We complete our narration of Chapter 2, and begin narrating Chapter 3, of The Spiritual Roots of the Ecological Crisis by Jean-Claude Larchet.
Narration
Larchet notes another difference wrought within nature by the fall of man: evil was introduced into nature. In the beginning, nature was entirely good (Genesis 1, “very good”), but now it contains natural disasters and death. Yet even so, God’s Providence continues to preserve order in the midst of disorder. We can see this in God’s declaration after the Flood, that “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and spring shall not cease by day and night” (Genesis 8:22), as well as God’s reaffirmation of His blessing to humanity to steward and have dominion over the earth, which He gives to Noah: “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and have dominion over it. For the dread and fear of you shall be upon all the wild animals of the earth, all the birds of heaven, all that move upon the earth, and all the fish of the sea. I have put them under your authority” (Genesis 9:2). St John Chrysostom points out that if it were not for God’s providence upholding the universe, it would have spiraled out of control and ceased to exist. St Symeon the New Theologian echoes this idea by stating that God “forced” (as it were) nature once again to submit to rules and laws, since after Adam’s transgression it too has become unlawful and disobedient. St Maximus says that while the essence (logos) of creation is the same, its mode (tropos) is different. Even the Western thinker Pascal was well-versed in the Eastern Fathers, and recognized that nature is “double”: it retains its good nature, while being tainted by sin.
Larchet discusses various other modern Western thinkers, some of whom believe that nature is thoroughly evil and that man must therefore master and “subdue” it, and others who think that it is entirely good, even deifying and idolizing it. However, neither of these encompasses the Christian approach, which recognizes the goodness in nature as well as its corruption. On one hand, we proclaim that the Holy Spirit is “everywhere present and filling all things,” that nature is imbued with the presence of God. And yet the presence of violence, death, and sickness throughout the natural world shows us that it is no longer entirely good. Because of the Fall, man and the rest of creation no longer receive the divine energies present throughout creation in the way that we should. Though God is always active in His creation, we cannot participate fully in that unless we fully receive it. God respects our free will in this matter and does not force Himself on us.
Larchet then unpacks St Maximus’s distinction between the essence of a creature (its logos) and its mode of being (its tropos). He clarifies that the tropos is not merely dependent upon our attitude, but is actually an objective state of being. St Maximus teaches the “cosmic fall” which means that the fall of man ushered in the fall of all creatures. We are incapable of restoring things on our own: we need Christ’s grace, which once we have received, we can mediate to other creatures. Christianity teaches that man should struggle against the evil of nature, seeking to uproot evil within it such as sickness, in order to preserve its wellbeing and flourishing.
Larchet discusses the significance of Adam and Eve, pointing out that in the East, we recognize only that their descendants bear the consequences of their sin and not their personal guilt, which was taught by St. Augustine. To differentiate from the Western teaching, we refer to “ancestral sin” rather than “original sin.” Nonetheless, due to our own personal sins we all “reproduce” their sin and incur our own guilt.
In Chapter 3, Larchet turns our attention to the present ecological crisis, which is recent in origin, due to the development of technologies, and symptomatic of a wrong relationship towards, and wrong assumptions about, the creation, beginning with the Renaissance and continuing with the Enlightenment. In the Middle Ages in the West, nature was still seen through a traditional Christian worldview: it was seen as deeply symbolic of divine truths and imbued with God’s presence. But starting with the Renaissance, this worldview was replaced by humanism and her children: rationalism, individualism and naturalism.
Larchet defines humanism as “the adulation of man considered in himself and for himself.” It makes room for God but circumscribes Him to a small and insignificant area. Man is now the measure of all things instead of God, and thus he can now determine for himself the proper use of nature, instead of referring it to its Creator.
Application
Perhaps in St Maximus’s distinction between the logos and tropos of creatures could be where the essence/energy distinction comes into play? Nature is still essentially good, but no longer operates in a good mode unless it is re-offered to God and sanctified by Him. Thus, there is room for synergy and human contribution to the mediation between God and nature.
I noticed a lot of language of receptivity in the Fathers’ analysis of what must be done in order to restore communion with God. We must invite God in: this seems to me to be an essentially feminine gesture. I am always on the lookout for ways we can understand the Christian symbolism of the feminine and womanhood.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that St Maximus advocates for human flourishing and the combat of disease. It seemed to me after the last reading that many of the Fathers were opposed to how we now understand science and technology, which would be the primary way that we now seek to eradicate disease. What is the real Orthodox approach, if there is one? Are we “pro-science” or “anti-science” or somewhere in between?
As an Italian major and Italophile, it is hard for me to hear criticism of the Renaissance which is everywhere in Orthodox writing. It gave rise to so much beauty! And yet, the hubris of humanist philosophy is somewhat disgusting when you look at it a certain way. It is too bad that we could not have preserved a more biblical understanding of the greatness of man in the West:
“What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? For you have made him a little lower than the angels, and you have crowned him with glory and honor” (Psalm 8:4).
I guess it’s all in the name: “human-ism”, a religion based on the human, what could be sadder? At the same time it reminds me of how we might feel if a beloved family member apostatized. We still love them, but know they are wrong and pray for their salvation and spiritual healing.
Commonplace Quote:
“When humanism does not actually deny God, it confines Him to the attic and affirms man’s total autonomy in His face.” Jean-Claude Larchet
Alexandria's Daughter 