Now and then I depart from my usual posting and present a sermon that one
of the daily readings brings to my mind.
Today's passage from Ezekiel is an example. I preached the sermon almost seven years ago,
and the data included are out of date. Unfortunately,
current data look much worse, but I believe the overall themes are more
relevant than ever. So here it is.
Sermon,
First Presbyterian Church, Dryden NY
August
19, 2012
Scriptures: Matthew 25:31-36 and Ezekiel 34:17-19, 25-31
Text: And must my sheep
eat what you have trodden with your feet, and drink what you have fouled with
your feet?
Whom is God addressing?
Who are the bad sheep, the ones who eat their fill of the good pasture,
and then tread down the rest of the pasture, spoiling it for the other
sheep? Who are they, these bad sheep who
drink the clear water, and then foul it with their feet, leaving muddy water
for the other sheep to drink? If I had
heard these verses when I was a boy, they probably would have reminded me of my
mother's exasperated words: "I
spent all morning on my hands and knees, washing and waxing the kitchen floor,
and now you two have tracked in mud all over it!" She had worked hard to make the floor clean,
and my pal and I had trodden on it with our muddy feet.
That would have been an appropriate, if limited, application
of Ezekiel's message. He was prophesying
against people who acted unfairly, selfishly--carelessly taking advantage of,
and causing needless suffering to, innocent people. Nowadays litterbugs come to my mind, especially
when our church group cleans up our assigned portion of Route 79. It is surprising how many orange garbage bags
we fill on a Sunday afternoon--surprising how much stuff people toss out the
car window for us to pick up. Do they
give a thought to what they are treading down with their feet?
We wouldn't be guilty of that kind of littering. But there is a different kind of littering
that I do every day, and I guess all of you join me in doing it. I believe we litter with the carbon dioxide we
generate, directly or indirectly, through the combustion of fossil fuels. Our society is addicted to fossil fuels. On average, each American generates 17 metric
tons of carbon dioxide per year. The
United Kingdom and most of Europe are far behind us, generally about ten. The figure for China is seven, for India one,
and for most of Africa less than one. We are the world's champion CO2
litterbugs; the earth's atmosphere is our dump. What are we treading down with our feet?
The story is familiar, though certainly not everyone accepts
it as factual. Because of the ever-increasing
use of fossil fuels since World War II, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide
have risen dramatically. Carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere acts much like glass in a greenhouse, trapping heat from the
sun. That can be beneficial, making the
greenhouse or the earth warmer. But too
much warming overheats the greenhouse, and the plants wilt. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
the hotter the earth; and from a global perspective we have already passed the
"too hot" point. That is what the climate scientists are
telling us, but the American public is not paying much attention.
For many years, Gallup has polled Americans to measure concern,
knowledge, and opinions about global warming.
Half of Americans surveyed were worried about it in 1998, and in three
years the figure rose to 72% worried about global warming. The last three years the poll number is back
down to a little more than half of us worried, although the 2012 poll was made
in March.
American public opinion is also divided as to what we think scientists
believe about global warming. In a poll
last year from Yale and George Mason Universities "…only 39% percent of the
respondents agreed that 'most scientists think global warming is happening,'
and 40% agreed with the statement, 'There is a lot of disagreement among
scientists about whether or not global warming is happening.'” The belief that there is this major
disagreement among climate scientists is mistaken, says Spencer Weart, a
physicist and science historian. According to Weart: "The world scientific
consensus is clear: Earth faces serious
problems from climate change due to human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases,
and the longer we delay addressing these problems because of erroneous and
sometimes self-serving views, the greater the likelihood of catastrophe." One survey found that 97% of peer-reviewed
research papers published on the topic agree that global climate change
associated with greenhouse gases is real and is caused by burning fossil fuels. An independent study yielded similar results.
Politicians are paying attention
to the polls, not to the prevailing science.
Four years ago most politicians in both parties at least gave lip
service to the problem of global warming.
Now the same politicians in both parties are backing away--skirting the
issue, or actually attacking those who say it is a problem. Meanwhile coal, gas, and oil corporations have
spent millions to disabuse us of the notion that human-caused carbon dioxide
has anything to do with global warming. What
are we treading down with our feet?
One source of public skepticism
is confusion between global warming and the weather fluctuations we have from
year to year and from place to place. We tend to think that an unusually cold
stretch of weather refutes global warming. Not so. Computer models predict an overall
warming of the planet from increased carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases,
and they also predict increased swings in local weather from year to year and
from place to place. There will be more
extreme events--droughts more severe in one location, record flooding in
another, more storms, more heat waves, more untimely snowfalls. That is why the term "global climate
change" is being adopted as more inclusive than "global
warming."
Of course the 3% of scientists
who disagree may be correct, and the 97% may be wrong, but dare we take the
risk? Most of us do not risk going
without fire insurance or driving without seat belts, though the betting odds
would be in our favor if we did. The
odds on climate change are much worse, and the stakes are far higher. Effects would be felt everywhere, but most
dramatically at the poles and in the tropics.
Melting ice at the poles would lead to rises in sea level all over the
world. Rising temperatures in the
tropics and subtropics, where the poorest people live, would make dry areas
drier at the same time mountain glaciers are retreating, reducing available
irrigation water.
The predictions appear to be on
track, too. In 2011 weather disasters
cost a record-setting
$14 billion. Already in 2012 we have had the warmest winter
and spring on record; tornadoes in March caused more than $1 billion in damage
and killed 41 people in four states; extreme thunderstorms and high winds
knocked out electricity to more than 4 million people right in the middle of a
heat wave; wildfires have been raging in the west; and a huge portion of our
country is stricken with heat and record drought. The corn crop is way down.
Drought also continues to
afflict many parts of Africa, while the Amazon River basin, the Philippines,
and Bangladesh have been hit by record flooding. Arctic sea ice is at the lowest point ever
recorded. No one can be sure any one of these
events has been caused by high levels of greenhouse gases; but the outbreak is consistent
with overall model predictions. What are
we treading down with our feet?
So some day soon, we can shift away from fossil fuels, and
our climate will shift back to what it used to be? Sad to say, it doesn't work that way! When our feet pollute this stream, it stays
polluted for centuries to come. The
extra carbon dioxide we have added to the atmosphere stays there. One scientist puts it, "Even if human emissions of CO2
magically dropped to zero, the gas already in the air would linger for many centuries,
trapping heat. …Whatever we do now,
humanity [is] already committed to centuries of violently changing weather and rising seas." A
member of my home church, himself a scientist who has studied the problem, puts
it succinctly: Our grandchildren are
going to hate us, because we had the information, and we did nothing about it. What have we already
trodden down with our feet?
The Old Testament theologian Walter Brueggemann has said
that in prophetic preaching we must process our loss. For the Hebrew prophets, the loss was homeland
and everything they held dear. What we
have lost may be the right (if we ever had the right) to a lifestyle based on extravagant,
wasteful combustion of fossil fuels. If
we care about future generations, we may want to consider that lifestyle a
thing of the past. We may have to
abandon the pleasure of burning fossil fuels as if there were no tomorrow,
because there will be a tomorrow, but--if the science is correct--an unhappy
tomorrow world-wide, unless we accept our loss and change our ways.
The second part of our reading from Ezekiel is about showers
of blessing. Ezekiel knew the
catastrophe of exile; but he also knew that ours is a God of power, and a God
of hope. This reflects the second thing Dr. Brueggemann says prophetic
preaching must do--process our hope.
It would be easy to throw in the towel and conclude that avoiding
this catastrophe is beyond our power. It is beyond our power, but we are
not in this world alone. In connection
with hope, Dr. Brueggemann speaks of God's pala.
Pala
is the Hebrew word for God's ability to do wonderful, mysterious things, things
impossible from a human point of view.
The whole Bible testifies to God's pala,
beginning with the first chapter of Genesis, where God created the world out of
chaos. God can do wonderful things,
things the world thinks are impossible. God
gave us this beautiful planet, and God will help us preserve it.
The pala of God
can work through us. We can conserve
energy--thus saving money and reducing dependence on foreign oil; and the
habits we cultivate will facilitate conversion to non-fossil fuels. We can use LED light bulbs, better insulate our houses, turn thermostats down in
the winter and up in the summer, walk or bike more, drive less and in more
fuel-efficient cars. I believe the main thing is, we must care deeply--must change
our mindset from "fossil energy is cheap" to "energy is
precious." I believe we need to
work toward conversion to non-fossil fuels.
We can multiply our efforts by enlisting others in the
cause. If we belong to other organizations,
we can promote conservation in them. We
can let our government officials know it is important to us that they
prioritize switching to non-fossil fuel energy.
I think that means ending subsidies for fossil fuels and imitating
Germany in the promotion of green energy.
And it means new jobs and opportunities for investment.
Yes, we may feel like suckers if we conserve while
others don't. My teacher-wife Marilyn told
about children who would say, "He hit me back first." So, sure, we don't want to be the first to
take the hit if people in India or China or Africa are making fools of us by increasing
their pollution while we decrease. But
with God's pala we can remember: the
people in those countries look askance at us for the 17 T of CO2
we produce per person each year compared to 7 for China, 1 for India, and less
than 1 for much of Africa. We can see
with their eyes: we are the highest CO2 producers in the world, and
if we aren't willing to commit to major change, why should they commit?
With God's pala we
can confront the biggest challenge of all--the willingness to take the long-run
view and protect the sheep that will come after us. Are we willing to avoid treading down the
pasture and fouling the waters for the sake of children who will not even be
born during our lifetimes?
That long view is not easy.
As one scientist said, short-term pain for long-term gain is against
human nature. Our pain of paying a slightly
higher bill for green energy now too often outweighs the distant
goal of a healthier planet. But we teach
our children that the ability to wait for delayed gratification is a sign of
maturity. God will give us spiritual maturity--the faith and hope we need to
take the long view.
With hope in God's pala,
we can keep on urging our politicians to pay attention to global climate
change even if they keep ignoring us.
William Sloan Coffin, Jr. put it this way: “Let us remember that optimism is not
essential to a spiritual person, only hope.
God does not call us finally to be successful, only to be faithful,
which means that when we can’t be optimistic, we can still be persistent.”
Our first reading from Matthew was
part of Jesus' parable about sheep and goats, a parable obviously influenced by
Ezekiel's. In Jesus' version, when we
care for those most in need--the ones Jesus called "the least of
these"--we are doing it for Christ.
Who needs our care more than the generations do who could suffer
because of what our generation has trodden down? An ounce of preventing global climate change
now would be worth a ton of care after the change has happened. With God's pala working with us, we can make those
ounces of prevention count. When we do
it for the "least of these," even the "least of these" not
yet born, we do it for Christ.
*******
Lectionary Readings
Ps. 96; 148; 49; 138
Ezek. 34:17-31
Heb. 8:1-13
Luke 10:38-42
No comments:
Post a Comment