The second of the two sections I had to cut out from the afore mentioned paper. Here I refuted White’s statement that St Francis of Assisi represent a viable alternative to the dominant Western Christian attitude towards nature.

                White’s posited Christian alternative to what he perceives to be the dominant, and ecologically detrimental, Western Christian attitude toward nature, St Francis of Assisi, does not represent the hope for a modern environmentally-conscious Christianity that White supposes. While Francis’ life is remarkable in the history of Western Christianity for his loving all creation equally, the environmentalism of St Francis (if indeed that term can be applied, since our modern concern for ecological balance and species survival was not present in Francis’ thought) is far from sufficient to address the concerns of the world today. The sentiment that creation, from the lowliest animal to the very Sun, exists in a fraternity of the love of God, and that all God’s creations are symbols of Him, such as is evident in St Francis’ Canticle of the Creatures, while suitable as a vehicle for spiritual development, does not translate into positive action. St Francis’ attitude more closely resembles that of White’s preferred model of sainthood: the contemplative Eastern[1] Christian Saint.[2]

                However, the problems facing the world today cannot be stopped by the pleasant inaction of the contemplative Saint. Though it is possible that had the larger Western Christian tradition adopted St Francis’ attitude toward the natural world, we would not be in the ecological crisis in which we find ourselves.[3] However, the damage, regardless of its cause, is done, and an attitude of action,[4] framed within a new paradigm for Christian thought, is necessary if we are to hope to un-do that damage.

I wrote a paper last semester called “Detriment and Responsibility: The Culpability of Christianity for the World’s Ecological Crisis and the Way Forward.” It was for my course on Philosophy of Religion, on the topic of Religion and Ecology. Specifically, I was responding to the seminal 1967 paper by historian Lynn White: The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis. White’s thesis is, in brief, that Christianity is responsible for the environmental (his word is “ecologic”) crisis facing the world today, because Christianity inherently seperates humanity from nature. I argued against this view. Due to page limitations, there were two section which were more excurses than integral parts of my argument, so I thought I would share those two exerpts. This is the first.

It would be a mistake to assert that the dualism which White argues is the very source of the problem is present in all Western Christian thought. In fact, attempting to reconcile Christian theology with the revered categories of ancient Greek philosophy, the greatest minds of the Western Middle Ages posited a decidedly monistic relation of God to creation.[1] Drawing principally upon the categories of neo-Platonic metaphysics, and thus also on the assumptions of Plato’s monistic naturalism, such figures as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Nicholas of Cusa posited an ontology in which creation is spun out of the very stuff of God.[2]

Augustine soliloquizes to God in the Confessions: “[t]herefore, Thou spakest, and they [heaven, earth, the air, and the waters] were made, and in Thy Word[3] Thou madest them.”[4] To Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, “[a]ll things derive in hierarchical order from the Supre-Divine Godhead.”[5] Thus all of creation descends from the highest and most exalted height of God to the lowest material things, but never vitiating in substance. Thomas Aquinas, though attempting to operate within an Aristotelian framework, was Platonic in his interpretations. Thomas rationalizes cause as the First Cause, and thus the solution to the problem of causality that without an external cause the causal chain of creation would necessarily ad infinitum.[6] For Nicolas of Cusa, God contained within Himself all the “multiplicity of creation.”[7] Thus God both contains and transcends His creation.[8] This consubstantiality of God and creation is the very dialectical opposite of the dualism of God and creation that White argues was promulgated by medieval Christianity, even more so than a “nature as sacred” belief system, which is assumed to be the system of belief that White feels Christianity supplanted.[9]