THE PRESENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY THROUGH THE FOUNDATIONAL OF LOVE, CONTEMPLATION, AND PRAYER IN MID- CENTURY CHRISTIANTIY

By

Darcy Posselli

A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The University of Utah In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Degree in Bachelors of Arts

In Environmental Studies

Approved:

______

Andy Hoffman Dan McCool

Supervisor Program Director, Department of Environmental Studies

______Leslie Francis Sylvia Torti Department Honors Advisor Dean, Honors College May 2012

! ! TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ii

INTRODUCTION 1

PAUL TILLICH 3

THOMAS MERTON AND ERNESTO CARDENAL 16

DENISE LEVERTOV 26

CONCLUSION 36

REFERENCES 39

""! ! ! ! THE PRESENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY THROUGH THE

FOUNDATIONAL THEOLOGY OF LOVE, CONTEMPLATION, AND PRAYER IN MID-

CENTURY CHRISTIANITY

Darcy Posselli (Andy Hoffman)

Department of Environmental Studies

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. 84112

In the 1968 essay “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” Lynn White Jr. makes an argument for what he evaluates as the influence of Christianity on Western culture, which has led to the environmental degradation that marks the 20th century. By looking at a few prominent theologians who were writing around mid 20th century, this paper argues a new perspective of the role of Christianity as a cultural force towards environmental advocacy. The writings of Paul

Tillich, , Ernesto Cardenal, and Denise Levertov are evaluated. For each theologian, the concepts of selfless love toward and contemplative prayer evoked by nature are major themes found in Christianity. Therefore, these thinkers advocate environmental care as a natural aspect of Christianity before and during the beginning of the modern environmental movement. In the paper, these concepts are evaluated through the lens of poetry. The role of poetry is evaluated because a lyrical treatment of the subject points back to the idea that nature evokes prayer, which naturally leads the human heart to self sacrificial love, and out of that love springs the poetry of environmental advocacy. Ultimately, in evaluating the works of the mentioned writers, the paper argues that the environmental crisis should not be viewed through the conception of history that White represents in his paper. Indeed there are several writers and

"""! ! ! ! advocates of environmental care present in Christianity throughout its history. As such, a linear, cause-and-effect evaluation that puts blame on Christianity is not an entirely valid argument.

"#! ! 1

In 1968, Lynn White Jr. wrote the seminal essay, “The Historical Roots of Our

Ecological Crisis.” In the paper, White argues that there was a point in which culture changed so that the beliefs and resulting actions became an environmental menace (White

3). White comes to the logical conclusion that the rise of Christianity is to blame for massive environmental degradation caused by humanity, as Christianity seems to be a driving force in Western culture.

In using this logic, White assigns environmental history to a simple, linear progression model. A by-product of the linear view of history is the acceptance of the idea of “turning points”. Turning points can be defined as a single point in time during which the progression of history and culture shifted in a dramatically new direction. In the book “The Turning Points of Environmental History,” editor Frank Uekoetter writes in the introduction that “...the implications of turning points are enormous: they define time frames and chronologies, they highlight certain trends at the expense of others, they provide structure and focus--in short, turning points provide a backbone to narratives that no scholarly study of history can do without (2).” Uekoetter then proceeds to name

White’s essay as one of the most famous early studies of turning points in the environmental historical canon. For White, the rise of Christianity was a turning point in environmental history, demarcating the point at which the relationship between nature and humanity seemed to take a turn for the worse.

While the stream of thought and connection of phenomenon White presents in the essay seem very logical, there is a lack of complexity. White was seeking answers to a culture incompatible with stewardship. While he was not fixated with placing blame upon Christianity, and therefore sought objectivity as much as is clear, his reasoning fails 2 to take several complexities into account. First, there is a long history of environmentally-minded theologians throughout the . In the paper,

White makes mention of and no one else. In reality, there is a rich tradition of theologians who advocate for environmental care, from early Christianity to present, ranging from theologians such as St. Augustine to . Second, the concept of turning points fails to acknowledge the complexity of the human situation in relation to time. Time cannot be perceived simplistically. In other words, it is not realistic to view time and history as being dramatically affected by a single event.

Instead, time is constantly being affected by actions, meaning that most moments in history can be designated as a “turning point.” If every moment of history becomes a turning point, then the power given to a single turning point is not logical. Uekoetter writes, “Early narratives routinely sought to identify a single cause for environmental decline...The search for a single factor that put the environment on a downward slope was bound to prove elusive, and corresponding attempts were regularly defied by the complexity of history (3).”

Additionally, the problem of environmental degradation is not solely historical in the Christian view, but also ontological. “Ontological” denotes the idea that the environmental degradation is not solely the product of a choice in time, but the product of the nature of mankind. In other words, since in the Christian belief humanity is sinful, meaning unable to choose what is good and selfless, each person naturally chooses what is beneficial to his or herself. As such, environmental degradation occurs because of the natural and selfish tendency in all of mankind to choose what benefits the individual rather than others. Despite good intentions, humanity consistently marks its history by 3 several moments of self-seeking gain. Therefore, environmental problems are not only a problem of a choice in time, but a problem of the greedy and self-seeking nature of mankind. The question of ontology further adds to the complexity of understanding

Christianity's actual role in caring for the environment.

White had his heart in the right place. In a time marked by questioning the status quo, White looked around him and pioneered an evaluation of the origin of the poor relationship between humanity and the natural world. However, this paper seeks to engage this widely acclaimed view and question the responsibility it places upon

Christianity. In this paper, a small sample of theologians who were also living and working in the mid-20th century are evaluated, as they wrote during the beginning of the modern environmental movement. Paul Tillich, Thomas Merton, Ernesto Cardenal, and

Denise Levertov all argue in their body of work that the core beliefs of Christianity advocate for environmental care. Ultimately, according to these theologians, the natural world is valuable in that it was created by God and as such, inspires awe-filled contemplation and prayer, which leads to selfless love solving the ontological problems of self-seeking environmental degradation. Out of this place of contemplation and prayer flows from Christianity the poetry of environmental advocacy and action.

Paul Tillich

Paul Tillich (1886-1965) was a prominent theologian and professor. He taught philosophy and theology at the universities of Marburg, Dresden, Leipzig, and Frankfurt.

He then taught at Union Theological Seminary and Harvard University after it was 4 requested he leave Germany for his views brought him into conflict with Nazism. Tillich published several written works, and remains influential today.

Throughout his career, Paul Tillich advocated that problems found in the relationship between humanity and the natural world had existential origins. The fallen nature of humanity marked by greed, selfishness, and apathy, amongst other things, were the point of contention between nature and mankind. This point of view directly contrasts White’s argument that the environmental crisis has historical roots. The roots,

Tillich would argue, have to do with the state of being of mankind, rather than a specific historical switch or moment. As environmental issues arise due to the ontological nature of humanity, the answer to preserving and reconciling the relationship between the natural world and humanity is the basic tenant of self-sacrificial love advocated by

Christianity. This self-sacrificial love is put toward the natural world because all of creation experienced the fall, displays the Creator’s glory, and will experience redemption alongside humanity, giving it inherent value.

What, then, do Paul Tillich’s theological views of estrangement and reconciliation as a means to love have to do with his views of nature? Paul Tillich wrote little on the topic of nature directly, but his opinions of the theology behind man’s relationship to nature is easy to ascertain based on his theological stances. In the essay “Paul Tillich and

Ecological Theology,” author Pan-chui Lai attempts to write an opinion for Paul Tillich on ecological theology as a natural extension of the ideas Tillich expresses in his written works. Of particular importance to Lai is the existential philosophical background of

Tillich. At this point, Tillich’s cornerstone idea of reconciled love is of utmost importance. In “Paul Tillich and Ecological Theology,” Lai seeks to respond to Lynn 5

White’s “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” Tillich himself was interested in the debate that was beginning to surge within Christianity in response to the rise in environmental concern in the culture of the time. Lai quote Tillich as having said “It may well be that we are living in such a moment, and that man’s (or woman’s) relation to the earth and the universe will, for a long time, become the point of primary concern for sensitive and thoughtful people (240).” However, Tillich passed away before the publication of Lynn White’s response. In this gap, Lai offers some potential answers

Paul Tillich may have offered based off the ideas he proposed.

First, the article suggests that Tillich would have found the need for concern of ecological theology to be focused on the relationship between mankind and nature, rather than the traditional focus of the relationship between God and nature. The focus would need to be as such because the relationship between God and nature can never be modeled perfectly by humanity, and it is dangerous to think it so. God is infinite, while man is finite and created by God. God is called Creator and Lord throughout the Bible, and humanity is commanded to not perceive themselves as gods. As such, it is impossible to demand that humanity has the same relationship to nature as God. God is the supreme and sovereign Ruler and Creator, and the Bible does not give humanity the role of kingship over nature. Humanity is given a role of leadership, or dominion, over the natural world, but in the context of the whole Bible it is understood this leadership is humble and selfless. Shane Claiborne, author of the book , highlights the idea of God’s chosen people being given leadership in order to serve rather than for the sake of God showing favoritism. In writing about Jesus upsetting a group of people by giving a new perspective of Israel, Claiborne says, “Jesus reminded Israel that God’s 6 plan wasn’t for them to be God’s favorites or to be more blessed than others. Rather, they were blessed to be a blessing for the whole world (91).” God alone is the ruler of the world, as He is also the infinite Creator. Instead, man is on equal footing with the natural world, but is blessed with leadership for the sake of blessing and loving the world.

This idea is addressed directly by Tillich in his essay “Nature, Also, Mourns the Lost

Good,” which will be returned to shortly.

The existential background of Tillich also addresses concerns expressed by Lynn

White. Expressly, Lai argues that Tillich would question whether the historical roots of the ecological crisis were the right point to which all concern should be pointed.

Obviously, this is where White and Tillich each bring their background to bear, with the former being a historian and the latter a theologian. However, in arguing from his perspective, Tillich clearly advocates in many of his writings that most problems can be addressed by assessing the existence in which the problem occurs. For this reason,

Tillich assesses the ecological crisis through existentialism.

What is the reality in which the ecological crisis exists? It is a reality of a world drawn down by the heavy weight sinful of man. This sinfulness is characterized by estrangement, greed, self-centeredness, and pride, among other things. Rather than any historical roots, Tillich would argue it is the ontological problems of greed or power lust of man in any culture and age, not just Latin Christianity and Western Society, that has created the ecological crisis. Lai writes:

Theology should address not only the historical roots of the ecological crisis but also the existential root of the crisis if Christianity really wishes to be beneficial to the environment. Instead of defending the Latin form of Christianity, the proper task of ecological theology should be more positive--attempting to give a theological answer corresponding to the existential question being asked. Ecological theology can be presented not only as a law--the theological basis for 7

ecological ethics--but also as a gospel concerning how the existential question can be answered by Christ. (245)

In the essay it is written that, “Tillich’s basic view is that estrangement is a universal quality of the structure of existence, while the way in which estrangement is predominantly manifested is a matter of history. Special situations only reveal more sharply special elements in the human existential situation, but they do not create those special elements (240).” Tillich believed estrangement is a major catalyst away from actions of love and into selfish, sinful actions. However, Christianity can be an advocate for nature in promoting reconciliation through the sacrifice of Christ, because the genuine love that comes from reconciliation will necessitate care for the natural world as a natural by-product. Lai writes:

A corollary of this existential approach to ecological theology is a reinstatement of christology to the center of discussion. For central to the Christian answer to the existential question underlying the ecological crisis should be the reality of Jesus Christ, which should not be restricted or reduced to a new or old doctrine of creation. A theology that is faithful to the Christian message and relevant to the ecological concern must put christology right at the center of discussion. (246)

The new order is only possible through Christ, and this new order necessitates self sacrificial love of others, including other living and non-living things created by the

Creator.

Into this existential question the concept of reconciled love speaks volumes. As mentioned previously, in “The New Being,” Tillich argues that the new order brought by

Jesus is characterized by reconciliation and reunion with God, self, and others, allowing for an outpouring of selfless love for him who believes in the power of reconciliation offered through Christ’s sacrifice. The Bible is clear assertion that reconciliation changes lives. In the book of 2 Corinthians it says: 8

From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard his thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (English Standard Version, 2 Cor. 5:16-21)

Paul Tillich did an extensive amount of writing on the new reality marked by love in his collection of sermons titled The New Being. In the book, each sermon opens with a passage from the Bible and Tillich’s interpretation. The interpretations turn more towards philosophical debate, and as such delve into the depths of broad theological concepts. Of utmost importance in this book is the idea of love. Love is a convoluted concept for anyone navigating the present world. Love is a sweeping term often associated with romance, family, service, etc. The concept of love becomes convoluted because, at least in the case of English, one term is used for so many types of love. In the

Bible, three Greek words are used to describe different types of love. Of concern for

Tillich is the term “agape,” which denotes the unconditional selfless love that can only be embodied by God. He addresses the anxious masses of the 20th century who are trying to recover from world wars, economic meltdowns, and rapid culture change, by teaching them about the life altering power of agape love, both on the individual and the communal level.

In the namesake chapter “The New Being”, Paul Tillich begins to tackle the monumental task of defining this concept of agape love. In the chapter, Tillich argues that Jesus and the message he preached delineated and physically brought about a new 9 order of things. This new order was marked by massive reconciliation. This would take the form of reconciliation to God, to others, and to the self. Reconciliation is necessary for selfless love to exist. According to the Christian view, reconciliation to God is possible through believing in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. After a person is reconciled to God, this allows her to be reconciled to the world, humanity, and life itself.

In “To Whom Much is Forgiven...” Tillich writes “We cannot love where we feel rejected, even if the rejection is done in righteousness. We are hostile towards that to which we belong and by which we feel judged, even if the judgment is not expressed in words (10).” As Tillich points out, it is impossible for any human to love something that he feels has rejected him. He offers the example of humanity’s relationship to God. If the feeling of rejection and judgment were to remain, the love of God could never reach any human being. Therefore, by accepting the sacrifice of Christ and the subsequent reconciliation to God, Christians are empowered by the Holy Spirit to live a life marked by selfless love.

Previous to Jesus’ message, the Pharisees were the religious elite. Surprisingly,

Jesus generally clashed with the Pharisees. This fact is surprising, because the Pharisees were diligent in keeping God’s commandments outlined in the Torah. Despite their moral aptitude, Jesus commented on how futile the efforts of the Pharisees were, because anything less than perfection was considered sin. What was it the Pharisees lacked, when they had kept the moral code with such rigidity?

The main transgression of the Pharisees is their lack love, namely agape love, for

God and for others. The strivings of the Pharisees did not overcome imperfection and by 10 necessity, they could not love God, other people, or themselves. They felt rejected by

God and themselves, which could be one reason they aspired to religious perfection, hoping to overcome the barrier between themselves and God. Sadly, their efforts were wasted. This is just one example of a portion of people in Jesus’ time that sensed its tremendous lack, sought to overcome it, felt rejected, and so lacked love.

Tillich addresses the case of the Pharisees in his sermon “To Whom Much is

Forgiven...”. To sum up the sermon, Tillich clearly states that those who have been forgiven more, love more. He arrives at this conclusion from a passage in the book of

Luke:

One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat at table. And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was sitting at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner." And Jesus answering said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "What is it, Teacher?" "A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he forgave them both. Now which of them will love him more?" Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more. And he said to him, "You have judged rightly." Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little. (English Standard Version, Luke 7:36- 47)

For Paul Tillich it is of utmost importance that the sinners are called as such and the righteous are called as such. At first, the Pharisee is seen for his righteousness and the woman is seen for her sins. However, it becomes apparent that the flaw of the 11

Pharisees is not found on the moral level. It is found in their lack of love. Tillich says “It does not lie on the moral level, just as the unrighteousness of Job did not lie on the moral level where his friends sought for it in vain. It lies on the level of the encounter with ultimate reality, with the God who vindicates Job's righteousness against the attacks of his friends, with the God who defends Himself against the attacks of Job and his ultimate unrighteousness (13).”

Jesus brings a new order, one that is precipitated by love. Moral standards are no longer the standard, because they don’t completely measure up to God’s standards, which include motivations precipitated by agape. Tillich reminds us of the importance of love for a truly righteous, well-lived life by reminding us of the story of Job. Job, which is estimated to date near the time of the book of Genesis, shows that from the beginning, humanity has failed to reach the perfect standards of God because, while moral standards were accessible, love of God eluded humanity because rejection bred hatred. Jesus brought a new order of love, which was only possible through forgiveness. In the chapter, Tillich goes on to write that forgiveness by its very nature is “in spite of”, not

“because”. Forgiveness removes all judgment, and the removal of all judgment eliminates the sense of rejection. Finally, as the painful sense of rejection is removed through the reconciliation to God found through the life and death of Jesus Christ, individuals are freed from what once held them back from love. This recognition of reconciliation precipitates the ability to love others, the self, and life. The reality of mankind seeking to overcome rejection brings common ground, making it easier to pour out genuine love. When God is the guaranteed source of forgiveness, there is freedom in being reconciled to the world. Tillich writes: 12

But if we have received and accepted the message that He is reconciled, everything changes. Like a fiery stream His healing power enters into us; we can affirm Him and with Him our own being and the others from whom we were estranged, and life as a whole. Then we realize that His love is the law of our own being, and that it is the law of reuniting love. And we understand that what we have experienced as oppression and judgment and wrath is in reality the working of love, which tries to destroy within us everything which is against love. To love this love is to love God. Theologians have questioned whether man is able to have love towards God; they have replaced love by obedience. But they are refuted by our story. They teach a theology for the righteous ones but not a theology for the sinners. He who is forgiven knows what it means to love God. (10)

It is clear that selfless love, possible through reconciliation, opens a person up to enjoy and love God, life, people, the world, and nature freely. This uninhibited love is a major key towards the action and poetry of environmental advocacy. Jesus changes the order of things by bringing reconciliation with God, and in turn Christians are reconciled with the rest of the world and able to love it selflessly. This selfless love gives the

Christian power to love the world. More importantly, this selfless love gives the

Christian reason to love the world. The world, including the natural environment, has inherent value in that it was created by God. Since the way of life advocated by Jesus is marked by serving and loving others rather than the self, the Christian way of life advocates caring for others, the world, and the creation.

For Tillich, the natural world’s value comes from its Creator, the same Creator of man. Tillich clearly advocates that nature experiences the fall and salvation much the same as humanity does. In his sermon “Nature, Also, Mourns for a Lost Good,” Tillich argues that nature reflects the glory of God, experiences the tragedy of the Fall, and will also experience redemption. In answer to his own question “what does nature mean to us?” Tillich writes “The hymn of the psalmist praises the glory of God in the glory of nature (Psalm 19:2-5); the letter of the apostle links the tragedy of nature to the tragedy of 13 man (Romans 8:19-22); and the vision of the prophet sees the salvation of nature in the salvation of the world. (Revelation 21:1, 22:1-2).” (77)

Nature’s glory is a reflection of God. Humanity, from Tillich’s point of view in writing from the mid 20th century, currently only sees a shallow beauty marked by self- interest in nature. But nature is anything but shallow beauty. Tillich advocates that communion between man and nature is a vital exercise that should be undertaken, because such communion would open humanity to understand the life and wonder of nature. Tillich writes:

I was sitting under a tree with a great biologist. Suddenly he exclaimed, "I would like to know something about this tree!" He, of course, knew everything that science had to say about it. I asked him what he meant. And he answered, "I want to know what this tree means for itself. I want to understand the life of this tree. It is so strange, so unapproachable." He longed for a sympathetic understanding of the life of nature. But such an understanding is possible only by communion between man and nature. (79)

For Tillich, humanity thinks it understands nature and, as such, consistently devalues and compartmentalizes it. That is far from the truth. He says that man thinks he knows nature because science has opened up the mystery and made nature a tool to be used by man. Nature is perceived to be known in so much that it has been “solved”.

Therefore, nature is known in so much as it serves humanity. According to the idea of reconciled love put forth in The New Being, this attitude and understanding of nature is characterized by estrangement. Therefore, love is not present. It can be assumed that the new state of things brought about through Jesus will, by its very nature, require a selfless appreciation of nature because its glory is a reflection of God’s glory. Tillich clearly depicts what a selfless appreciation of and care for nature would and wouldn’t look like with a comparison: 14

A Chinese emperor asked a famous painter to paint a picture of a rooster for him. The painter assented, but said that it would take a long time. After a year the emperor reminded him of his promise. The painter replied that after a year of studying the rooster he had just begun to perceive the surface of its nature. After another year the artist asserted that he had just begun to penetrate the essence of this kind of life. And so on, year after year. Finally, after ten years of concentration on the nature of the rooster, he painted the picture -- a work described as an inexhaustible revelation of the divine ground of the universe in one small part of it, a rooster. Compare the emperor's wise patience and the painter's saintly contemplation of an infinitely small expression of the divine life, with the exuberances of our contemporaries, who rush in their cars to some famous view and exclaim, "How lovely!" referring, no doubt, not to the view, but to their own appreciation of beauty. What blasphemy of the glory of nature! and consequently of the divine ground, the glory of which sounds through the glory of nature. (79)

In direct contrast to the glory of nature is the tragedy of nature. Man can feel sympathy with nature in its tragedy because both experience finitude. Tillich shares another poignant personal narrative at this point to display the sympathy of man toward nature in its shared finite nature.

Why is nature tragic? Who is responsible for the suffering of animals, for the ugliness of death and decay, for the universal dread of death? Many years ago I stood on a jetty with a well-known psychologist looking at the ocean. We saw innumerable small fish hurrying toward the beach. They were pursued by bigger ones, who, in turn, were chased by still bigger ones. Aggression, flight, and anxiety a perfect illustration of the old, often used story of the big fish devouring the small ones, in nature as in history. The scholar, who, in many discussions, had defended the harmonious structure of reality, burst into tears, saying, "Why are these beings created if they exist only to be swallowed by others?" In this moment the tragedy of nature forced itself upon his optimistic mind, and he asked, "Why?” (82)

Is the cause behind this sympathy a shared experience? According to Tillich, the answer is a resounding yes. The fall was not only the reality that humanity entered into, as “...nature is subjected to vanity by the curse that God uttered because of the fall of

Adam. The tragedy of nature is bound to the tragedy of man, as the salvation of nature is dependent on the salvation of man (83).” Indeed, for Tillich, the world is fallen, meaning 15 that all of the world participates in the curse given to Adam in Genesis. “As nature, represented by the "Serpent", leads man into temptation, so man, by his trespassing of the divine law, leads nature into tragedy (83).”

However, amidst the glory and tragedy of nature, there is also the hope of salvation. Tillich quotes Revelation 21:1 where the apostle Paul says he saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” which clearly illustrates the salvation of nature. This salvation is intricately tied with the salvation of humanity. Tillich points out that the salvation of the world isn’t a Utopian view of this world, but a mysterious future for which the world hopes.

Needless to say, this is not the description of a future state of our world. Like the Golden Age of the past, the Golden Age of the future is a symbol, pointing to something mysterious within our present world namely, the forces of salvation. And one thing is made very clear in the visions of the prophet, that salvation means salvation of the world, and not of human beings alone. Lions and sheep, little children and snakes, will lie together in peace, says Isaiah. (84)

It is of great importance for Tillich that the truth of salvation for nature be understood, because it speaks volumes about how much power God displayed when Jesus conquered death by rising again. If the salvation of nature is understood, communion becomes a more powerful symbol of God’s grace and saving power. In communion, nature participates in salvation in such a way that the reconciliation is shown. “For in the sacraments nature participates in the process of salvation. Bread and wine, water and light, and all the great elements of nature become the bearers of spiritual meaning and saving power. Natural and spiritual powers are united, reunited in the sacrament (86).”

Tillich clearly argues that reconciled love, which is only possible through the new reality brought out by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Tillich advocates a closer inspection of the relationship between man and nature in order to answer the existential 16 rather than historical questions behinds the ecological state of things. The current reality is that man and nature are estranged because of the sins of man, such as greed, selfish ambition, etc. The relationship between man and nature is that nature not only reflects the glory of God, but also reflects the tragedy of a fallen, sinful world as does man, and as such, will also experience the salvation of the world. Humanity and nature are on similar fields, for Tillich, rather than humanity having dominion over nature. Dominion is acknowledged by Tillich in so much as humanity has the power to destroy the natural world in its estranged, sinful state. God alone has supreme dominion over the world, and in this supreme dominion sent Jesus Christ to reconcile the world to Himself. This shows that Jesus reconciled the world to love, for God is love. Moreover, this selfless love that characterizes the new reality, care and sympathy for nature by humanity is the new standard. As Tillich writes in “Nature, Also, Mourns for a Lost Good,”

So long as there are the old heaven and the old earth, man and nature will be subjected together to the law of vanity. Many profound thinkers within and without Christianity agree that man is determined to fulfill the longing of nature. Insofar as he has failed and still fails to come to his own fulfillment, he is unable to fulfill nature, his own bodily being and nature around him. Therefore, Jesus is called the Son of Man, the man from above, the true man, in whom the forces of separation and tragedy are overcome, not only in mankind but also in the universe. For there is no salvation of man if there is no salvation of nature, for man is in nature and nature is in man. (83)

Thomas Merton and Ernesto Cardenal

Thomas Merton (1915-1968) stressed the importance of nature in facilitating communion with God. During Merton’s time at the Trappist monastery known as

Gethsemani in Kentucky, his practice of solitude and hermitage gradually led him to this conviction. Since his childhood, Merton was fond of nature. His love of the natural 17 world was inspired by his parents, particularly his dad’s landscape painting and his mother’s bidding that he spend his entire day outdoors. Merton was Agnostic up until his years as an English Masters student at Columbia University. Towards the end of his studies, he decided to pursue Catholicism. While starting Ph.D. work, Merton felt as though he should join the priesthood. After a time of conflicting advice, a failed attempt to enter a Franciscan monastery, and confusion as to whether becoming monk was indeed a good fit, Thomas Merton found the Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani and was subsequently accepted as a monk. He was devoted to the severity of the lifestyle, and thus adjusted quickly. His time at Gethsemani was marked with increasing fame from his writing, which was being published at a very quick rate, and an increasing desire for solitude found in nature.

His enjoyment of nature was something he questioned when he first entered

Gethsemani. Initially, he struggled as he questioned whether it was possible to enjoy the creation, or if that somehow took away from enjoyment of the Creator. Prior to becoming a Christian, Merton was strongly interested in ideas promoted in after reading some of Aldofus Huxley’s writings. However, as a Christian he was now troubled with trying to reconcile the role of nature in his personal relationship with God.

Did the natural world facilitate a deepening of his relationship with God by providing spiritual insight or experience such as prayer, which harkened to his interest in mysticism,or did it distract from his devotion? In the book “Gethsemani: Landscapes of

Paradise” author Monica Weis writes primarily about Merton’s experiences and relationship with the natural world. In talking about his early search for the importance of nature, Weis writes: 18

Merton’s early monastic training exposed him to the thinking of theologians, a reading practice he continued throughout his life. He studied the writings of the Western and Eastern fathers, steeping himself in Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and . From them he learned more about the beauty and value of nature. He embraced their vision. Augustine, who, like Merton, came late to an understanding of Christianity and the immanence of God, celebrated the God within himself and all creation. Aquinas taught that all creation is holy. Bernard even went so far as to counsel his monks to learn from nature: “You will find something more in woods than in books. Trees and stones will teach you that which you can never learn from masters.” From the Greek church fathers Merton received consolation and affirmation that the glory of God is revealed in all creation. (37)

Out of this struggle, Merton came to believe that it was possible to enjoy nature as a means of enjoying God and learning more about His character. Nature was valuable in that it pointed back to the glory of the God, or its Creator. Merton referred to the divine spark in the created world as a blessing to be interacted with so that one could connect with God and attempt to understand His glory. Therefore, Merton came to believe that nature was an ideal place for contemplation of God’s character in a hope to further deepen the relationship between the believer and God. It was ideal because it readily reflects the glory of its Creator. As such, contemplation in nature inspires prayer, because God’s glory is simpler to understand through the creation.

Nature helped Merton in his prayer life. The Trappist tradition, as following the teachings of St. Benedict, seeks to incorporate a balance of prayer, work and worship into the monks’ spiritual lives. As part of the Trappist Gethsemani, Merton focused on those disciplines and found that, as a result, silence and listening became a key component of the his faith. Weis writes:

Work for the Benedictine is never merely manual labor to support one’s existence but rather is a part of the monk’s commitment to finding the holding in the ordinary. There is power in the seed and rhythm in the seasons to be discovered and reverenced. Interacting with this power and rhythm through agriculture is, for 19

the Benedictine, just as powerful as chanting psalms. Merton’s love of nature enabled him to readily embrace this vision and even express it in writing. In “Gethsemani Magnificent,” a limited-edition photo-essay commemorating the centennial of the founding of the monastery, Merton anonymously wrote the following accompanying text to celebrate the physical and spiritual cycles of fertility: “The monk’s life moves with the slow and peaceful rhythm of the seasons. The liturgical year is in harmony with the life cycle of growing things. . . a soul that matures in humble toil in fields, barns, and woods soon develops a beautiful and mellow spirituality, something simple and indefinable. . . Christ lives close to the soil and His Apostles were men who grew up in the midst of nature.” (43)

As silent contemplation in “the fields, barns, and woods” became a practice for

Merton, he began to have moments where he understood God’s character more after witnessing small events in nature. Nature was a catalyst that moved Merton closer to a personal relationship with God, as it facilitated his spiritual maturation by teaching him about the Creator’s character and how to live a life marked by selfless love. Merton describes in detail his encounter in watching starlings fly and fight amongst themselves.

Suddenly, one of the starlings is caught by a hawk. Merton marveled at the work of the hawk and quickly saw the implication of the event in his own spiritual life. He aspired to the single, straight devotion of the hawk for his spiritual life in trying to understand the concept of God’s grace. Merton, in that moment, was reminded of his need to contemplate grace in order to better live a life marked by selfless love, because reconciliation is necessary for selfless love to exist. In “observing and reflecting on the interaction of nature, he was discovering a new motivation for committing himself wholeheartedly to his vocation. The same passion and single-mindedness that prompted the hawk to act must be present in Merton if grace—offered daily—was to be recognized and welcomed (48).” 20

Connecting with nature so that he could understand and connect with God was similar to the experience of Advent for Merton. In the Christian tradition, Advent is a season of waiting. This waiting is the season before the celebration of Jesus birth.

Advent, therefore, is the moment of joyfully expecting the world to become redeemed and created new. Each day he focused on outward and inward consciousness. The outward consciousness focused on seeing the divine spark of the loving God in His creation.

In this sacramental vision of reality, each bird, each frog—and Merton himself— was continually created; moment by moment each creature was loved into being by a God who is intimately present to each species and each individual in that species. Merton understood that each creature reveals the immanence of God. Each creature is God coming to us. Each day is an experience of Advent. (97)

The inward consciousness focused on how the creation and its reflection of God shaped the inner life of Merton. Therefore, the outward and inward consciousnesses worked closely together. By contemplating outwardly the character of God hinted at in the natural world, Merton found his inner spiritual life maturing. The natural landscape was consistently playing a role in molding Merton’s identity as a Christian by deepening his understanding of God. According to Weis, “Like native peoples who live according to the rhythm of the landscape, Merton understood that “place” is not a static entity but rather a dynamic one. It is an event, an experience that not only molds personality but also helps to define one’s identity and connects the soul with Being itself (50).”

Merton’s journey had a clear trajectory. He began doubting whether nature could be appreciated in a healthy spiritual life. Through his study and his prayer during his hermitage in Gethsemani, he quickly found that nature was good and necessary for connecting with God. In evaluating the natural world, Merton’s prayer life was 21 expanded, he found spiritual lessons in natural events he witnessed, and nature helped him contemplate the loving God whom he served. It is clear that, for Merton, nature was a key part of facilitating the changed Christian life because it showed the glory of God and allowed him to focus on the Creator through the creation.

Ernesto Cardenal (1925-), another monk in the , was mentored by

Thomas Merton during his time at Gethsemani. Through this relationship, among other influences, Cardenal also wrote and praised the importance of nature in one’s spiritual life. For both Merton and Cardenal, a lack of love is what brought so much evil into the world and destroyed the creation. In his book Love, Ernesto Cardenal writes a mix of poetry and prose beseeching the world to love. Love for Cardenal was the only answer to the problems of the 21st century. As such, love was the only answer to the environmental degradation that was taking place at an unprecedented rate.

Merton, in the preface to the book, praises Cardenal’s desire to teach the world about love but warns that often, “we conclude that the world is evil because there is so little love in it, and we blame and castigate those whom we hold responsible for this lack of love. Thus a theology or ethics of punishment and retribution takes the place of the vision of love, and love becomes an idealized abstraction (7).” Merton warns that to blame and punish others for the evil in the world would be counterproductive. What is needed for real change is celebration, a type of celebration about which only love can bring. If the love of God were understood, a love characterized by grace and celebration, then lives would be transformed, and by proxy, the world would too.

Cardenal makes it clear that he believes everything in the world is created out of the love of God, and as such should be respected: 22

God’s love created the world and continues creating it at every moment through the process of evolution. Because God the creator is also master of evolution, the world’s evolution is the work of his love. When God said “Increase and multiply,” he gave the law of evolution. The world is not like a picture painted by an artist centuries ago which now hangs untouchable in a museum. It is more like a work of art in constant process of creation, still in the studio. (44)

In addition, Cardenal claims that “everything that is, is by virtue of love, and if love is not clearly evident in all things, the reason is that we ourselves have made no effort to see love in all things.” From these statements it is clear that Cardenal believes that if humanity were able to expand its view and see the created world for the love it is imbibed with from its Creator, then environmental degradation wouldn’t be allowed to continue out of principle. Ernesto Cardenal points back wholeheartedly to the love that is described in the Bible. In 1 Corinthians 13, the famous passage describes that “love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres (English Standard Version, 1 Cor. 13: 4-8).” In evaluating each of the characteristics that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians, it is clear that love is not self-focused or self-seeking. Instead, love, the kind of love that God has shown to Christians through the example of the life and death of His son Jesus Christ, is always focused on “other”.

Cardenal works to explain this idea of love and its importance in the book. He writes:

Love is not a dream. It is a basic law of all those creatures who were created free in order to give themselves to others, free to partake of the infinite abundance of life with which God has filled our being. Love is the heart and the true centre of that creative dynamism which we call life. Love is life itself in its state of maturity and perfection. (41)

23

For Cardenal, love is a higher aspiration that humanity is not currently seeking out. However, Cardenal believes that love is not an abstraction, or an idea to be talked about but not acted upon. Instead, it is a very real mode of life which people can choose as they seek a life more in line with what God depicts in the Bible. The currently reality is a reality of perverted love, as Cardenal argues everything, including sin, is love. Sin, then, is an expression of love that is misguided. For example, greed is an expression of self-love through the love of possessions in order to build status, comfort, or whatever else. Cardenal writes:

Each of us makes himself the centre of the universe and therefore live in a false universe, like the astronomers’ universe before Copernicus. Things interest us to the extent that they serve our own small interests. But we can only be happy if God is the centre of our universe. Then we will be glad about everything that exists and that things are as they are and happen as they happen. For God wants it so whether or not it is convenient to our own little notions. God is love but our self-love is anti-love for love is self-surrender and self-love is giving way to self or not giving ourself to another. (44)

If love is self-sacrificing, the world is more aligned with how God intended his

Creation to be. With the world being fallen as it is, the reality is that people generally will be self-seeking. But love has the chance to step in and change the evil in the world by redirecting misguided love. When we understand better how love is the center of life and God’s love brought everything into existence, then humanity, the natural world, and life itself will radically change in a way that aligns more so with God’s intention for the world. Once we understand the creation was provided out of love by the Creator, then

Cardenal says we will learn, grow, and love more from everything around us. When we choose a love that is defined by letting go of the worship of ourselves, then we will have an expanded view of the world and our life on it. In the midst of the perversion of love 24 and the chance to choose love, Cardenal writes about the role of the earth for humanity and the ability of misguided love to abuse and misunderstand the purpose for which God created the earth. In the preface, Merton speaks to Cardenal’s view of misguided loves manifestation in the world:

Isaac of Stella, a Cisterian mystic of the twelfth century, writes: “This visible world serves man, its master, in two ways: it nourishes him and it teaches him. As a good servant, the world nourishes and teaches, provided that man be not a bad master. A bad master is stupid and wretched; his eyes may be able to penetrate with their glances to the ends of the world and yet see nothing but darkness, and he will make the world subservient to his body, and his stomach. He has no longer any idea why the world was created. He believes that this immense universe was made by God for the sake of his small belly. (11)

From Merton we learn the importance of nature in prayer, silence, and contemplation, and from Cardenal we learn the importance of love in appreciating nature and life in the way that God intended. How, then, do these two thinkers relate love and contemplation into a Christian ethic that calls for protecting and assigning proper value to the natural world? Nature is instrumental in pushing humanity towards acts of justice for

Cardenal and Merton. In his novel Seeds of Contemplation, Merton argues that contemplation is the highest and most honorable pursuit, possible through the love of

God, because it connects us with humanity and the natural world in a way that creates intense compassion. While many critics had argued that Merton wasn’t helping humanity or the natural world through his isolation, Merton argues that his hermitage is what led him to care for the natural world and humanity. As God’s love prompted him to contemplate life, which inevitably led him to consider the Creator and the beauty of the world, the gift of life, and the value of every created thing, Merton inevitably grew in compassion for humanity and the environment. As such, Merton spent much of his later 25 life writing and advocating for many aspects of social justice, fighting everything from the nuclear warfare to environmental degradation. Cardenal also went on to advocate for many matters of social justice. His main focus, both before his time at Gethsemane and afterward, was his country, Nicaragua.

The theology of Merton and Cardenal, which points towards social justice, is pivotal in the advocacy of environmental protection within Christianity. The writings of

Merton and Cardenal don’t advocate protecting the earth because of how it serves humanity, but that it should be protected as a creation of God. Additionally, they recognize that the fight for environmental care is intricately tied up with matters of social justice. To think that the two are separate is complete folly. Environmental degradation will always have the worse and primary effect on the under privileged populations of the world. As Jesus taught time and time again, the followers of Christ would be most powerful when they were humbling themselves to take care of “the least of these.” As modern-day Christian environmental advocate Matthew Sleeth writes in his novels, working to reduce your carbon footprint is very much a form of missionary work.

Merton and Cardenal were visionary in that they seemed to recognize this long before any others began to. As Christians come into a changed life marked by the love of God, contemplation of the things of this life will point us back to the graceful character of the

Creator, which will inevitably create a compassion that will move us to act to save the creation because of its origins and the effect it has on the less privileged around the world.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing;, it is a gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast 26

(English Standard Version, Eph. 2:8-9).” This verse clearly depicts the process that

Merton and Cardenal saw naturally happening as a result of accepting the love of God.

Once a person received the free gift of grace from God and had a chance to contemplate the depth of what she had been given, then she would be moved to compassion out of a natural overflow of thanksgiving and love. Environmental care is not something which

Christians should add to a “list” of things they need to accomplish in order to be

“justified.” The Bible shows that any who believes in the sacrifice of Jesus is already justified, and a checklist would dissolve into religion rules, or the belief that God’s grace only goes so far and some human action is needed to be “justified”. Instead, as

Christians have time to grow in their understanding of the character of God and his grace, love will naturally overflow and social justice and environmental care will become a natural by-product of a changed life. This is very much the tract in which Merton and

Cardenal point in advocating for the earth. For, as the Bible says, we love because God first loved us.

Denise Levertov

Denise Levertov (1923-1997) is interesting as a poet who wrote extensively on the theme of religion and faith in that she didn’t come to the Christian faith until later in her life.

When she was a child, her father converted from Judaism to Christianity and later became a minister. Despite this fact, Levertov was not interested in pursuing the

Christian faith and often sought to reject the early influences of Christianity in her life.

As such, she began her career as a poet without any regard for poems concerning 27 religion. Later in her life, however, Levertov came to the Christian faith. She claimed it was poetry that got her to that point, as she decided to become a Christian after writing

“Mass for the Day of St. Thomas Didymus.” After that, her life as a poet shifted.

Levertov is a strong example of a life altered by the choice to accept the grace and forgiveness of God offered through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. After her choice to become a Christian, her political poetry began blending in religious themes. Her poetry began dealing with how religion changed her perspective on life, and how that change in perspective impelled her to action.

Levertov began writing poetry that dealt with religious themes. As a poet,

Levertov already had a history of writing political poems, such as poems she had written protesting the Vietnam War. Now, as a Christian, she began tackling themes that weren’t common in poetry. Critics questioned her focus, and if there was indeed a space in the literary convention of poetry for poems of political and religious discourse. In the article

“‘To Meditate a Saving Strategy’: Denise Levertov’s Religious Poetry,” Paul Lacey writes, “Religious poetry and political poetry have this in common: where the writer speaks out of personal experience and deep feelings, those who share neither may see only abstractions or tendentious opinion (18).” Levertov responded to this criticism by citing her belief that all poetry should, if it aspires to be of any worth, promote exploring of every aspect of life. Lacey goes on to point out the solution Levertov successfully utilized to write this poetry that posed its unique challenges:

To carry the reluctant or resistant reader along in that poetry faith, everything depends on the grounding in sensation and feelings, and testing of faith and doubt, belief and disbelief, the reader’s participation with the writer in a process of exploration and discovery...Her life’s work has been to explore such borderlands revealed to us particularly by the artist and the saint--between “impasto 28

surface...and fictive truth,” between form and content, between doubt and belief, the inner and the outer life, the outward sacrament and the inward grace. (18)

In direct contrast to the critics of the poetry she wrote later in her life as a

Christian, Levertov believed that the poet had a unique duty to inspire the rest of the world to action. In her essay, “Poetry, Prophecy, Survival,” in the collection New and

Selected Essays, she responded directly to inquiries about the political poems she writes.

In answering, Levertov comes to conclude that the poet must cast a view of the potential for a better and more beautiful world through poems of praise. Levertov praises the ability of poems of anguish, rage, and lament to inform readers about injustices other humans and the natural world suffer. However, poems of joy and praise are necessary to compel the reader to move beyond lamenting injustice and imbibe them with compassion so as to move him or her toward individualized action. Levertov writes

But we need also the poetry of praise, of love for the world, the vision of the potential for good even in our species which has so messed up the rest of creation, so fouled its own nest. If we lose the sense of contrast, of the opposites to all the grime and gore, the torture, the banality of the computerized apocalypse, we lose the reason for trying to work for redemptive change. Not as an escape--not instead of but as well as developing our consciousness of what Man is doing to the world and how we as individuals are implicated--we need more than ever before to contemplate daily (and to make, if we are so fortunate as to be capable of it) works of praise, works that by power of imagination put us in mind--re- mind us--of all that makes the earth’s survival, and our own lives, worth struggling for. To imagine goodness and beauty, to point them out as we perceive them in art, nature, or our fellows, and to create works that celebrate them--are essential incentives to finding a route out of our apparent impasse. A passionate love of life must be quickened if we are to find the energy to stop the accelerating tumble (like a fallen man rolling over and over down a mountain) towards annihilation. (144)

In this unique duty to write poetry of praise in order to paint a vision of a better world, the poet takes on the role of a prophet in some senses. Levertov is quick to qualify that when she compares the poet to Old Testament prophets, she doesn’t ascribes poets 29 with visions or the ability to forecast the future. Instead, she cites four types of prophetic utterances--threat, promise, reproach, and admonition--as an area where poets might take on a role similar to a prophet. Here again the fundamental need for poems of praise is made evident, as Levertov says, “Intellect informs, but emotion--feeling--will not respond (especially to facts about events too distant or vast to be experienced directly through the senses) unless imagination gives us the vision of them, presents (makes present) the unwitnessed, gives flesh to the abstract (147).” The poet need to take on the prophetic utterance role of promise and admonition more in order to give readers a consciousness of problems and give the necessary compassion to compel him or her to act. Levertov then writes, “The deepest listening, the ear of imagination, rejects all that merely says, that fails to sing in some way. And this brings one to a very important factor which is shared by poets and prophets: prophetic utterance, like poetic utterance, transforms experience and moves the receiver to new attitudes (148).”

With this perspective, Levertov began to write poetry of praise herself. Already an activist throughout her life, she began working to compel others to action by writing.

She writes “[Poems of praise] don’t bring about change in themselves, but they can contribute to it simply by stimulating the imagination and thus making empathy and compassion more possible, at least (149).” In just a few poems from the collections This

Great Unknowing and The Stream and the Sapphire Levertov’s aspiration to stir compassion in the reader through a careful balance of poems of praise and lament is readily seen in relation to her view of the natural world.

In The Stream and the Sapphire, nature plays a key role in Levertov’s contemplation of God. The poem “A Calvary Path” says: 30

Where the stone steps falter and come to an end but the hillside rises yet more steeply, obtruded roots of the pines have braided themselves across the path to continue the zigzag staircase. In times past the non-human-- plants, animals-- often, with such gestures, intervened in our lives, or so our forebears believed when all lives were seen as travellings-forth of souls One can perceive few come here now-- it’s nothing special, not even very old, a naive piety, artless, narrow. And yet this ladder of roots draws one onward, coaxing feet to become pilgrim feet, that climb (silenced by layers of fallen needles, but step by step held from sliding) up to the last cross of the calvary. (9) 31

What Levertov seems to depict in this scene is her experience in the journey towards God. She describes a path that is relatively clear and easy-going at first, defined by stone steps, but not transcending the hill in its entirety. From the path’s description, it is clear that it was created by humanity. Interestingly, where the hill continues, a new path begins. This path is created by the natural environment, as the roots of a tree intertwine into a staircase for the person who is interested in continuing up the hill as the path become more difficult. In fact, Levertov writes that humanity used to be affected by the natural world in the past, specifically in the realm of spirituality. In this, Levertov suggests that the natural world plays a special role in the Kingdom of God, as it pushes people forward on their journey to knowing God and His son. In this poem, the trees help the pilgrim reach the cross. In fact, the trees seem to accommodate the pilgrim, as it

“coaxes” the person on by laying pine needles down to make the “narrow” journey seem easier to reach the cross. It is clear that nature is used by the Creator to accomplish His work, which undoubtedly implies the value assessed by God to nature, in the view of

Levertov. This poem is reminiscent, too, of Tillich’s assertion that humanity and the natural world have shared experiences, as nature helps propel the pilgrim toward the redemption of God by creating the path to the cross. This poem clearly envisions a dream of the potential relationship between man and nature.

In her next poem, “On the Mystery of the Incarnation,” Levertov writes:

It’s when we face for a moment the worst our kind can do, and shudder to know the taint in our own selves, that awe cracks the mind’s shell and enter the heart: not to a flower, not to a dolphin, 32 not to innocent form but to this creature vainly sure it and no other is god-like, God (out of compassion for our ugly failure to evolve) entrusts as guest, as brother, as Word. (19)

This poem of lament powerfully evokes Levertov’s conviction that God was merciful in sending Jesus to humanity, when they appear to Levertov to be the most guilty of transgressions against God. She marvels that the innocent natural environment isn’t the one to receive the grace of God to the same extent that humanity does. In fact,

Levertov says that it brings her a sense of “awe”. This invokes the idea of the value of nature to humanity, in that it is a reminder of the deep pain and evil humanity causes in comparison to the innocent natural world. However, this poem also praises, as it serves as a reminder of God’ grace. Much as in the previous poem, the natural world seems to act as a servant for God, heralding a message of His grace. For Levertov, the natural world is key in that it is given value by the Creator and indeed points back to Him. This poem shares the conviction of the power of contemplation in nature inspiring understanding of God’s attributes that Merton argued.

Another idea is introduced in this poem, namely the concept that humanity has falsely and “vainly” assumed it is god-like. This concept seems to suggest the Biblical idea of self-worship, or pride. Several times throughout the Bible, it is clear that the humble are the most exalted people in the Kingdom of God. Self-worship, then, is directly opposed to the Kingdom of God. Levertov scoffs at humanity because it 33 assumes it is the only created thing that has any connection to the Creator. Humanity’s pride leads it to most sin, but here Levertov seems to suggest that pride precludes humanity from caring for and appreciating the innocence of the created world which is constantly reflecting its Creator. Therefore, God ascribes value to the world He created and humanity fails to see it because of the pride that blinds it and leads it to sin. Instead,

Levertov clearly advocates humble, selfless love as the means to caring for the creation and for understanding the grace of the Creator.

In the poem, “Patience,” from the collection This Great Unknowing, Levertov writes:

What patience a landscape has, like an old horse, head down in its field. Grey days, air and fine rain cling, become one, hovering till at last, languidly, rain relinquishes that embrace, consents a band of woodland holding still, have, and the slow falling of grey rain … Is it blind faith? Is it merely a way to deeply rest? Is the horse only resigned, or has it some desireable knowledge, an enclosed meadow quite other than its sodden field, which patience is the key to? Has it already, within itself, entered that sunwarmed shelter? (6)

Here again Levertov clearly ties the natural world to its Creator. In this particular poem, the natural world’s beauty and mystery captivate Levertov’s mind and cause her to ponder what mysterious things the environment better understands about God than she, 34 and the rest of humanity, does. In the beginning of the poem she marvels at the patience that a landscape demonstrates. In fact, it seems as though Levertov finds the natural world to be the most patient part of the creation she has encountered, as she likens it to an old horse peacefully working its way through a field. Then she wonders if the patience she sees demonstrated in the landscape signifies blind faith, deep rest, resignation, or a better understanding. In these lines, Levertov vacillates between possible negative and positive answers behind the patient character of the natural world, ultimately ending on positive conjecture. This suggests that Levertov is convinced the patience found in the natural world signifies a better understanding of the character of God, which ascribes value to the creation once again. This poem is a clear example of Levertov inhibiting a

“borderland” in her poetry between faith and doubt so as to inspire questioning in the reader, which ultimately functions to inspire compassion and awe.

Finally, in her poem “A Hundred A Day,” Levertov writes:

‘A million species of plants and animals will be extinct by the turn of the century, an average of a hundred a day.’ --Dr. Mustafa Tolba, Director-General of the U.N. Environment Program Dear 19th century! Give me refuge in your unconscious sanctuary for a while, let me lose myself behind sententious bombazine, rest in the threadbare brown merino of dowerless girls. Yes, you had your own horrors, your dirt, disease, profound injustices; yet the illusion of endless time to reform, if not themselves, then the world, gave solace even to gloomy minds. Nature, for you, was to be marvelled at, praised and conquered, a handsome heiress; any debate concerned the origin and subsequent behaviour of species, 35 not their demise. Virtue, in your heyday (blessed century, fictive but so real!) was confident of its own powers. Laxly guarded, your Hesperides was an ordinary orchard, its fruit apples of simple hope and happiness. And though the ignorant armies, then as always, clashed by night, there as a beckoning future to look to, that bright Victorian cloud in the eastern sky. The dodo its own stupidity surely to blame. It stood alone on some low hillock of the mind and was not see as shocking, nor as omen. (13)

The theme of regret and remorse in this poem is very evident, making it an evident poem of rage. Levertov personifies the 19th century and expresses her realistic admiration of that time period’s hope, which leads her to mourn the present age.

Levertov admonitions by showing what the relationship between nature and man was in the past, and warns against the perils of continuing with the relationship as it is today.

Specifically, Levertov mourns the loss of the innocent, albeit naive, perception of the natural environment. In the 19th century, there was the hope of “endless time” or no immediate sense of threat to the natural world. The 20th century minds shifted away from the perception of the natural world that was common in the 19th century. Nature was “praised and conquered,” which, as these words are juxtaposed, seems to suggest a different kind of praise and conquering than is experienced in the 20th century. Levertov seems to suggest that nature was praised because of its beauty and magnitude, not solely because of its utility to humanity. The idea of conquering seems different as well, suggesting the 19th century’s understanding of the power and vastness of the natural 36 world in comparison to humanity, whereas the 20th century man feels as though he has conquered a tame natural world. Nature was a “handsome heiress” because it inherited the fear and respect of humanity for its sheer terror and beauty. Levertov mourns the loss of the simplicity and virtue of life in the 19th century, specifically in how it affected humanity’s actions towards the creation. The dodo, for Levertov, serves as the symbol of the permanent damage that separates the two centuries and the injustice inflicted on the natural world--for the 19th century, the dodo had no negative connotations, but the 20th century cannot see it as anything but an omen.

Conclusion

The writings of Tillich, Merton, Cardenal, and Levertov indicate that Christians have been involved in the environmental debate from its onset in the middle of the 20th century. In fact, Christianity has been involved in seeking to take care of the environment from its origins and continue to do so today. Early thinkers such as St.

Francis of Assisi and St. Augustine published works about environmental care long before there was an organized environmental movement. Today, there are writers such as

Matthew Sleeth and Shane Claiborne who are actively involved in writing books focused on the role of Christians in social and environmental justice. Christians have been seeking to understand their relationship to the natural world throughout history because it is intricately tied to the foundational theology of Christianity based on selfless love, which is only possible through grace, a personal relationship with God, and prayer. 37

Since the environmental movement is found in Christianity throughout its history due to its foundational concepts, the conception of history proposed by Lynn White is not accurate. The perception of the rise of Christianity marking a single turning point toward environmental degradation is not a fair view of the role of Christians in the movement to preserve the natural world. It is not fair because there have been several theologians and thinkers at any given time writing about the value of nature and the necessity to care for it. Instead, it seems that, as Paul Tillich proposed, environmental degradation is an ontological problem rather than a historic one. The degradation of the environment comes about because of the selfish and greedy desires of all men. The environmental crisis cannot be blamed solely on Christians. In fact, it seems that, just as there are a handful of people from every faith or non-faith background actively choosing to care or not care for the environment, the same is true for Christianity. White’s paper falls short in that his perception of time places broad generalizations and blame on one group of people. When history is understood in a more accurate and complex view, it becomes clear that there are a variety of factors and people groups causing the environment harm or working to preserve it.

Therefore, a new view of the role of Christianity in the movement to preserve the natural world should be adopted. Tillich demonstrated that the tenant of selfless, humble love can be shown toward a creation that shares in similar experiences as mankind.

Merton found the natural world to be immeasurably valuable in helping him contemplate the character of God, leading him to pray, which ultimately led him to a place of selfless, compassionate love that fueled his activism. Cardenal wrote of the love of God demonstrated in nature, thus further showing its value for protection. Finally, Levertov 38 showed the role that religiously themed environmental advocacy poetry has in moving readers to a new perspective and compassion. In the foundational theology of

Christianity, there is value to be added to the environmental movement. Therefore, it is time for Christianity to be fairly assessed for its role throughout history in protecting the natural world, rather than being broadly and unfairly deemed an environmental menace.

Instead, the joy and love that Christianity can offer to the movement to protect the natural world should be embraced. 39

REFERENCES

Block, Ed. "Poet, Word, and World: Reality and Transcendence in the Work of Denise Levertov." Logos 4.3 (2001):159-184. Boland, Eavan. "A visionary element." Renascence 50.1 2 (1997):152. Cardenal, Ernesto. Love. New York: Crossroad, 1981. 143. Print. Claiborne, Shane, and Chris Haw. Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. 355. Print. Greene, Dana. "Denise Levertov: Poet and Pilgrim." Logos 13.2 (2010):94-108. Lacey, Paul A. ""To mediate a saving strategy": Denise Levertov's religious poetry." Renascence 50.1 2 (1997):16. Lai, Pan-chui. "Paul Tillich and Ecological Theology." The journal of religion 79.2 (1999):233. Levertov, Denise. New and Selected Essays. New York: New Directions, 1992. 266. Print. Levertov, Denise. The Stream and The Sapphire. New York: New Direction, 1997. 88. Print. Levertov, Denise. This Great Unknowing. New York: New Directions, 1999. 68. Print. Long, Mark C. "Affinities of Faith and Place in the Poetry of Denise Levertov." Interdisciplinary studies in literature and environment 6.2 (1999):31-40. Sleeth, J. Matthew. Serve God, Save the Planet: A Christian Call to Action. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. 255. Print. Sleeth, J. Matthew. The Gospel According to the Earth: Why the Good Book is a Green Book. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. 209. Print. Tillich, Paul. The New Being. New York: Scribner, 1955. 157. Print. Tillich, Paul. The Shaking of the Foundations. New York: Charles Scribner Sons, 1948. 186. Print. Uekoetter, Frank. "Thinking Big: The Broad Outline of a Burgeoning Field." The Turning Points of Environmental History. Ed. Frank Uekoetter. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010. 1-12. Print. Weis, Monica. Thomas Merton's Gethsemani: Landscapes of Paradise. Lexington: University of Press Kentucky, 2005. 157. Print. White, Lynn. "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis." The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology. Ed. Cheryll Glotfelty and Ed. Harold Fromm. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996. 3-14. Print