Cosmos Blessings

Water brings the contemplative nature in me to the surface. This is especially true around dusk, be it dawn or evening. It is a favorite time of prayer. I find myself "being" and reflecting upon the grace of things. While walking the docks around our boat, I often come across a great blue heron or two, startle a duck, loon, or grebe. 

This past week I was walking the docks reflecting upon the coming season of spring and the lenten lectionary reading from John 3. Here am I walking at dusk, just as Nicodemus was seeking out Jesus. As I walked I took in the beauty of the world around me. I watched some people clamming across the water, and felt at peace. 

Standing at the edge of the dock, a movement caught my eye. Like two large gifts of the spirit - a pair of swans swam by. I have seen swans in the fields around Ferndale, and we even encountered a couple while in the Squalicum Marina (Bellingham), but I have never seen any here in Drayton Harbor. Yet here they were. And I found myself bowing in respect to these gifts of grace.

And I was reminded that what is often translated into English as "world" is in Greek "Kosmos"=cosmos. "God so loved the cosmos ..." John 3:16 relates. And how to do allow the cosmos to bless us, as we bless the cosmos?

IPAT

Last weekend my family spent a lovely weekend with some longtime friends of ours. As is typical, we started “solving the problems of the world.” In the process we talked about our reading of ecological issues, and IPAT, or a way to measure the impact of population growth and the roles that affluence and technology play in that impact.

The following formula is used by those studying such issues:

I=P x A x T or I=PAT

I = Impact
P = Population
A = Affluence (both in terms of consumption (electricity, resources, soap & water, etc.) and in terms of “capital stocks” (bikes, cars, books, house(s), etc.)
T = Technology (remember to multiply by the environmental impact of the process used to create the technology).

IPAT is often used as a way to compare various parts of the world economic systems with one another. For instance, I remember growing up to hearing arguments for voluntary population slowdown (as opposed to growth). These arguments were aimed towards people living in the two/thirds world countries. While visiting Tanzania in college I was informed that the native populations had good birth control practices until the Europeans came in and told them they were not to use them.

When comparing countries the GNP (Gross National Product) is often used for the Affluence piece, but you can use what you, yourself, are making to find your own Impact. When comparing countries with one another in terms of individual family groups (using the IPAT formula), some of the arguments I heard as a child no longer make sense.

Jim Merkel relates such a case in Radical Simplicity: Small Footprints on the Finite Earth (New Society Publishers, 2003). Merkel uses the following example, in this case skipping the Technology piece, so keeps the formula to I = P x A. He chooses two families, one from India and one from the United States. The Indian family consists of a husband, wife, and three kids. The USA family consists of a husband, wife and two kids.

According to the World Bank’s 1998 statistics, the people of India had an annual per capita GNP of US$440, while in the US it was $29,240.” (See World Bank. 2000 World Development Indications CD-ROM.)

The family in India:
I = 5 people x $440 = $2,200
The family in the US:
I = 4 people x $29,240 = $116,960

The American family has an impact 53 times higher than the Indian family, even with fewer children. Let’s say each family decided to have one less child. The Indian family would decrease their impact by $440, while the American family would decrease their impact by $29,240. Each average American has an impact equal to 66.5 people in India. This doesn’t mean that India doesn’t need to work toward smaller families; however the contribution of affluence far overshadows population when we compare these two families.
If technology is the silver bullet, then shouldn’t the American family, with its superior information and developments, have a smaller impact than the Indian family? Although technology could drastically reduce human impact, its applications in warfare, consumer goods and services, and for-profit medicine result in serious side effects. While its benefits are celebrated, its performance record is one of accelerated environmental impacts (p. 14-16).

Clearly, there is an assumption here. Each family has spent the GNP that they earned, and each family has brought into the family economy the average GNP per capita. While I cannot speak for your family, I can assure you that having a family of five, my wife and I have never brought anywhere close to $116,900 in one year. I am a pastor, who has served on minimum salary, after all. However, can we assume that a similar sized family in India has brought in $2,200 in one year? Not likely, as these figures are about averages. And they allow you to figure out quickly what your impact is likely to be. However, just by participating in the United States’ economic system, my family’s impact will be higher than the family’s in India. When I walk into a grocery store, bank, post office, etc. I am partly responsible for things I cannot control: air conditioning, automatic doors, lights on all hours, etc.

In addition, it is important to recognize that we Americans tend to spend what we make. As much, if not more, money is going out as is coming in. If you are not in this category, you can make an adjustment, but remember that figures state that close to 40% of Baby Boomers have less than $10,000 saved for retirement.*

Footprints As They Correlate to Income
Income (GNP/capita) Footprint
$100,000 and up 40 to 60 acres
$50,000 to $100,000 30 to 50 acres
$30,000 to $50,000 25 to 40 acres
$30,000 and up (Europe & Japan) 15 acres and up
$25,000 to $30,000 20 to 30 acres
$20,000 to $25,000 18 to 22 acres
$15,000 to $20,000 14 to 20 acres
$10,000 to $15,000 12 to 18 acres
$5,000 to $10,000 5 to 15 acres
$2,500 to $5,000 3 to 13 acres
$1,000 to 2,5000 2.5 to 6 acres
$500 to $1,000 2 to 5 acres
$100 to $500 1.5 to 4 acres**

______________
*Merkel. 83. Merkel’s figures come from Juliet Schor. The Overspent American: Downshifting and the New Consumer. New York: Basic Books, 1998.

**Ibid. 84 – Source: World Bank. World Development Indicators CD-ROM, World Bank, 2000. – and – Chambers, Nicky, Craig Simmons, and Mathis Wackernagel, Sharing Nature’s Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability, Earthscan Publications, 2000.

Self Imposed Limits

Readings for the 2nd Sunday of Lent:
Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16; Psalm 22:23-31, Romans 4:13-25; Mark 8:31-38

In light of this the 2nd Sunday in Lent, I'm talking about limits. Historically Lent has been a time of limits, of placing voluntary restrictions upon ourselves that we might more enjoy what God has to offer us. I like this quote from St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), "God is always trying to give good things to us, but our hands are too full to receive them." Limits can be those ways in which we learn to leave our hands open to receiving the good things God is offering us. When we set something down, rather than clinging to it, we can always pick it back up again, or learn we don't need it.

In the course of reading this past month I have come across people who are arguing for self-imposed limits. One uses a sports analogy,* and the other uses one from nature;** I’ll refer to both of them here. In baseball, we have limited the size of the field, and the equipment used. Remember when wood bats were replaced with aluminum? Now the pros are back to wooden bats again. Geese limit themselves to one mate for life. This gives the mated geese the advantage of not needing to waste valuable energy on mating rituals to attract a new mate each season.
In an age of economic chaos, worry and down turning, talking about limits seems a bit strange. However, think about the following scenario. A natural disaster forces you to live for an indefinite period of time in a three-car garage with ten other people. Survival depends upon self-imposed limits to water usage, food consumption, etc. I would imagine there would even be some serious discussion and outrage if one of the ten people wanted to add a car to the garage to protect it from the weather. While the earth can support enough for everyone, including the 25 + million other species, we may need to spend some time thinking through how we would like to limit ourselves.
“Loving our limits can set the stage for our life. As we recognize that we only have one Earth – which has finite capacity to support life – becoming comfortable with limits will open our minds and hearts for the work of taming the appetite.
“Global living doesn’t attempt to impose limits on others. It doesn’t necessarily advise one to escape to the country or move into compact urban cubicles. It seeks to inspire our creativity, our ability to see that there are infinite satisfying lifestyle packages compatible with living on a finite, equitable share of nature. Global living seeks to give you the tools to be the architect.”***

*Gene Logsdon. “Seeking Personal Freedom in a Money Dictatorship: An Address to the Second Luddite Congress.” The Plain Reader: Essays on Making a Simple Life. Scott Savage, Ed. New York: Ballantine Publishing Group, 1998. 5-9.
**Jim Merkel Radical Simplicity: Small Footprints on the Finite Earth. (New Society Publishers, 2003.
***Ibid. 16.

Ash Wednesday Ponderings

At times I find myself saying a few words at Ash Wednesday Services - at other times, I don't. This is one of those times. (The Order of Service for an Ash Wednesday Service follows as a separate posting.)

When I drive by billboards I can't help but turn and read them, especially those that churches put up. Some of them bring me a chuckle (like "Patience is a virtue with a lot of wait" or "Treat yourself to one of our Sundays"), some of them find me saying "Amen!" to the sentiment, and others have me groaning theologically. Part of my problem is that ever sense I've learned to read, I read everything I see. I can't help it. 

The one that caught me this week however was a sign that said: "Humility is how we denounce temptation." While I might phrase this differently, it struck me as being very appropriate for Ash Wednesday and for the 1st Sunday of Lent in which we read about Jesus' Temptations in the Wilderness (if following the Revised Common Lectionary).

Ash Wednesday as always struck me as one of humbleness. We are remembering our origins, and the blessings that come from that. After all, God formed us from the dust of the earth, and called us blessed. Even if we haven't always lived that way.

The postings of late have been rather academic is some ways. And yet they also hit home for me. How about for you? I find them challenging. I know that I am no where near living a fully just lifestyle. I'd love to give up a car, for instance, but the commute between boat and bread job is just too far right now to do so. I do, however, find these readings to challenge me to think in more creative ways. Ways that benefit not only myself, and those immediately around me, but those across the globe, as well as the globe. Together we can make a difference in how the Kingdom of God is realized here and now.

Traditionally Lent has been a time of giving something up. I'd rather be pro- something rather than anti- something. So rather than giving up sugar, for example, I'd rather be for eating more healthfully. One of my colleagues announced on facebook that he was thinking about giving up his car for Lent. Immediately he got feedback from someone who had given up her car a number of years ago. I think our greatest asset is one another. I'm going to strive to eat lower on the food chain this Lent, while also being intentional about community. How about you?

Ash Wednesday Service

The following is an Ash Wednesday Service that I often use. This comes right out of the United Methodist Book of Worship and the United Methodist Hymnal. 

May you have a good and humble Ash Wednesday where ever you are.

Joel

GREETING:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
And also with you.
Bless the Lord who forgives all our sins.
God’s mercy endures forever.

OPENING PRAYER   (from the United Methodist Hymnal #353)

O God,

maker of every thing and judge of all that you have made,

from the dust of the earth you have formed us 

and from the dust of death you would raise us up.

By the redemptive power of the cross, 

create in us clean hearts

and put within us a new spirit,

that we may repent of our sins

and lead lives worthy of your calling;

through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

SCRIPTURE:
Joel 2:1-2, 12-17
Psalm 51 #785
Matthew 6:1-6, 16-21

INVITATION TO THE OBSERVANCE OF LENTEN DISCIPLINE
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

the early Christians observed with great devotion 

the day of our Lord's passion and resurrection, 

and it became the custom of the Church that before the Easter celebration 

there should be a forty-day season of spiritual preparation.

During this season converts to the faith were prepared for Holy Baptism.

It was also a time when persons who had committed serious sins 

and had separated themselves from the community of faith 

were reconciled by penitence and forgiveness, 

and restored to participation in the life of the Church.

In this way the whole congregation was reminded 

of the mercy and forgiveness proclaimed in the gospel of Jesus Christ 

and the need we all have to renew our faith.

I invite you, therefore, in the name of the Church, 

to observe a holy Lent: 

by self-examination and repentance; 

by prayer, fasting, and self-denial; 

and by reading and meditation on God's Holy  Word.

To make a right beginning of repentance, 

and as a mark of our mortal nature, 

let us now kneel (or bow) before our Creator and Redeemer.

(a brief silence is kept)

THANKSGIVING OVER THE ASHES
Almighty God, you have created us out of the dust of the earth. 

Grant that these ashes may be to us a sign of our mortality and penitence,

so that we may remember that only by your gracious gift

are we given everlasting life;

through Jesus Christ our Savior. Amen.

IMPOSITIONS OF THE ASHES
(as people come forward, a leader dips a thumb in the ashes and makes 

a cross on the forehead of each person saying:
Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

THE LORD’S PRAYER

DISMISSAL WITH A BLESSING

“1978” or “Intergenerational Equity”

I was amazed to read that within in my own lifetime, and yet before my younger sisters were born, we as a human species crossed the threshold of the Earth’s sustainable yield by our consumption. The year was 1978. Prior to this date, when humans over consumed, we took away from the other species trying to survive upon the planet. After 1978, we started consuming other humans’ share, at the expense of future human generations. This figure is in part linked to the growth of the human population. However, the World Bank is actually predicting a slowing down of the human doubling rate, the first time this has happened since we humans reached a billion in numbers. Women in less industrialized nations are giving birth to four rather than six children (a drop from thirty years previously). While unsure as to the reasons behind this trend, demographers are now predicting, if all factors remain the same, a peak in the human population between 10 and 11 billion people by 2100.*

The Earth produces a tremendous amount of life each year. When unstressed, and unconsumed this life adds to the bioproductivity that can be used currently, and into future generation. When more is consumed than is produced, we wear down the Earth’s systems, leaving less for future generations. If these growth predictions are true, then in 2050 the earth will contain 9 billion people, and the $980 a year share of the world’s GNP will have shrunk to $650 and humanity will be overshooting the world’s carrying capacity by 88 percent.**

Of course, we humans could decide to address these issues and make the significant changes necessary …

The key to Intergenerational equity is passing down to the next generation (especially the yet unborn generation) the Earth with no degradation, or even more bioproductivity, reversing in the degradation process. To do so, we have to scale back our annual take on an already overworked system.

As Jim Merkel sums up: “In the 150 or so years since the Industrial Revolution, we’ve doubled the population 4 times and doubled the size of the global economy 20 times … Currently, humanity takes 20 percent more than is produced, thus wearing down the Earth’s systems. Might it be wise to scale back our annual take to help the overworked systems rebound? We can either err on the side of caution or gamble with our children’s future.”***

__________
* Jim Merkel Radical Simplicity: Small Footprints on the Finite Earth. (New Society Publishers, 2003.) 64.
** Ibid. 63.
***Ibid. 64. 65.

“Interspecies Equity” or “4.7 Acres”

All Creatures of our God and King,
Lift up your voice and with us sing,
O praise ye! Alleluia!
O brother sun with golden beam,
O sister moon with silver gleam!
O praise ye! Allelulia! Alleluia! Allelulia!

(Francis of Assisi, ca. 1225; trans William H. Draper, 1925, 

adapt. 1987)

Francis of Assisi was known for his love of all creation. So was Albert Schweitzer, who apparently had his wooden organ covered with cooper while serving as a doctor in Africa so that he didn’t have to poison, kill or injure the wood bores who were in the process of attacking it. I wonder, how anthropocentric a world view did either Francis or Schweitzer have?

Jim Merkel provides some thought-provoking details, especially if we long to follow in the just as radical today as it was then footsteps of Francis or Schwitzer.

Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy, states that there are 28.2 billion acres of bioproductive land on Earth – the total surface area minus the deep oceans, deserts, icecaps and built-up land. When divided between six billion people, each person gets a 4.7-acre share – we’ll call this area each person’s “personal planetoid.” But this assumes that humanity uses the entire planet’s annual production. The question then becomes “How much of my 4.7-acre share do I want to use for myself and how much do I want to leave for other life forms?” You might think, “I want to share it all.” A generous thought. But the reality is, you need to consume to survive. And what you use is not available for the deer, rabbits, or coyotes. For example, assume I am fenced into a one-acre garden with one deer and we eat the plants almost as fast as they grow, but don’t deplete them. After 60 years, the land is still just as productive as it was when w entered. Generous me then invites a friend inside the fence. Now the plants can’t keep pace with our appetites, and the land becomes depleted. Renewable “resources,” or the planet’s “bioproductivity,” takes time to regenerate. They are only renewable if they’re consumed at a rate slower than their annual growth or yield.
With a mere 1.5 million of the estimated 7 to 25 million species identified worldwide, caution is in order. And, with the current extinction rate estimated at 100 to 1,000 time faster than the natural rate, humanity’s current idea of sharing nature is deeply challenging.*

As I will mention in a later blog, this is in part due to humanities consuming beyond the tipping point. We are no longer just consuming nature, we are consuming ourselves (see 1978 or Intergenerational Equity to come).

Remember too that the 4.7-acres is to deal with our complete footprint (carbon, waste, housing, etc). 

If a visual would help, an acre (4,840 square yards) is slightly smaller than a USA football field (5,330 square yards).

Conservation biology looks at the question of interspecies equity through the needs of entire ecosystems. “Reed F. Noss, a specialist in the field, has outlined four objectives that will maintain native biodiversity in perpetuity:

• Represent, in a system of protected areas, all native ecosystem types and serial stages across their natural range of variation.
• Maintain viable populations of all native species in natural patterns of abundance and distribution.
• Maintain ecological and evolutionary processes, such as disturbance regimes, hydrological processes, nutrient cycles, and biotic interactions, including predation.
• Design and manage the system to be responsive to short-term and long-term environmental change and to maintain the evolutionary potential of lineages.**

Noss further figures that to create such an arena where biodiversity and viability of species is preserved would require between 25 to 75 percent of the total land area in most regions would need to be put into reserves with buffer zones surrounding them.

To put this into perspective:

To maintain a minimum population of 1,000 animals would require 242 million acres for grizzly bears, 200 million acres for wolverines, and 100 million acres for wolves. Even the six-million-acre Adirondack Park, which contains the combined areas of Yosemite, Yellowstone, Olympic, and Grand Canyon National Parks struggled to support a reintroduction of lynx. … If the area outlined … was extensively restored, a 200 million acre (312,000 square mile) core area could be formed in New England and Canada. With a drastic reduction of roads and traffic, and a citizenry ready to co-exist with wildlife, these animals might make their way back down from Canada. Sound impossible? Living in British Columbia for seven years among grizzlies, cougars, and wolverines, I leaned that co-existing is not rocket science, not costly, and not even difficult. But it would take a redesign of the human environment and a willingness to change habits.***

Merkel points out that the real issue is one of Anthropocentrisms, in which we hold that humans are the measure of things. A Biocentric or Deep Ecology viewpoint might be needed if we were to truly change course.

I might also add, from a theological viewpoint, that anthropocentrism can be a hindrance in understanding the Divine.

_________
* Jim Merkel. Radical Simplicity: small footprints on a finite Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2003. 55–6, 56–7 .
** Ibid. 57. Merkel quotes Reed F. Noss. “The Wildlands Project: Land Conservation Strategy”, Wild Earth Special Issue (1993): pp.10-21.
***Ibid. 57, 58.