Moellering, Ralph L.

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 3 | Issue 4 Article 110-1-1977Christian Responsibility in the North: Toward aBiblical Environmental EthicRalph L. MoelleringFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Articles is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationMoellering, Ralph L. (1977) "Christian Responsibility in the North: Toward a Biblical Environmental Ethic," Consensus: Vol. 3 : Iss. 4 ,Article 1.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol3/iss4/1CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITYIN THE NORTHToward A Biblical Environmental EthicRalph L. MoelleringJesus Christ identified himself with the cause of the lonely, the forsaken, andthe oppressed. As Christians who acknowledge him as Lord, it becomes aninescapable part of the cost of our discipleship to come to the assistance ofthose who may be the victims of exploitation. As trustees of the biblicallegacy, we need to be fully conscious of its emphasis in the Scriptures onGod’s concern for the dispossessed and the outcasts.Spokesmen for the major churches in Canada expressed it this way in 1973:“We stand in the biblical tradition of the prophets where to know God is toseek justice for the poor and the oppressed . . . The Church cannot remainsilent on the political and social issues of the day if it is to claim obedience toChrist and his message of ‘good news to the poor.”’ ’THE PIPELINE DEBATE — A CASE STUDYUndoubtedly, the most hotly disputed and most widely publicized issueconfronting Canadians during 1977 has been the proposed pipeline to1. Quoted in Justice Demands Action, a statement presented to the Prime Minister and members ofthe federal cabinet by Canadian church leaders. March 2, 1976.34 Consensustransport natural gas from the Mackenzie Delta and from the North Slope ofAlaska. Debate included consideration of the proposed pipeline’s manifoldrepercussions and implications for the benefit or detriment of all of the peopleinvolved. What is the concrete meaning of justice when applied todecision-making in respect to the land claims of the inhabitants of theNorthwest Territories? What is truth when we evaluate the conflicting claimsof environmentalists and industrialists? What is right and what is wrong?Arguments and counter-arguments pitted small organizations like the AlbertaEnergy Coalition against the massive conglomerates which pressured forpermission to plunge ahead with their plans for development.Speaking at Inuvik on April 26, 1977, Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline Limitedvice-president, J.A. Harvie, fervently remonstrated against those who opposethe pipeline. He categorically repudiated any suggestion for a moratorium ofup to twenty years to provide the native people with an opportunity to settleand implement a land claims agreement, thereby establishing control of theirown destinies. He expounded his own version of the prevailing situation andwhat he conceives of as good and desirable in the days ahead.Mr. Harvie expressed doubts that the northern native people really wantwhat the antagonists of the pipeline say they do. “What,” he asked, “about theMetis people who told Mr. Justice Berger that they want to participate in andbenefit from the development associated with a pipeline and delta gasproduction?” To bolster his contention further, he referred to the native peopleof Coppermine who Sciid, ‘They don’t want to lose the jobs they have inpetroleum exploration.” Hundreds of native people, he claimed, “havedemonstrated their desire for wage employment by working on presentpetroleum exploration activities.”Granting that they are correct in affirming that the urge for self-determina-tion is universal, he ^vent on to argue that self-determination includes “theright to seek a job.” The clincher in this line of reasoning is to inquire: “How isself-determination achieved by precluding development which can help expandthe range of choice cind opportunity available to northern people?” In addition,this spokesman for Canadian Arctic Gas intimated that “in the absence oflong-term jobs associated with the pipeline” the people in the north wouldsuffer economic hardships and be reduced to dependence on welfare. “Anexploding population,” he maintained, “is already too large to successfully liveoff the land.”Mr. Harvie further tackled the problem of cultural identity, a major plank inthe platform of those who profess to abhor the consequences of unwarrantedintrusions into the north - acts which undercut or demolish inherited patternsof life and value systems. In his view the changes contemplated are inevitable.It is therefore foolhardy and futile to attempt to resist them. It is sheerromanticism and naive sentimentalism to imagine that you can turn the clockback to the nineteenth century or freeze the status quo. It is absurd to presumethat cultural identity could be preserved in “an economically stagnant north.”With his hard-hearted version of realism, Harvie insisted that culturalidentity must be understood as “the anchor of stability, which enables peopleto cope with, adjust, and survive the difficult process of change.” With theToward a Biblical Environment Ethic 5premise that benefits accruing from the technology of the white man’s worldincontestably represent a “change to something better,” he summarilydismissed the allegations of those who have resisted development and whohave proposed a twenty-year moratorium on the pipeline. The appeal made tonatives was that security for their own future could be assured only bysupporting Canadian Arctic Gas in its objectives — objectives which includedthe promise of jobs with monetary remuneration. ^The speech at Inuvik was only one expression of an irritation felt and acomplaint voiced by numerous people in government and business for someyears over what they construe as unwarranted interference in their immediateand long-range planning for the north. Nevertheless, a formidable coalition ofopposition to the pipeline had arisen and become increasingly vociferous. Thebattle for a Mackenzie Valley pipeline moratorium fused together a bevy ofinfluential churchmen, university professors, students, journalists, and otherconcerned Canadian citizens to make common cause with environmentalistsand native rights’ “activists.”The new movement stood in flat contradiction to the assumptions andrationale of government and industry spokesmen. Facts and figures wereassembled by direct inquiries and investigations. With utterly differentconvictions than those of their detractors, they projected a new and almostrevolutionary vision for a transformation of basic values in our culture. Theyarticulated alternative proposals which they believed would be much moreauspicious for the future welfare of everyone. These “converts” were likely tobe heard speaking of a new Western World order of conservation as opposedto consumerism; of human liberation as contrasted with corporate oppression;of responsibility to “our Third and Fourth World sisters and brothers,” ratherthan submission through default and apathy to late twentieth century forms ofcolonialism.The protagonists of these positions drew parallels between their struggle andwhat took place in the sixties and early seventies in the fight within the U.S.A.against the Vietnam War and the Nixon administration. Some of the zealots inthe anti-pipeline struggle questioned the basic economic and ideologicalpresuppositions which stimulated the whole history of North Americanexpansionism. They saw North Americans goaded on by profit-hungrycorporations to acquire more household appliances, more equipment to enjoyrecreational facilities, and more status symbols of various sorts. They decriedthe extravagance, the wastefulness and the lack of concern about what itmight mean for future generations. Could it be that smaller and less couldreplace larger and more as attractive-sounding adjectives? Could we not learnto be satisfied with much less and actually be more happy?Much of the anti-pipeline movement seemed to be found in small but notineffective groups — often socialist, liberal (with a small “1”), and Christian - intheir orientation or motivation. Three key organizations were at the core of the2. Reported in Edmonton Journal, May 5, 1977.3. cf. E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful, Economics as if People Mattered (New York: Harper andRow, 1973). Schumacher's proposals, especially for an "intermediate technology," have sparkeda lively ongoing debate.6 Consensusmovement: 1) the Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation (CJL), aToronto-based Christian group; 2) the Ottawa-based Southern Support Groupfor the N.W.T. Indian Brotherhood; and 3) Project North, an interchurchagency spearheaded by Hugh McCullum.Why all of this “nay saying” to the multinational corporations and theiraffiliates and allies? Why the moral crusade for a moratorium? Hugh andKarmel McCullum together with John Olthuis, in their book on the subject,contend that “We must take the time to engage in the painful, but liberatingexperience of living instead of being coerced.”In recapitulating their arguments they write: “We have the time: to develop anational energy policy based on human growth, not simply economicexpansion, - to settle land claims in Northern Canada, justly and in a mannerappropriate to the first people of the land, based on their perceptions of theirown future, — to restore and safeguard our diseased environment, — to decideto switch to alternative sources of energy based on renewable, rather thannon-renewable resources, - to adopt a less energy-intensive life-style based onconeerver, rather than consumer principles, — to begin the transition fromhigh capital and energy-intensive production systems to more labour-intensivesystems, - to hold public inquiries into the competence and independence ofthe National Energy Board, the actual amount of Canada’s non-frontier fossilfuel reserves, and all aspects of the petroleum industry operating in Canada,with a view to making certain that public resources are developed for thepublic benefit and not the private enrichment of the petroleum industry.” ^ETHICS AND NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENTAll the while, the theological task looms before us. We search theScriptures, our historic confessions and contemporary religious thought. Weseek to correlate the quest for human justice with our most profoundconvictions about ultimate reality and the will of God.One starting point might be to reassess the environmental crisis in relationto northern development, as well as to capitalistic and socialistic expansionismall over the globe. Gigantic companies — most of them American — haveinvested billions of dollars in the quest for more oil and gas in the far reachesof the north. They have done so with the expectation that most of this oil andgas can eventually be transported to southern markets in Canada and in theU.S.A. Is this development really essential for the well being of our people?The answer depends on one’s view of what ingredients comprise the “goodlife.” Is the need merely “to provide cleaner heat and better light, to providemore horsepower for our cars, to turn on our gadgets, to maintain industrythat provides goods and services that in turn contribute to our affluent comfort— and whose indiscriminate use produce incredible waste?” ^ We are4. Hugh and Karmel McCullum and John Olthuis, Moratorium, Justice, Energy, the North and theNative People (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1977), pp. 195-196.5. Hugh and Karmel McCullum, This Land Is Not For Sale (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1975), p.26.Toward a Biblical Environment Ethic 1reminded that Canada and the United States are ranked as the highestconsumers of energy in the world at the present time. With little more than6.5% of the world’s population. North Americans deplete more than 43% of theenergy currently available on the entire planet. Even more deplorable, wecause more than 40% of the earth’s industrial pollution. It is further estimatedthat no less than 48% of all energy we use is needlessly dissipated.Overpopulation and industrialization have combined to tarnish the idyllicpicture of the Psalmist as he surveys God’s magnificent deeds in the realm ofnature and exalts, ‘Thou visited the earth . . . Thou greatly enrichest it” (Ps.65:9a). With compulsive consumption and incessant greed, we havesquandered our God-given resources and blighted the good earth.The human being is intended to be both a child of God and a child ofnature. He can achieve satisfaction only as he lives in harmony both with theCreator and with his fellow creatures. According to Genesis, as soon as theprimeval couple disobeyed the divine mandate they experienced therepercussions in the natural order; the ground was cursed as thorns andthistles made labour tedious. Matter is intrinsically good, but it has beeninfected by man’s evil doing. The violation of God’s laws is not limited to theftand murder; it includes upsetting the balance of nature - depleting resourcesfor destructive wars and private enrichment.‘The time has come,” Russell Train wrote in the Protestant publicationTempo, “to treat crimes against the environment on a par with crimes againstsociety.”(6) The solid wastes of our technological civilization mount skyward.The president of the American Public Health Association described people inthe U.S.A. as “standing knee-deep in refuse, shooting rockets to the moon.” ^The combustion of fossel fuels and the elimination of vegetation combine toproduce changes in the oxygen-carbon dioxide balance of our atmosphere.Some scientists fear that our global climate could be drastically altered withadverse effects for everyone — possibly even making further life impossible.We are all dependent on God’s provision for our preservation andsustenance. Unless selfish exploitation is curbed and an ethic of mutualcooperation is adopted, we may find that Isaiah’s forewarning of desolationhas been fulfilled: ‘The earth is utterly laid waste . . . the world languishes andwithers. . . the earth lies polluted — a curse devours every living thing” (Is.24:3).But restitution can be made. Change is possible. And faithful Christians canlead the way through their emphasis on the biblical doctrines of stewardshipand discipleship in the light of the cross. When the threat of ecologicaldisaster was first publicized. Time magazine and other popular journalsquoted an article b^ Lynn White, Jr. in which he blzimed the ChristianChurch for the environmental crisis. “Christianity,” he wrote, “in absolutecontrast to ancient paganism and Asia’s religions . . . not only established adualism of man and nature, but also insisted that it is God’s will that manexploit nature for his proper ends ... By destroying pagan animism.6. Quoted in Ralph L. AAoellering, “The Environmental Crisis and Christian Responsibility," ConcordiaTheological Monthly, Vol. XLII, No. 3 (March, 1971), 179.8 ConsensusChristianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to thefeelings of natural objects . . ^This interpretation is an utter distortion of the truth. God’s command tosubdue the earth and have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds ofthe air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth is not a blankcheque. Man has no license for ruthless devastation or conspicuousconsumption. Man is only a temporary caretaker of whatever he uses for hisnurture and well being.In both the Old and New Testaments God is portrayed as the SupremeOwner and Distributor of everything which exists. ‘The earth is the Lord’s andthe fullness thereof,” the Psalmist proclaims. “Every beast of the field is mineand the cattle on a thousand hills . . .” (Ps. 24:1a). Man stands in a creaturerelationship to God. According to the parables of Jesus, he must give anaccount of how reliable and how competent he has been in utilizing what hasbeen entrusted to his safekeeping. The kind of crass materialism whichsaturates our present-day society comes under the indictment of the SovereignEcologist. “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses hisown soul?” (Matt. 16:26). “It is written,” Jesus rebuked Satan, “man shall notlive by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”(Matt. 4:4).Sensual delights and the accumulation of wealth are not the sum total ofwhat is desirable. Apart from a firm commitment to God in Christ, expressedin love and concern for people and a wholesome environment, life can becomeempty and drab. Personal sacrifice may be necessary for the reclamation ofthe earth. We may be compelled to give up luxuries and conveniences towhich we have become accustomed. In confronting these challenges to ourway of life, we can find our inspiration in the sign of the cross. In terms of theparadoxical teaching of Jesus, we may lose our life through self-indulgence; wemay save our life through self-denial.As much as possible, it is mandatory for Christians to endeavour to makethe vision of a New Jerusalem a present reality — even while we await itscompletion beyond time and history. What remains to be said is that ourcommendable determination to enhance the quality of our life must betranslated into specific, concrete acts of reparation and advancement. Gettingthe facts and disseminating educational information are prerequisites foreffective action. Churches and schools can sponsor teach-ins with films,speakers, and literature. As individuals, Christians can be examples to theirneighbours and associates by starting with simple and obvious steps likesalvaging aluminum cans and newspapers, refusing to buy products indisposable containers, forming car pools and eliminating wastes whereverpossible. Even to renounce our fascination with superfluous gadgets would be amove in the right direction.A balanced ecology, of course, will never be attained without political action.Pressures will have to be exerted. Boycotts will have to be organized against7. Reprinted in Garrett DeBell, ed., The Environmental Handbook (New York: Ballantine, 1970),pp. 82ff.Toward a Biblical Environment Ethic 9the corporations which contaminate our air and water. Agitation for remedialmeasures in every community will have to be deliberately instigated. Strategiccoalitions will have to be formed which can elect candidates who champion ahealthy environment. The automobile industry must be required to acceleratethe production of cars which use less fuel, an alternative to the internalcombustion engine. All the while, the mammoth problem of a burgeoningpopulation will have to be dealt with on many fronts.CONCLUSIONMark Hatfield, the U.S. senator from Oregon who is known as a devoutevangelical Christian, asserts that if we are “identified truly with Christ, wewill find ourselves serving the oppressed of the world — the victims of injusticeand sin. We will begin to look at the structures of society from the vantagepoint of the poor.” ® There are limitations to the amount of land andresources available. This is true even in Canada, though this country is farfrom having the overpopulation problems which cause such negativeprognostications in many other parts of the world. There must be a concertedmovement among sensitized Christians for a more equitable distribution of thenational wealth, with special generosity toward the natives in Canada and witha readiness to share with deprived people all around the earth.8. Mark Hatfield, Between a Rock and a Hard Place (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1976), p. 217.

Christian Responsibility in the North: Toward a Biblical Environmental Ethic

Scholars Commons

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2265&amp;context=consensus

Christian Responsibility in the North: Toward a Biblical Environmental Ethic

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University

Scholars Commons