Our first two responses to our pre-Consultation Paper #1 come from John Elwood and Janel Curry. (Their bios are printed at the end of their responses.) To read the first paper, please click here. John and Janel are addressing the first premise. You can add your own reflections in the comment section of this blog or email the organizers.
CONSULTATION PREMISE #1: The New Future will experience excruciating collapses, catastrophes, and/or extinctions for which our faith in current efforts at activism, sustainability, and/or technological innovation is unfounded. It is neither pessimism nor doomism to admit this.
John Elwood: Peter Harris Warned of This Six Years Ago
Dear Lowell,
In 2018 the famous Christian conservationist Peter Harris shocked the creation-care world with an astounding admission: “We're probably not saving the world. It's probably not possible. I sometimes feel this ministry is akin to . . . sitting at the bedside of a dying friend, as the presence of Jesus.” Harris’ bombshell left the packed auditorium—hundreds of Christian environmental practitioners—unsettled and speechless. “But we carry on,” he continued, because we’re doing it first and foremost for the Lord. “It's not that kind of activism that says, ‘We've got to do this, people, and we'll get it done.’ Because we probably won't.”
Over the six years since Harris delivered that assessment, his perspective has migrated from the prophetic into the mainstream. He could not have known all the details: that global carbon emissions from fossil fuels would continue to grow to record levels by 2023, or that atmospheric CO2 concentrations would intensify by another 16 points to 425 ppm, or that each of the following six years would rank among the ten warmest on record, or that political polarization would render vigorous responses impossible. He couldn’t see every single tree; but he saw the forest before the rest of us.
We now see that forest as well, not solely because of the mounting troves of scientific data. We now are forced to view science in the context of the socioeconomic milieu that governs its potential. Fundamentally transformative action in the face of a crisis as massive as this requires immediate and coordinated responses involving technology, culture, national legislation, and international governance institutions. In contrast to Harris, that those who boldly proclaim “We can do this! We know how to solve this!” actually mean something more like this: “We can do this—assuming that the global political economy falls in line in ways that are fundamentally contrary to its interests.”
Specifics? Well, for starters, we must assume that political leaders will promptly enact necessary but unpopular legislation, enforced by current and subsequent governments. And the world’s 200-odd nations, rather than competing with each other, will act in concert to put an end to fossil fuels—including the forty petrostates whose economies will be devastated by the related loss of revenue. Warring nations will realize their folly and work together. International institutions will be granted unheard-of enforcement powers to assure compliance. Rich polluting countries will consent to massive wealth transfers to developing countries which have been largely left out of the self-enriching, century-long carbon binge. And cultures hooked on entitlement to massive energy use and travel will come to their senses with new modesty and restraint.
Most importantly, such a vision demands this fantastic assumption: Capitalism will stop acting by its own most fundamental ethos: Take as much as you are able to successfully compete for. The economics of planetary survival, by contrast, rely upon three house rules: Take only your share, clean up after yourself, and keep the house in good repair for others. The first of the planetary house rules directly contradicts the capitalist ethos, and the other two fall entirely outside the market system of valuation. And yet no one dares to suggest post-capitalist approaches.
Many of us who hoped to make meaningful change in the ecosystem crisis have pinned our optimism on the fantasy that we live in a world governed by cultures and systems fundamentally different from the ones we actually have. In a sense, we have hoped to save this world, without really changing much. Yes, it’s now time to stop pretending for the sake of optimism, and face the world to which we actually belong.
John Elwood
Janel Curry: Work for Change, With Humility and Fewer Words
Dear Lowell:
As a geographer who studies human-land interactions, I pause at the statement: "for which our faith in current efforts at activism, sustainability, and/or technological innovation is unfounded." Having read Marsh's book, Man and Nature: Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action, and Glacken's Traces on the Rhodian Shore, for example, I find it difficult to make such a statement. My perspective is short when it comes to history so I am hesitant to pronounce that the present is one "for which our faith..." Which is not to say that we are not at a crucial moment, but that I have become uncomfortable with pronouncements of all kinds.
Perhaps it is examples like those found in Gottlieb's, Forcing the Spring, that have made me skeptical of pronouncements. He tells the story of the environmental movement which became "owned" by specialists and technocrats and thus failed to imagine a way forward that built community, applied to cities, suburbs, rural areas and wilderness, and became an avenue for the rich to have yet one more asset to use for their own spiritual growth—nature. So perhaps I am skeptical of "movements" because of their tendency to be subsumed by the interests of the powerful, without any intentionality on anyone's part, but even with a desire to do good.
Theologically I place my discomfort with pronouncements and my skepticism with movements to be grounded in the deep reality of the fall--it has been with us and results in the distortion of even our best attempts at doing good. Yes—Collapse is inevitable. Catastrophe is probable. Extinction is possible.
So where does that leave me? I work for change, but with humility and fewer words. I assume that solving the climate crisis is important and essential but it will not bring shalom because any solution will, no doubt, become distorted and lead to yet other unintended consequences. I think this is not triumphalism, but not sure how this perspective falls on the scale according to Lowell. I am certainly drawn to lament and more silence, and more sitting alongside the suffering. I am drawn to an anabaptist perspective of being called to be faithful while not knowing if you are being effective--I don't have the big picture. And the vision toward which I work is one described by philosopher Nel Noddings (my paraphrase): Recall the best images of wholeness and caring that you have experienced, and work toward building that everywhere and at all times.
Janel Curry
John Elwood: After a career spanning more than thirty years in financial and private equity management, John began a second life on matters closer to his heart. He and his wife Barbara established a 50-acre organic produce farm, which today serves more than 700 cooperative members; chaired the board of a mission sending agency operating on five continents; served on the boards of three prominent Christian environmental advocacy organizations; and helped lead resistance to the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. In 2019, he turned his focus to the theological implications of the ecosystem crisis, earning a Master’s degree in ecotheology from Union Theological Seminary. He now serves on the Steering Committee of the Eden Vigil Institute for Environmental Leadership at William Carey International University.
Dr. Janel Curry: is a visionary and strategic leadership executive with an established record of building a mission-centered, and forward-looking institutional culture that is focused on measured effectiveness. She is experienced in building and leading teams that shape successful organizations. Curry has extensive cross-cultural and international experience that demonstrates an ability to thrive in diverse and intercultural contexts and form cross-cultural partnerships. She is president of American Scientific Affiliation. With a PhD in Geography with Agricultural Economics from University of Minnesota, she has taught and lead at Medaille College, Gordon College, City University of Hong Kong, and Calvin College.