated alike, and not be allowed to evade public scrutiny. Serious difficulties, however, can arise when secular and religious laws are in conflict. Attempts to place secular law above religious law do not work with any religion that has a large number of practising followers, and even if authorities are willing to resort to persecution, the exercise is likely to fail. One must always remember that the primary agent of order in society is not the law enforcement system but voluntary compliance which is based on many things including religion.

The Environment

Whilst it is reasonable to assume that the human species cannot continue to expand indefinitely without serious consequences, and limits may already have been reached in certain areas, it is a mistake to reduce the problems of the environment to one of population. Globally, there are more immediate problems which the control of population will not, in itself, prevent or solve. The indications are that a minority of those already living will destroy the life supporting ability of the earth by greed, mismanagement, short-term expediency and lack of cooperation, long before we perish because of too many people wanting to satisfy their basic needs.

For example, western economic systems are geared towards large-scale production, expanding markets and unlimited wants. They are dependent on mass consumption for their ‘prosperity’. This brings with it the clutter, pollution, resource depletion, extinction of species and general environmental degradation which are the inevitable by-products of avarice and materialism taken to extremes. They are the natural result of the kind of ‘progress’ that maximises the ‘having’ rather than the joys of the ‘doing’. In contrast, it is actually remarkable how few personal possessions are really necessary for comfort and fulfilment!

Earlier in this book, we noted that one of the essential ingredients of happiness was a sense of oneness, unity or harmony. That is equally vital in the relationship we have with the rest of nature to which our physical existence and well-being are tied. This interaction ought to be positive, constructive and developing in a way that does credit to the capacity of the human intellect to explore the rich possibilities nature has to offer. Instead, what we see is an ever increasing state of destructive alienation.

According to the first chapter of the Bible, mankind was given dominion over the animals and all the resources of the earth. As with the rest of the Old Testament, Christ did not abolish this principle but fulfilled it. He made it clear by his teaching and his example that those who rule must do so for the benefit of all. Dominion does not give them the right to ruthlessly exploit and to destroy, but to develop and use for the good of the whole. So it must be in our relationship with the environment. We do not own nature, but have a stewardship over it for which we will have to give account.

At the same time, there is no room in Christianity for extremism of the kind that considers human beings expendable for the preservation of the rest of the natural world. That is neither the sole nor the ultimate purpose of human existence. A viable solution to environmental problems cannot be found by exchanging them for intolerable evils of a different kind. Methods which attempt to deny people the expression of their natural drives to procreate, invent, develop and build, serve only to undermine voluntary cooperation at the individual level, without which no lasting solution is possible. They are also inconsistent with Christian ideals.

What is necessary, is a general change of attitude away from a destructive obsession with our short-term wants, and a restructuring of our economic systems so that individual survival and well-being can be assured without the need to impoverish the future of everyone. An education in the relevant problems is needed at every level of decision making from personal to state, and an awareness that all of us are also responsible for the kind of world we leave to future inhabitants.

"Journey of Insight: an Invitation to Christianity"
©Carl Jacob

Web design by Ieva Bergman