Just read this headline:  “How religion and American exceptionalism are undermining our future.”

What I immediately notice is that “American” has a qualifier,  and “Religion” does not.  Interesting.   Why?  It would seem to me that a PARTICULAR approach to religion (one which is actually dominated by the same “American exceptionalism”),  is what is being described.  Imhofe is but one of the more inane examples of this. But in order to avoid pigeonholing “American”,  “exceptionalism” is identified to focus on those particular problematics.  But the same is the case here,  with “religion”.  Plenty of “religious” people are ANYTHING BUT adherents of “American exceptionalism”.

The article then proceeds to define for us what the “Christian” bias says about creation.  They got St. Francis totally wrong.

Ever since the Western world became Christian, people in our society have regarded nature as God’s exclusive handiwork; and ever since St. Francis, they have regarded it as evidence of His benevolence. Climate change indicates that the entire natural order is turning against us, and that it is doing so because of our actions. God seems absent from this process, either as a controlling force or as a protecting presence.

“Benevolence” here,  and the idea that climate problems presents us with a challenge to that, already assumes that benevolence means that the earth looks after us regardless of our decision to do the same for it.  It’s the Imhofe syndrome.  The puzzling notion that things God creates are invincible.  Right away,  a simple challenge presents itself.  Are people one of God’s creation?  Most would say not only yes,  but emphatically so,  placing humanity at the center of creation and usually THE most precious creation. (I don’t accept 100% of that, BTW).  So,  if this is the case,  can people be damaged and/or killed?  Does that “disprove” God?  “Free will”  is also a key concept here.  Evil happens.  People can choose.  So,  this Imhofe-ian argument is an mind-boggling inconsistency.  (Is this a surprise? No.)  So,  back to “benevolence”.  Benevolence is a two way relationship as well.  People are free to impinge on the freedom of others,  including the domain of the created order;  the ecosystem.  In fact,  the theology of many would affirm that it is a “reponsibility” that comes with the relationship.  Seems easy enough.  And it seems CLEAR enough from a relatively cursory exploration of the Biblical story.  But so it goes.  Religion sure has its diversities of human approprations.  And these are almost always driven by sociological forces that present and shape a certain view of “reality”.  Just as many Americans don’t feel obligated to play some kind of adolescent “we are best” contest with the rest of the world,  many “religious” people don’t accept a “inevitable progress”.  But it is certainly prevalent,  and it seems the author of this article would agree with my objections over the title inference.  For instance,

Climate change brings our ethos of continual growth up against a definitive and rather claustrophobic limit. It not only demands different public policies, but different personal aspirations.

This fits with what I am thinking about the idea of “limits to growth”.  Since delving into the climate crisis conversation with gusto over the past 6 months or so,  I have come across many who talk about such limits,  as opposed to the notion that we can always grow the economy.  The finite resources of the earth ,  increasingly noticed as we approach the limits of many heretofore assumed to be unlimited,  have spawned many considerations of how we might re-work our notions of what is possible. People such as Richard Heinberg,  and the Post-Carbon Institute.  Stay tuned in days ahead for more,  as I am now reading Paul Gilding’s The Great Disruption,  where such limits are the basis for what he sees coming,  and is hopeful for (or counting on)  the response of humankind to the most pressing issue of our time.

It is my hope that the church,  along with other theological traditions (ie other religions) ,  might also respond,  finally reaching into their own tradition’s best ecological resources.