< return to index

Ecological Advocacy in Russia as an Expression of Christianity and Democracy

by Dr. Larry V. Ort

Recent events in Russia raise a number of ecological concerns. Last May, President Vladimir Putin eliminated the state committees for environmental protection and forestry, among others, and transferred their functions to the Ministry on Natural Resources. This action likely indicates that, in future policy decisions, concerns for the environment will be subordinate to concerns for economic development ("Environment News Service," May 23, 2000; http://ens.lycos.com/ens). The elimination of the committee for environmental protection is even more disturbing in light of a report published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an organization composed of 29 member countries. The report concludes that "Russia is in environmental crisis;" it further notes that Russia has been without a national environment minister since 1996, and that federal funding constitutes a mere 0.5 percent of all environmental expenditures ("Environmental News Service," October 12, 1999; http://ens.lycos.com/ens).

Admittedly, in light of Russia's economic problems, one can sympathize with a policy that promotes economic development, but whether economic development must come at the expense of the environment is a subject for debate. One would hope that policy analysts and government officials would seek win-win solutions wherein economic development would be promoted and sustained, but not at the expense of long-term ecological consequences. The current structure, wherein the functions of the environmental committee have been assigned to the Ministry on Natural Resources, virtually assures the environment is left without a strong governmental advocate.

While private environmental organizations are operating in Russia, they are, in many respects, lonely voices crying in the wilderness. These organizations are to be commended for their advocacy in the face of such overwhelming odds. If Russia's environmental problems are to be confronted and addressed, such lonely cries must become a groundswell of public opinion. Experience in more developed countries has shown that it takes time to educate the populace and to foster such grassroots movements. In a political situation wherein most people have given up hope, where most people feel that things will go on as usual, the development of such grass roots movements and public opinion is an even greater challenge.

The theme of this conference calls us to reflect upon the "The Rebirth of Christianity and the Birth of Democracy in Russia." Within this context, I will first argue that Christian theology provides a sound environmental ethic and a call to action. Secondly, I will argue that the Russian Orthodox Church is uniquely suited to advance a Christian environmental ethic. Lastly, I will argue for an agenda, grounded in democratic participation, sponsored by the Russian Orthodox Church, as a means for such advancement. If successful, this paper will suggest a model for practical implementation of some of the themes discussed at this conference.

Does Christianity Offer a Defensible Environmental Ethic?

In 1967, writing in the journal "Science," Lynn White Jr., a historian, noted the failure of the Judeo-Christian theology to adequately address environmental concerns. White was especially concerned with the view held by many Christians that the earth and the creatures therein were created for humankind's use. According to White, Christianity permits the exploitation of nature. White is critical of speciesism, i.e., the view that the human species occupies a special place or role in nature which allows the exploitation of nature at the expense of other species. Undoubtedly, White is referring to the tendency on the part of many Christians to interpret God's commands, apart from an understanding of the broader scriptural context, to have dominion over the earth, to subdue the earth, in a very literalist fashion.

Given the prevalence of this interpretation, White claims that what is needed is a new religion, perhaps grounded in ancient paganism, that recognizes humanity as a part of nature rather than as ruler over nature. Of course, White assumes that such an understanding is non-existent in Christianity.

Much of what passes as environmentalism today, according to Robert Nelson(1990), contains "White's prescription of the pantheistic veneration of nature." But as Nelson points out, White's prescription has resulted in even greater confusion in environmental theology. This confusion stems from a contradiction. On the one hand, environmentalists want humankind to be part and parcel of nature, to be subject to the same primal instincts and forces as the rest of nature. On the other hand, environmentalists want humankind to love and care for other species in ways that set humans apart from nature, i.e., "to inculcate a new morality with respect to the natural world that is found nowhere else in nature" (Nelson, 1990). Nelson further reminds us, "No other creature is obligated to protect other species-as the Bible says that Noah was once commanded to do, and as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 [United States] again seeks to accomplish."

I believe that this contradiction may be resolved through a careful analysis of more orthodox Christian theology. More specifically, I believe a thorough study of the interrelationships among the concepts of covenant, righteousness/justice, and love informs our understanding of our special place within creation and calls us to love and care for creation. Let us turn our attention to a consideration of these concepts.

It is now generally acknowledged, due to archaeological studies, that the Old Testament writers depict God's relationship to the Hebrews in terms of the ancient social conventions associated with covenant relationships. In the ancient Near East, two types of covenant relationships were prevalent: a parity covenant and a suzerainty covenant. The parity covenant was between equals, whereas the suzerainty covenant was between a conquering king and a vassal state.

Suzerainty covenants possessed several characteristic features including a preamble (identifying the king and the subject people), a list of duties and obligations attendant upon the parties, and the blessings and curses that would derive for meeting or failing to meet these duties and obligations. In addition, witnesses (including mountains and rivers) were listed, conditions for preserving the covenant document were stipulated, and lastly, provisions were made for an annual covenant celebration that involved reading the covenant document.

A careful reading of the covenants set forth within the Old Testament reveals many of these features to be present. For example, the Ten Commandments, i.e., the Sinai Covenant, contains a preamble reminding the people that God delivered them from the bondage and slavery of Egypt (Ex. 20.2). The covenant then proceeds to set forth the duties and obligations concerning the worship of God and interaction with fellow members of the covenant community (Ex. 20.3-17). The covenant ends with provisions for covenant renewal and celebration, and a listing of blessings and curses (Ex. 23.14-33).

The parties to a covenant were considered to be righteous, or just, provided the mutual duties and obligations of the covenant were fulfilled, i.e., provided that they stood in "right relationship." Righteousness/justice could be attained only if each party were to act for, or on behalf of, the other party. This mutuality of concern was so essential that if one were to keep all of the duties and obligations apart from this concern, one would not be adjudged righteous. Stated somewhat differently, mutuality of concern was a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, of righteousness.

When two parties stand in a covenant relationship, whether in marriage, in a business contract, or as a member of God's covenant people, exploitation of the other party for one's own ends or purposes is the primary injustice, for in such cases one refuses to act for, or on behalf of, the other. Exploitative relationships are characterized by a lack of mutual concern; the relationship is violated, or made less than whole. In such cases, both parties to the relationship are violated: the victim is violated, but the one who violates also violates one's own personhood through the refusal to conform willfully to the image of God. The sense in which one violates one's own personhood is understood only when one recognizes and admits that we are called to theosis, to being transformed into the image and likeness of God.

When the covenant demands are properly fulfilled, the "shalom" community is realized, that is, a community characterized by peace, wholeness, and prosperity comes into being. Hence, the cry for justice is actually a cry to be relieved of oppression and exploitation and to be restored to wholeness within the community. When justice is served, the perpetrator of the injustice must make amends, or redress the wrong. In this manner, both the victim and the perpetrator are restored to wholeness; balance and harmony within the community are restored.

In the New Testament, Jesus reformulates the demands of righteousness in response to a Pharisee's question as to which commandment is the greatest:
Jesus replied:

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Mat. 22.37-40, NIV)

Within this passage Jesus is emphasizing the centrality of love in the fulfillment of covenant relationships. Love is far more than an emotion, more than a warm, fuzzy feeling. When we love someone, we will act for that person, or on that person's behalf. As noted above, a relationship is adjudged "righteous" if the parties are acting out of mutual concern. Love is the highest expression of mutual concern.

At the outset of this section, I asked that you think of ecological activities as acts of love. Lets now consider this idea more fully. It strikes me that the concepts of covenant, righteousness/justice, and love must extend beyond the love of God and the love of neighbor to embrace God's creation. God's Word explicitly commands us to love God with our whole heart, soul, and mind, and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. But these acts of love take place on the Grand Stage, the stage of creation.

Perhaps this point of view will become clearer as a consequence of briefly considering the Genesis accounts of creation. These creation accounts must be understood and interpreted from the concepts of covenant, righteousness/justice, and love, for these accounts were written by authors who understood that they were members of God's covenant people. From this perspective, these accounts should not be confused, as is so often the case, with scientific accounts that attempt to provide a causal account of creation, that is, with attempts to answer the question of "how" creation occurred. Rather, the Genesis accounts aim to provide a teleological explanation of events, that is, an explanation of "why" God created the world. The authors are wrestling with the "end" or the "purpose" of creation. In light of today's causal explanations provided by science, we tend to forget that the ancients possessed a teleological world-view rather than a scientific world-view.

From the teleological perspective of the ancient Hebrews, it is reasonable to argue creation occurred so that God could enter into communion with humankind via a covenant community. Consider these verses from the creation accounts:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Gen. 1.26-28, NIV)

And in the second creation account, we read: "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it" (Gen. 2.15, NIV).

Interpreted in light of the concepts of covenant, righteousness/justice, and love, mankind is not only given a special place in creation, but is also given a special set of obligations and duties. Mankind is to love and care for creation; mankind is to serve as the steward of God's creation. To "rule," or as it is often rendered, "to have dominion," does not give mankind a license, or a right, to exploit creation ruthlessly. To the contrary, to "rule," to "have dominion over" calls us to lovingly care for creation, to act out of concern and love for creation.

Close examination of the beliefs and actions of those who are involved in ruthless exploitation reveals that greed for the riches of creation has supplanted the rightful place to be accorded the Creator. Such a person no longer loves God with his whole heart, mind and soul; nor loves his neighbor as himself; nor is concerned for the creation of the Shalom community. Nor is such a person concerned to become like God, to be transformed into God's image. Hence, this person is guilty of violating the covenant relationship to which God calls him; he is guilty of sin.

White's claim that we need a new religion because Christianity permits the exploitation of nature is ill founded. Properly understood, Christianity does not permit the exploitation of nature. To the contrary, those who justify the exploitation of nature on the basis of "Christian theology" either mistakenly or deliberately distort the message of Christianity while furthering their own ends and purposes. Such arguments go beyond insulting God, for they serve to distort the understanding of our relationship to God and creation; such arguments distort the call to theosis. We do not need a new theology grounded in paganism; we need a renewed teaching of the doctrine of creation in light of the concepts of covenant, righteousness/justice, and love.

The clarification I have set forth also serves to resolve the contradiction noted earlier. As you will recall, on the one hand, environmentalists have argued that humankind is guilty of speciesism; that humankind needs to recognize that it is subject to the same primal instincts as the rest of nature. On the other hand, environmentalists call for humankind to love and care for species in a way that clearly sets them apart from nature. Creation theology recognizes that humankind is a part of God's creation, but a part that is made in the image of God for the purpose of serving as a co-creator with God. Although humankind may be subject to the same primal instincts as the rest of nature, the picture does not end there. Humankind also has the God-given potential and ability to transform these primal instincts that one may become like God.

As special agents of God's creation, we are to employ our God-given abilities to protect and preserve creation, to lovingly care for creation. That means that ecological decisions, while motivated by a spirit of love and reverence for God and creation, need to be grounded in rigorous scientific inquiry and practice. We are called to exercise and apply our gift of reason to tough ecological problems.

Nonetheless, a word of caution is in order. If we are to interpret the creation accounts from the perspective of covenant, righteousness/justice, and love, we should likewise interpret the Fall (Genesis 3) from the same heuristic. For while creation was to serve as the Great Stage upon which we were to have fellowship with God, and to work and care for the Garden, the Fall recognizes and confesses our failure to achieve the vision God intended. The account of the Fall acknowledges that mankind has chosen to break the covenant with God by putting other things in God's rightful position, by loving things more than God or God's children. The pursuit of false gods inevitably leads to exploitation of God's creation and oppression of God's children

From this perspective, we must resist the temptation to be so naive as to think that we will ever achieve the goal of saving creation. If one is not careful, this goal may also come to assume God's rightful position within one's life. Hence, idolatry, the sin of putting something else in God's rightful place, may equally stem from either too much or too little concern for God's creation. In the case of one who cares too much for the creation, one can come to worship the care of the creation rather than the Creator. In the case of one who cares too little, one can come to worship the creation itself, and the attendant appropriation of the creation for one's own purposes, rather than the Creator. In either case, it amounts to idolatry.

Scripture clearly teaches that at some point this creation will be swept away and a new creation will ensue (Rev. 21). However, once again, this is no excuse for putting our desires ahead of those of our Creator, or for despairing of our task. Rather, we are called to love God with our whole heart, mind and soul, and our neighbor as ourselves. Love demands that we be obedient to God-given duties and obligations to God, to others, to creation, and to ourselves; it demands that we engage in mutually acting for God, for others, for creation, and for ourselves. This task, this calling, is so great that we are powerless to accomplish it of our own accord. It can only be accomplished as we allow ourselves to be infused in such a manner with the grace of God and the Spirit of God that we become the instruments of God's grace.

Orthodoxy and Ecology

The Orthodox Church has made several pronouncements concerning stewardship of God's creation, pronouncements that reflect the themes addressed in the previous section. For example, consider the following pronouncement of His All Holiness Barthomolew I, Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome, delivered at the symposium Caring for God's Creation: Science, Religion, and the Environment, in St. Barbara Greek Orthodox Church, Santa Barbara, CA, November 6-8, 1997:

For humans to cause species to become extinct and to destroy the biological diversity of God's creation; for humans to degrade the integrity of the Earth by causing changes in its climate, stripping the Earth of its natural forest, or destroying its wetlands...to contaminate the Earth's waters, its land, its air and its life with poisonous substances-these are sins.

In Protocol No. 1048, a Patriarchal Homily for September 1, 1998 (Protection of the Environment) issued by Bartholomew I, Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome, a more extensive pronouncement is beautifully set forth. As this pronouncement includes many of the theological viewpoints expressed in the first section, I quote at length:

The Holy Orthodox Church, accepting that the entire creation is very good, finds itself in a harmonious relationship with the natural world, which surrounds the king of creation, the human being. Even though the human being, either as an isolated individual or as collective humanity, is only a miniscule speck in the face of the immense universe, it is a fact that the entire universe is endowed with meaning by the very presence of humanity within it. Based on this assurance, even leading contemporary scientists accept that the universe is infused with the so-called "human principle," meaning that it came about and exists for the sake of man.

Consequently, the stance of man before his creator, the all-good God, should have been one of thanksgiving for the abundant wealth which his Maker has placed at his disposal. However, man loved creation more than his creator and did not return his debt…Rather, man made an idol of himself and desired to be transformed into a wasteful ruler of creation, without accountability, instead of being a rational and grateful consumer of it.

Archbishop Bartholomew I further observes that man has "schemed to use the tremendous forces within nature for the destruction of his fellow men and even of nature itself." As a consequence, according to Archbishop Bartholomew, nature is in a state of rebellion against humankind. This rebellion is not seen to be solely the consequence of evil leaders; rather, it is the consequence of all who would contribute to such a predominant will. Archbishop Bartholomew I continues:

From this point of view, everyone, even the most feeble, can contribute to the restoration of the harmonious renewed operation of the world. We can do so by being in tune with the forces of the divine harmony and not with those which are badly dissonant and oppose the divine all-harmonious rhythm of the universal instrument, of which each one of us constitutes but one of its practically innumerable chords.

Our love for nature does not seek to idolize it; rather, our love for it stems from our love for the Creator who grants it to us. This love is expressed through offering in thanksgiving of all things to God, to whom we, having been reconciled through Jesus Christ (2 Cor.5.19), enjoy also our reconciliation with nature. Without our reconciliation with God, the forces of nature find themselves in opposition to us. We already experience consequences of this and are subjected to them. Therefore, in order to avert the escalation of evil and to correct that which may already have taken place, and in order to suspend the penalty, we are obligated to accept the fact that we need to be accountable consumers of nature and not arbitrary rulers of it. We must also accept the fact that, in the final analysis, the demand placed on nature to use its powers to destroy our fellow man, whom we might consider useless, will result in our facing the same consequences.

Archbishop Bartholomew closes the Protocol with a prayer:

Finally, for these things, we fervently pray to the Lord God that He may show forbearance for our transgressions; that He may grant us time for repentance; and that He may shine in our hearts the light of His truth. This we ask in order that on the issue of the environment, and in each of the paths we find before us in life, we may advance in concord with His all-wise, all harmonious order of the entire creation as it was decreed by Him. Otherwise, our discordant journey leads to our demise.

The Orthodox Church is well known and respected for its position on stewardship of the environment. Tom Spencer MEP, President of Globe International, states that the Orthodox Church has gone farther than any other Church in recognizing that humanity will survive into the next millennium only if it changes its attitude toward the environment (http://globeint.org/html/press-releases/orthodox-church.html).

A Suggested Agenda

Having considered the example of the Orthodox Church, let us now turn to a more complete consideration of the role of the Orthodox Church in promoting ecological reform. The following agenda is suggested as a means by which the Orthodox Church, especially in Russia, may be faithful to God's calling to "till and care for the Garden."

In light of what I have previously stated, I believe that the first task of the Orthodox Church, as it relates to faith and ecology, to a theology of the Creation and the Fall, is to clearly articulate the interrelationship among the concepts of covenant, righteousness/justice, love, and theosis. Much of Western Christendom interprets the concept of righteousness/justice from the perspective of forensic or legal justice. In this regard, the Church, especially in the West, has come to understand the concept of righteousness/justice from a cultural perspective grounded in the Greco-Roman world that distorts the creative communal aspects of justice portrayed in the Old and New Testaments. Dialogue among the adherents of Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism will hopefully lead to a richer, more complete understanding of the concepts of righteousness/justice, and correspondingly, to a clearer vision of the Shalom community.

If the cause of Christian stewardship and environmentalism is to be served in Russia, I believe the Russian Orthodox Church needs to begin a concerted effort to educate both clergy and laity concerning the concepts associated with Creation theology and God's call to stewardship of the environment. Not only must the Russian Orthodox Church engage in education of this vision, but it must also go on record as denouncing interpretations of the Genesis accounts of Creation, or of any other views, that allow for exploitation of the environment.

Third, the Russian Orthodox Church needs to engage in vigorous dialogue with ecologists and ecological organizations to show the relevance of this vision for understanding the unique place and task assigned to humans in caring for the environment. In this same vein, the Russian Orthodox Church must challenge the propensity of many ecologists and eco-theologians to turn ecology into a substitute religion.

Fourth, the Russian Orthodox Church needs to recognize and to name the sins of the age in the spirit displayed by Archbishop Bartholomew I. Although sin is always a direct refusal on one's part to love God, or one's fellow human beings, or the creation, the form which sin takes may vary from culture to culture and age to age. The Church must critically assess those movements and technological advances that would elevate anything else to God's rightful position and must boldly declare such actions to constitute idolatry, or the worship of false gods.

Fifth, the Russian Orthodox Church, at the national and regional levels, should sponsor and promote legislation aimed to preserve and protect the environment, not only for our present use, but also for the use of future generations. Toward this end, the Russian Orthodox Church should encourage its adherents to become involved in the democratic process of lobbying for change by contacting members of the legislature and other people of influence. Local congregations need to create small groups that are willing to become involved in the change process.

Sixth, the Russian Orthodox Church should actively encourage and support the rigorous application of scientific studies and methods associated with the solution of ecological problems. From the view of stewardship, we must recognize that our academic talents are gifts from God that should be cultivated and exercised at the highest level of development possible. The Russian Orthodox Church should call for the application of both sound theology and rigorous scientific analysis.

Seventh, the Russian Orthodox Church must embrace the complementarity of ecological integrity and sustainable development set forth in Agenda Twenty One, the document which culminated from the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in June, 1992. After having come to this recognition, the Russian Orthodox Church should seek out and encourage programs on the local, state, national, and international levels that are designed to promote environmental awareness, proper stewardship of the environment, and sustainable development. (Cf. Andrew Steer, "How Green Is Our Gospel" in Stackhouse, et. al., On Moral Business. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1995)

This program is by no means all-inclusive, but it sets forth an agenda for the Russian Orthodox Church's response to God's call to stewardship that is grounded in democratic action. I humbly submit this agenda for consideration, debate, and implementation, as appropriate.

In closing, I would draw upon one of the riches of the Russian Orthodox tradition and all Orthodox traditions. We are children of God, created in God's image. As such, I believe we are God's living icons, created to worship and adore God. Our worship and adoration of God takes place in God's creation, which by extension, may also be perceived as an icon. Regrettably, horrible sacrilege occurs when we trample God's icons. Admittedly, this sacrilege has often occurred as a consequence of the errors of other believers. For that, we are called to repentance.

Under Communism, Russia endured the desecration of millions of religious icons; Russia also endured the desecration, exploitation, oppression, and annihilation of millions of human icons created in the image of God. My prayer, especially for Russia, but for all other countries as well, for all Christians, and for all peoples, is that we would catch a glimpse of life lived in harmony with God, with others, and with creation. And having glimpsed that vision, that we would work as God empowers, with the tools and the means that God grants, to promote that vision.