This article was downloaded by: [Colorado College]On: 12 November 2014, At: 17:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of EnvironmentalStudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/genv20

Not green enough: a response to thegreen pope and the green patriarchbased on the dark green thought ofThomas BerryPeter Ellard aa Siena College , 515 Loudon Road, Loudonville , NY , 12211 , USAPublished online: 09 May 2012.

To cite this article: Peter Ellard (2012) Not green enough: a response to the green pope andthe green patriarch based on the dark green thought of Thomas Berry, International Journal ofEnvironmental Studies, 69:3, 524-539, DOI: 10.1080/00207233.2012.677624

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2012.677624

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Not green enough: a response to the green popeand the green patriarch based on the dark green

thought of Thomas Berry

PETER ELLARD*

Siena College, 515 Loudon Road, Loudonville, NY 12211, USA

The teachings of the current Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople are saturatedwith the green hue of environmental awareness. They have called upon humankind to alter itsworldviews and lifestyles to protect the environment. It is our contention that their awareness doesnot go far enough. It is not green enough. This article argues that the writings of Thomas Berry,Catholic priest, cultural historian, and self-titled ‘geologian’ offer a more appropriate approach, onethat is of a darker shade of green that is needed in the face of the current crisis. The essential argu-ment is that human actions will not change until our conceptual framework has been altered andthat Berry offers just such a framework for the human future.

Keywords: Thomas Berry; Pope Benedict XVI; Bartholomew I

1. Introduction

The teachings of Pope Benedict XVI and Ecumenical Patriarch of Bartholomew I are satu-rated with the green hue of environmental awareness. Each man in his own style has calledupon all humankind to alter its worldviews and lifestyles so as to protect the environment.They have, in short, contributed to a greening in Christian teaching and practice. While thisgreening is to be applauded, it does not go far enough. It is not green enough to produce theradical turn away from the precipice of destruction which climate scientists tell us we areapproaching. Instead, the writings of Thomas Berry, Catholic priest, cultural historian, andself-titled ‘geologian’ offer a more appropriate approach, one that is of a darker shade ofgreen that is needed in the face of the current crisis. After reviewing the teachings of thegreen Pope and the green Patriarch, this essay will offer a Berrian response. Our essentialargument is that human actions will not change until our conceptual framework has beenaltered and that Berry offers just such a framework for the human future.

2. The green pope: Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict XVI is green. He has installed a sea of solar panels at the Vatican andat his residence in Germany. He has made Vatican City the first carbon neutral

*Email: pellard@siena.edu

International Journal of Environmental Studies,Vol. 69, No. 3, June 2012, 524–539

International Journal of Environmental StudiesISSN 0020-7233 print: ISSN 1029-0400 online � 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2012.677624

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

sovereign State – in part by supporting a reforestation project in Europe that willmatch the carbon footprint of the 180-acre country. He has highlighted the negativeenvironmental impact of consumerism and called for a more earth-friendly lifestyle. Hehas called on humanity to act with future generations in mind as we make appropriateuse of the earth’s resources. He has used his diplomatic position to call for the recog-nition of the need to maintain the balance in creation which includes a reallocation ofeconomic and energy resources – both within countries and between them [1]. Finally,he has fought for an international agreement on climate change and chastised worldleaders who failed to achieve this at Copenhagen in 2009 [2] and petitioned thoseheading to Durban in 2011.

2.1. Papal precursors of the green pope

Benedict’s greening did not arise out of a vacuum. In 1971, Pope Paul VI spoke outbriefly against human exploitation of the environment. He feared that humanity mightdestroy nature and become the ‘victim of this degradation’ and that the future could be‘creating an environment for tomorrow which may well be intolerable’. Paul said that thedestruction of nature ‘is a wide-ranging social problem which concerns the entire humanfamily’ [3, para.21].

Pope John Paul II mentioned ecological issues briefly in his 1988 encyclical, ‘On SocialConcern’ [4], but it was not until his 1990 World Peace Day message that the Pope, sur-prising many, focused on environmental concerns. The text, ‘The Ecological Crisis: ACommon Responsibility’1 [5], spoke first about social injustice and the impact of warthroughout the world. Then, it proceeded to draw attention to: the diminishing ozone layer,the greenhouse effect, industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforesta-tion, soil, water, and air pollution, and the challenges of genetic engineering. Governmentsand individuals were called on to educate themselves on the state of the environment andto recognise the issue as a ‘moral crisis’. John Paul called on all people of goodwill toadjust lifestyles to combat the scourges of environmental degradation, war and the socialstructures of poverty.

The Pope’s plea was focused on the need for humanity to follow the script of the divineplan. He said that the central problem lay in humanity’s lack of peace with God, whichone might fairly interpret as humanity having unorthodox belief and un-Christian practice.More specifically, the key aspect of John Paul’s response to the gargantuan problem lay inhow human beings treat one another. He wrote: ‘Respect for life, and above all for the dig-nity of the human person is the ultimate guiding norm for any sound economic, industrialor scientific progress’ [5, p.466]. In the end, the centre of John Paul’s environmentalawareness is the human person. This deep anthropocentrism will continue to lie at theheart of all subsequent papal pronouncements on the environment.

In all of his subsequent work on the environment – including the 2002 joint documentwith the Orthodox Church’s Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I [6], the central focusof John Paul was on humanity’s recommitment to the traditional values of the gospeland church teachings rooted in the primacy of the dignity of the human person. Essen-tially, the Pope said that the Church has always had the answers to the ecological crisisright in its own traditions and writings. Christians just need to rededicate themselves to‘true’ practice and belief and in doing so the tide would turn. Though more expansiveon the topic of the environment than his predecessor, the approach of Benedict XVI hasbeen essentially the same.

Not green enough: a response 525

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

2.2. Benedict XVI’s green papacy

Woodeene Koenig-Bricker, in her 2009 book [1], offers a concise view of the many letters,addresses, messages and comments that Benedict has made about the environment.Koenig-Bricker believes that Benedict has made the environment a mainstay of hisPontificate. The Pope has spoken often and forcefully, using his position to place his envi-ronmental concerns before the world. The themes of the Pope’s environmental writingshave remained consistent. Below we will outline some of the developments since Koenig-Bricker’s work was published.

In 2009 Benedict XVI published his most significant encyclical to date, Caritas in Veri-tate [Charity in Truth]. Its focus is on poverty, social instability and the crisis of the globaleconomy. Benedict locates the roots of this social injustice in human self-centredness,greed, consumerism and materialism. Relating this to the damaged environment, he notesthat it is in nature, where one ‘recognizes the wonderful result of God’s creative activity,which we may use responsibly to satisfy our legitimate needs, material or otherwise, whilerespecting the intrinsic balance of creation’ [7, p.93]. This generality becomes more nar-rowly focused when he turns to the ethics required to function in the world. The ethics, hesays, are ‘not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centered’ [7, p.99]. Hegoes on to say that regardless of the endeavour that we are involved in – economics, poli-tics, environmentalism – ‘the principle of the centrality of the human person, as the subjectprimarily responsible for development, must be preserved’ [7, para.96].

The human being is central to Benedict’s environmental thinking. Human beings areseen as the centre and the apex of the created order since they are said to be created, asGenesis states, ‘in the image and likeness of God’ (Gen 1:26) and they are called to spe-cial relationship with God. The seeds of this thought blossom more fully in the Pope’s‘World Peace Day’ talk given on New Year’s Day 2010 [8].

In this document, Benedict reviews the harm that human beings have wrought on theenvironment and he describes the need for a sustainable approach to the use of the earth’sresources. He calls for a re-examination of the very idea of economic development and hecalls for a ‘cultural renewal’ [8, p.479]. He encourages the adoption of ‘lifestyles markedby sobriety and solidarity’ [8, p.479] and a move away from ‘prevailing models of con-sumption’ [8, p.481]. He says that industrialised countries bear a greater responsibility forthe degradation and that any response must be geared toward an ethic that is inter-genera-tional and inter-geographical so that poorer countries are protected from deleterious effectsof the global catastrophes and aided by the sharing of the world’s energy resources – lar-gely controlled by wealthiest nations [8].

Benedict says that it is part of the Church’s mission to protect creation because it is agift from God to be shared by all humanity. Toward the end of the document, the Popedescribes how a Christian environmentalism is different from a secular one. He states:

A correct understanding of the relationship between man and the environment will notend by absolutizing nature or by considering it more important than the human person.If the Church’s magisterium expresses grave misgivings about notions of the environ-ment inspired by ecocentrism and biocentrism, it is because such notions eliminate thedifference of identity and worth between the human person and other living things. [8,pp.481–2]

This warning against holding nature up in too high esteem is tied to his warning againstthe absolutising of ‘technology and human power’ and of ‘a supposedly egalitarian vision

526 P. Ellard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

of the ‘‘dignity’’ of all living creatures’ [8, p.482]. He expresses suspicion of this way ofthinking when he says ‘such notions end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superiorrole of human beings. They also open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-pagan-ism, which would see the source of man’s salvation in nature alone, understood in purelynaturalistic terms’ [8, p.482]. Aside from the admonition against modern pantheism andpaganism, of more particular note here is again the focus we see placed on the superiorstatus of human beings in the cosmic process. We are not only distinct, in Benedict’s eyes,but we are above all other aspects of nature. Indeed, his call to protect creation has as itsstated end ‘above all to save mankind from the danger of self-destruction’ [8, p.481].

The entire message is grounded in the Genesis creation story. The cosmos is created,Benedict believes, from the free will and love of God and the creative act ends with a‘culmination in man and woman’ [8, p.479]. He speaks of the initial perfect balance beinglost in the sin of Adam and Eve. He favourably reinterprets the ‘dominion’ model concern-ing the relationship between humans and the earth and believes that ultimately, the storyreveals that the true duty of humanity is to ‘exercise responsible stewardship over creation,to care for it and to cultivate it’ [8, p.479] until the time of redemption when there will be‘‘new heavens and a new earth’ (2 Pet 3:13), in which justice and peace will dwell for-ever’ [8, p.482]. This paradisiacal utopian future – centred on the Christian hope ofredemption – is what ends Benedict’s portrait in this document.

His chastisement of modern culture is consistent with calls elsewhere for a change inattitude and behaviours on the part of all humanity. In the end, it is the centrality of thehuman person that governs the theoretical understanding of the problem. We see this againin June 2011, when Benedict chose the official welcoming of six new Ambassadors to theVatican to expand on his environmental message. What we need, Benedict said, is a‘change in mentality’ regarding our relationship to Earth. This change begins with recogni-tion that ‘Man comes first, as it is right to remember’ [9, para.2].

This is also presented as the basis for how we should approach technology and innova-tion. According to Benedict, the central focus must remain on human ecology or elsehumanity will find itself in an ‘existential bewilderment and a loss of the meaning of life’[9, para.5]. This loss, for Benedict, is due to a disappearance of a sense of transcendencefrom our terrestrial centredness through which we find a connection to our divine sourceand sustenance. It is, however, precisely this focus on transcendence – together with itsexplicit anthropocentrism – that brings us to draw the distinction between a green and adark green approach to the environmental crisis. This distinction also holds the centre ofour analysis of the greening of the Orthodox faith in writings of the Ecumenical PatriarchBartholomew I.

3. The green patriarch: Bartholomew I

In this journal in 2007 [10], John Chryssavgis offered a cogent survey of the reasons whythe Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I has been called the GreenPatriarch. Chryssavgis argues persuasively that Bartholomew has offered a consistent envi-ronmental ethic throughout his time as the Ecumenical Patriarch. Here, we will brieflyhighlight what was said and then bring Chryssavgis’ research up to date.

The Patriarch, Chryssavgis tells us, makes use of traditional themes of Orthodox spiritu-ality as a vehicle to connect the ancient faith to the current crisis. Bartholomew speaks ofself-emptying humility, ministry, witness and thanksgiving as key focal points of theOrthodox faith that can be harnessed to alter our approach to the environment. The

Not green enough: a response 527

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

hallmark theme used by the Patriarch is communion. This, though rooted in its Eucharisticsense, is used to broaden the conversation to include the fellowship of all peoples and it isused to tie human beings, the rest of creation and God into one relationship [10, p.13].

Chryssavgis relates that in 1994, Bartholomew began a conversation about the environ-ment on two fronts. First, he started a series of ecological seminars at the theological Schoolof Halki attended by Christian delegates from multiple denominations to discuss the rela-tionship between the environment and education, ethics, communications, justice and pov-erty. Each of these was addressed in a successive year. Second, Bartholomew created theReligious and Scientific Committee, which brought scholars, clergy from various faithtraditions and scientists together over the next 12 years at symposia to discuss the plight ofspecific bioregions or watersheds. Each called for action to ameliorate the destructive influ-ences of unsustainable development. Attendees met at locations on the Mediterranean, theBlack Sea, the Danube, the Adriatic Sea, the Baltic Sea and finally, in 2006, within theAmazon River basin. These targeted meetings drew a functional parallel to the moreintellectual gatherings at Halki.

Chryssavgis had earlier chronicled Bartholomew’s environmental sensibilities in his2002 book [11] within which he recorded one of Bartholomew’s most profound statements– perhaps the most profound ever made on the environment by a figure from Western reli-gious traditions. He quotes the Patriarch as saying in 1997:

To commit a crime against the natural world is a sin. For human beings to cause spe-cies to become extinct and to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation; forhuman beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate, bystripping the earth of its natural forests, or by destroying its wetlands; for human beingsto injure other human beings with disease by contaminating the earth’s waters, its land,its air, and its life, with poisonous substances – all of these are sins. [11, p.38]

The language of sin is resonant in Christian circles. The identification of environmentaldegradation, whether caused by explicit actions or lack of actions, raised the stakes forhow Christians viewed their responsibility to the environment. In doing this, the Patriarchwas resoundingly bringing environmentalism into the religious and moral sphere of Chris-tians. He was also highlighting the fact – as Benedict has done since – that degradation ofthe environment is a moral and spiritual issue. This in turn necessitates that the solutionalso be spiritual.2

In his 2008 book, Encountering the Mystery, Bartholomew offered a general view of hisexperience of Orthodox spirituality. Its pages are filled with stories and pronouncementson a myriad of topics including the environment. Bartholomew reveals that he is optimisticand he says that the centre of the problem is not the environmental crisis itself, rather:

It is a crisis concerning the way we envisage or image the world. We are treating ourplanet in an inhuman, godless manner precisely because we fail to see it as a gift inher-ited from above. . . . Therefore, before we effectively deal with problems of our envi-ronment, we must change the way we perceive the world. Otherwise, we are simplydealing with symptoms, not with their causes. We require a new worldview if we desirea ‘new earth’. [12, p.118]

The road to this change of how we ‘see’, for Bartholomew, lies in our becoming deeply‘thankful’ and ‘ascetic’ beings. We need to recognise the gift that the world is to us andwe need to live more sustainably, so as to preserve the gift for future generations.

528 P. Ellard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

In a 2009 lecture at the Brookings Institute in Washington, DC, Bartholomew strove totie together public policy and spirituality. After quoting a passage of Dostoevsky steepedin earth mysticism, he went on to say:

One of our greatest goals has always been to weave together the seemingly disparatethreads of issues related to human life with those related to the natural environment andclimate change. For as we read the mystical teachings of the Eastern Church, theseform a single fabric, a seamless garment that connects every aspect and detail of thiscreated world to the Creator God that we worship. [13]

This connection has also been made by Benedict. The underlying belief is that the crisiscannot be healed without recourse in some way to the spiritual traditions of humanity.Deep within the Orthodox spiritual tradition there is talk of an underlying and mysticalbond between all things. The Patriarch takes this in a decidedly affective direction.

After noting that the greater the impact of environmental catastrophes, the greater werealise how we are all intertwined, he says that: ‘We must relearn the sense of connect-edness. For we will ultimately be judged by the tenderness with which we respond tohuman beings and to nature’ [13]. It is precisely in this response – very pastoral in tone– that we see the underlying desire of the Patriarch to connect with people on anemotional level.

In 2010, Bartholomew agreed to the request from the Cable News Network (CNN) towrite a short Op Ed for their online service entitled ‘Saving Souls and the Planet GoTogether’. Here he says:

Nature is a book, opened wide for all to read and to learn, to savor and celebrate. Ittells a unique story; it unfolds a profound mystery; it relates an extraordinary harmonyand balance, which are interdependent and complementary. The way we relate to natureas creation directly reflects the way we relate to God as creator. [14]

In short, our ability to access and relate to the divine is intimately connected to our rela-tionship with nature. Savouring and celebrating are how we should be enraptured by crea-tion. We should be transfixed by the extraordinary mystery that nature unfolds, of whichwe are part. Again, we see here an aesthetic mystique that often characterises Bartholo-mew’s musings on the planet.

In one further note taken from this CNN piece, we see his most blunt warning. He says:

In our efforts, then, to contain global warming, we are admitting just how prepared weare to sacrifice some of our greedy lifestyles. When will we learn to say: ‘Enough!’?When will we direct our focus away from what we want to what the world needs?When will we understand how important it is to leave as light a footprint as possibleon this planet for the sake of future generations? We must choose to care. Otherwise,we do not really care at all. [14]

This is the challenge of sustainability. This is the challenge he offers to the ‘first’ world –the developed world. It is forceful. It is stark. It is indeed green, but my fear is that, alongwith the teachings of the green Pope, it is just not green enough.

Not green enough: a response 529

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

4. The dark green thought of Thomas Berry

Thomas Berry died in 2009. In his writings, Berry never offered a direct assessment ofeither Benedict or Bartholomew. We can, however, use his ideas to offer our own Berrianassessment. Berry’s thought is much more radical than that espoused by the Pope or thePatriarch. Such a radical approach is required in the face of the magnitude of the problem.This is one of the reasons for use of the term ‘dark green’ thought.

4.1. The ‘dark’ in dark green thought

In referring to Berry’s ideas as dark green, I am building on the work of Bron Taylor [15].Taylor argues persuasively that a powerful worldview and commitment is sweeping theglobe. He refers to this as dark green religion. These religious – or quasi-religious – move-ments and ideas, Taylor believes, can be found at the UN, in the world of Disney, amongradical environmentalists, neo-pagans, poets, novelists, surfing culture and in the way thatits adherents venerate sages like Thoreau, Muir and Leopold. Berry is mentioned as one ofthe adherents. For Taylor, although there are several types of dark green religionists, theyshare: a strong belief that nature is sacred, has intrinsic value and should receive reverentcare; an adherence to the findings and implications of evolutionary biology and the rest ofmodern science; a sense of deep kinship with animals and a deep sense of ‘belonging’ tothe rest of nature; a critique of traditional Western religions and their anthropocentrism; astrong biocentric or ecocentric worldview; and activist tendencies. Taylor also points outthat some of these adherents can be considered dark due to a certain propensity to violence– for example, organisations like Earth First! – and/or because, if their ideas were widelyadopted, they would seriously challenge the established world order. That is, if they werefollowed, a revolutionary change in our behaviour would take place. This is the implica-tion of Berry’s work

4.2. The development of Thomas Berry’s thought

In her short biography, Berrian scholar and friend Mary Evelyn Tucker notes that Berry:

spent several decades studying both western and eastern intellectual history before arriv-ing at his comprehensive vision of the Universe Story. He has been able to appreciatethe deep spiritual impulses and devastating human sorrows which have given rise to theworld’s religions. From this perspective he has been able to discern what spiritualresources we need to utilize for creating a multicultural perspective within the Earthcommunity. [16]

The Berrian system has deep roots. Branching out from his scholastic training in the semi-nary in the 1930s, Berry read widely and was greatly influenced by the works of Giambat-tista Vico, Asian cultures and the religions – especially Confucianism – Native Americantraditions, Mircea Eliade, Carl Jung, Charles Darwin, and above all Pierre Teilhard deChardin.

Teilhard de Chardin was a French Jesuit priest and scientist (1871–1955). He studiedgeology and zoology, and worked as a paleontologist. In the 1920s he served in the exca-vations in China on the team that unearthed the Peking Man. His ideas concern the impact

530 P. Ellard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

of contemporary science on Christian thought, particularly those connected with evolution[17]. Teilhard believed that Christianity needed to adopt contemporary science and reinter-pret doctrine so as to include what science had uncovered about cosmic history and evolu-tion. Building on the Christian biblical teaching that Christ was the ‘Alpha’ out of whichthe universe came into being and the ‘Omega’ in which the universe would end, Teilhardsought to marry Christianity to contemporary science. He said that Christ was the ‘OmegaPoint’ to which all of cosmic history since the big bang was moving toward. He believedthat both cosmic and evolutionary history were part of the divine plan to bring all of thecreated order to God. For Teilhard, the universe had both a physical and a spiritual natureand these were tied up into one reality, all streaming toward its end that was union withthe divine [18].

Teilhard espoused a belief that in humanity, the universe had evolved into its ‘mindself’or ‘Noosphere’. He thought that human beings would continue to evolve into ‘an organicsuperaggregation of souls’ [19, p.248]. He believed that this ‘mega-synthesis’ would be aproduct of the joint evolution of our biology and our consciousness/spirit which had as itsultimate goal, the convergence and spiritualisation of the universe in/with the divine.

Teilhard’s writings were shared among intellectuals with few pieces published in hislifetime. It was not until after his death in 1955 that his collected essays began to be pub-lished and later that his journals and other writings became available. He was viewed withdeep suspicion by both his superiors in the Jesuit Order and by Rome – who had prohib-ited him from publishing and effectively exiled him from France for the last decade of hislife. First, in 1957 and then again in 1962, the Vatican warned Catholics that Teilhard’swritings were problematically ambiguous and contained ‘serious errors’. His works werenot permitted to be retained in Catholic libraries or bookstores. Still, by this time, manyCatholics including Berry, in the light of the Second Vatican Council’s liberality, began tostudy Teilhard’s work in earnest.

Thomas Berry became an acolyte for Teilhard’s view. As first a member, and then Presi-dent of The American Teilhard Association from 1975 to 1987, Berry gave talks, mailedcopies of Teilhard’s works, exchanged letters on the subject and nurtured a generation ofTeilhardian scholars. Berry merged his interest in Asian religions with the ideas of Teil-hard. Still, he was also critical of Teilhard’s optimism about technology and his failure torecognise and incorporate the wealth of inspiration readily available to him in China [16].

In the early 1970s, while teaching predominately Asian religions at Fordham University– where he was a tenured professor – and at Columbia, Berry became increasingly inter-ested in environmental issues and the Native American experience. During this time, Berrybegan a Research Center in Riverdale, NY, on the property of a monastery of the Passion-ist Order, to which he belonged. Berry’s guest books and date books/journal entries3 revealthat there he entertained a steady stream of guests, graduate students and visiting scholars.Berry bound his talks and writings in what were called the ‘Riverdale Papers’, had themcopied – mimeographed – and sold them to visitors and via mail order. The essays covereda wide array of topics including: Thomas Dewey, Carl Jung, Confucianism, Native Ameri-cans, Reflections on the American Bicentennial, Education, Christian Spirituality, EarthEconomics and many more. One of the biggest underpinnings of Berry’s studies was thatof contemporary science.

In 1978 the American Teilhard Association published one of Berry’s talks entitled ‘TheNew Story’ in which Berry made his argument that the malaise of Western culture, specifi-cally related to our disastrous relationship with the earth, lay in the fact that we arecurrently ‘between stories’. The old story, he noted, of the biblical accounts of creation no

Not green enough: a response 531

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

longer functioned and the new story, brought to us by modern science had yet to be incul-cated into the psyche of humanity. This short piece remains a seminal work [20].

In 1988 Berry published his first book on the subject of the earth–human relationship[21]. Compiled largely from talks and essays Berry had created over the previous 10 years,this Serra Club book developed a large following as it sought to realign human beings as‘derivative’ in relationship to the primacy of the earth itself. Berry’s writings throughoutthe 1990s and early years of the twenty-first century – one in collaboration with physicistBrian Swimme – covered a broad array of topics from expanding our understanding of the‘universe story’ to chastising the modern petroleum industrial complex. He called for atransformation of all corners of society, including, economics, education, jurisprudence,religion, the arts and politics. All were called to turn their attention to the ‘great work’ ofrepairing our relationship to the earth. Berry travelled widely in the last 20 years of hislife, enthralling people – in cathedrals packed with thousands and in the private conversa-tions in his library. He left a strong legacy that included the dire warnings of what wouldtranspire if humanity did not change. His last pieces also included a deep hope that thehuman spirit would prevail and that the bio-systems of the planet would thrive once again.

4.3. Thomas Berry, the Pope and the Patriarch

There is strong resemblance among Berry’s writings and those of both Benedict and Bar-tholomew in several areas. They all call for humanity to change, by transforming our men-tality and our lifestyles. They all believe that any answer requires a joint spiritual andpolitical approach. They all chastise consumerism, materialism and ignorance as to themagnitude of the current environmental problem. They all caution us about uncheckedtechnology that can turn the potential ‘wonder world’ into a ‘waste land’. And they all rec-ognise the need for institutional change and coordinated governmental action. Echoing thepapal condemnation that goes back to John Paul II of a modern ‘culture of death’, Berryextends this theme and says that our infatuation with progress of the petroleum, industrialand technological world is a ‘deep cultural pathology’, and he declares that none ‘everinvented could be so perverse and so devastating to the delicate balance of life and exis-tence on [this] planet’ [22, p.47].

Still, there is much in the ideas of Benedict and Bartholomew that a Berrian systemwould call into question and which he would indict for not going far enough. These defi-cits belong in three distinct categories: 1) their failure to take the science seriously enoughand to adopt the new story of ‘creation’ as divine revelation; 2) their failure to bring up todate their understanding of the role of the human person within the context of the earthand the larger universe; and 3) their parochial understanding of the divine steeped in anold – largely biblical – story of the divine–human–earth relationship that is no longer func-tional. All three of these categories in turn are connected to their persistence in seeking theanswers from within their respected sacred traditions instead of from the earth itself.

4.3.1. The new story of the universe: our cosmic history and revelation

The Bible is the central written revelation for Christians. Both Benedict and Bartholomewground their thought in this ancient text. Berry feels that the Bible is currently more of aproblem than a part of the solution. He says the same thing of the creeds. These speak ofthe divine, humanity, the earth, and the universe outside of the context of the new scienceand this handicaps them. Berry, provocative as he often was, once said that ‘we might give

532 P. Ellard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

up the Bible for a while, put it on the shelf’ because we just don’t know how to read itanymore [23, p.75]. Though Berry believed that the Bible – along with the scriptures ofother religious traditions – contained revelation, he also believed that we tend to cling tothis – and only this – as revelation to the point that as the environment crumbles aroundus ‘we will drown reading the book’ [23, p.76].

Both Benedict and Bartholomew recognise the legitimacy of evolutionary biology andthe nearly 14 billion years sweep of cosmic history. But, the potential transformationalmeaning of these discoveries has not entered their thought. The magnitude of the environ-mental crisis is acknowledged, but the magnitude of what science has revealed has not.From a Berrian perspective, this is the first place the Pope and the Patriarch fail. They failto take the science seriously and to absorb the dramatic meaning that it reveals. They failto open themselves to the wonder of the new revelation.

The Book of Genesis is still used by the Pope and Patriarch as if it describes what actu-ally happened – as if they are reading about historical events and their consequences.More, it is used as a proof text to support their definitions concerning humanity, our rela-tionship to the earth, and our collective relationship to the divine. In truth, Berry had noproblem using these texts for the rich depth that they reveal about our ancestors and thehuman psyche. But, if one is going to continue to use the texts to pull forth value fromtheir mythological moorings, it seems appropriate, from a Berrian perspective, to note, atleast, that the creation stories never happened as historical events.

The story of human evolution reveals that there was no earthly Garden of Paradise;there was no Adam and Eve; there was no talking serpent. Even from a mythic standpoint,the lessons learned require interpretation. For instance, if we want to hold on to the ideathat human beings are created in God’s image, then God must be evolving – as humansare not only a product of billions of years of evolution, but we are still evolving. Whatcan we say about an evolving God? More, what might the lack of primal parents in para-dise say about issues like sin and the need for redemption? To be sure, there are Christiantheologians tackling these questions. Neither the Pope nor the Patriarch seems to do so.Still, Berry was not interested in such conversations. He felt that such talk took us awayfrom the central task at hand – meeting the challenge of environmental destruction. This isthe reason for his shocking call to put the Bible on the shelf for a while.

For Berry, in our current world, the new story of cosmic origins is better suited to revealdivine mystery, human origins, and ideas about human sin and the human relationship withthe universe and the divine. In a real sense, this new story replaces the old. It is, for Berry,the ‘true’ story of creation – still divinely revealed but brought to us by science.

According to Berry, the scientific revealing of the universe story is the single mostimportant discovery of the last century [24, p.163]. This story offers the revelation that 14billion years ago the universe flared forth into existence. Cosmologists today can give us apretty clear picture of what happened back to 10-32 of the first second after the ‘big bang’.Evolutionary biologists can paint a near complete picture of the governing process of thedevelopment of life on earth over the last 4.5 billion years. It is not only an amazing story,but it is amazing how much we know about it – although there is still much yet unknown.Today, the expansion of the universe continues. Creation is still happening. More, weknow that since new matter is never created, everything in the universe has been here fromthe start – albeit in a different form. In a very real, scientifically verifiable and poeticallypregnant sense, everything in the universe is related. Everything in the universe is the uni-verse. The Pope and Patriarch fail to incorporate this revelation. Berry sees it as essential.

Not green enough: a response 533

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The wonder of this story, Berry laments, has not yet sunk in. One of the reasons for thisis the continued use of the older stories as if they are adequate to explain our origins –let alone capable of leading us out of the current crisis. To be sure, neither Benedict norBartholomew is a Creationist. But it is their failure to sacralise the scientific story thatundermines their thought. Most problematically, Benedict and Bartholomew still use theGenesis stories to explain why human beings are special as compared to the rest of thecreated order. Again, for Berry, the story does more harm than good. For instance, accord-ing to a 2010 Gallup poll, 40% of Americans believe the stories of Genesis to be more orless historical [25]. The implication is that they also believe that the modern synthesis ofDarwinian evolutionary biology is a mistake or a lie. If the world’s scientists are thoughtto be mistaken or lying about the very creation of the universe, why trust them about cli-mate change?

Of course, it should be noted that Christians and Jews of good faith and ecological sen-sitivities have reinterpreted the biblical texts so as to support a better human–earth relation-ship [26]. This is valuable. Berry feels, however, that what is missing is the discovery thatthe new ‘scientific account of the universe is the greatest religious, moral and spiritualevent that has taken place’ in recent years [21, p.98]. This is part of what makes Berry’sgreen ideas ‘dark’. He wants us to absorb the science – though not, we should add, thematerialist, reductionist interpretations of those like Richard Dawkins. More, it is notenough to add the science to that which is already established. The adoption of the newstory fundamentally changes our entire perspective. The universe story is the story for allof humanity – all religions. Within this new context, everything must be reassessed.

The Bible, on the other hand, says nothing about the first 99% of cosmic history. Thisis what led Berry to work with cosmologist Brian Swimme to produce their book, TheUniverse Story [27]. Here, they offered one example of how we might put into mythopoeiclanguage, the scientific story of the cosmos. Benedict and Bartholomew do not understandthe value of this and this is one reason why their approach to the environmental problemis inadequate.

Both Benedict and Bartholomew do call on humanity to note what the book of naturereveals about God. So here there is a consistency with Berry. Berry, however, says that theuniverse is the primary way and, in truth, the only way that we can access the divine [22,p.31]. More, this revelation does not come from the divine across ‘the horizon’ – that is,from outside the universe. It comes from within our experience of the universe.

Berry once wrote: ‘If we lived on the moon our sense of the Divine would reflect thelunar landscape’ [22, p.42]. For Berry, this means that all of our creativity – from lan-guage, to art, to poetry and religion – is based in our experience of the universe in someform or another. This is true, for Berry, of our inner experience as well. The universe isinside no less than it is outside. So too, our experience of the divine is always mediatedthrough the universe. According to Berry, we come to the divine through creation or not atall. This significantly raises the value of the rest of the created world beyond ‘goodness’.The universe for Berry is a sacred reality not because it is a gift from God, but because ithas irrevocable sacredness built into its fabric – from the beginning and long before wearrived on the scene.

Here we see one of the more significant influences of Teilhard’s work on Berry. Follow-ing Teilhard, Berry holds that the universe is spiritual from the beginning. It has con-sciousness on some level, from the moment of the big bang [22, p.29]. This means thatfor the first 99% of the universe’s existence, the universe was already a spiritual reality.For Berry, it comes down to the fact that since the universe is one, ‘the spiritual and

534 P. Ellard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

physical are two dimensions of the single reality that is the universe itself’ [24, p.49]. Thismeans that for Berry, as it was for Teilhard, the soul too is a product of evolutionary his-tory and ‘soul stuff’ was in existence long before humans arrived. The new story alsoreveals that humans are not the centre. Human beings, Berry holds, are derivative and theuniverse is primary [23, p.97].

4.3.2. The human person and our relationship to the rest of the universe

Both the green Pope and the green Patriarch speak about the wonder and majesty of thenatural world. Indeed, a call to get out and experience nature, especially as it pulls us outof our consumerist selves, is present in many of their more personal reflections on crea-tion. They want people to see the glory of God reflected in both particular experiences ofcreation and in the created order itself. Bartholomew digs deeply and poetically into theOrthodox teachings on icons to demonstrate the value that nature has as a vehicle to helpus contemplate, and get closer to, the divine. Berry agrees. One problem, of course, is thatpeople – at least in the Western world – do not do this. We tend to live, work, and wor-ship, indoors. True, both the Pope and the Patriarch have conducted services out of doors;the Pope at gigantic gatherings in sports stadia, etc., and the Patriarch in the ruins ofchurches in Turkey. Still, one wonders about the lasting effects of such experiences.

Benedict and Bartholomew want us to care for creation due in large part to their beliefthat God gave nature to us as a gift. Because of this, we are called to be good stewards ofthe earth. Indeed the stewardship model, based on the biblical injunction in Genesis 2 to‘care for the earth’, is arguably the most popular of Christian responses to the environmen-tal crisis. Berry, however, believes that nature is not a gift for us. We are nature. More,the relationship model that stewardship represents is just not radical enough to confrontthe current crisis. The central problem with the approach of the Pope and the Patriarch isthat for them, human beings remain at the centre of the picture. Such a reading is impossi-ble for anyone who takes the science seriously. The universe – in its history and currentunfolding – is not centred on humanity.

In a recent essay, Connie Lasher and Charles Murray have argued that the particularanthropocentrism of Benedict XVI is a ‘good’ anthropocentrism that ‘seeks to correct the‘‘anthropological error’’ of ‘‘absolute dominion’’ not by de-centering the human, but by re-affirming human distinctiveness. . .’ [28, p.368]. Berry will have none of it. Humans are notthe centre and the sooner we realise this, the sooner we can produce an environmental ethnicto help in our moment of greatest crisis as a species. This is a key part of the currentdominant conceptual framework that needs to be jettisoned. Indeed, our self-preservationmay have as its more important precursor, the de-centring of our selves.

For Berry, it is precisely the errors of unscientific anthropocentric attitudes that havebrought us to the brink of disaster. This is part of what Berry calls a pathological mode ofconsciousness that has estranged us from the rest of nature and the universe. What isrequired is not a return to a biblically rooted theological anthropology, but a scientificallyrooted universe centred anthropology. This will require, as Berry notes, a ‘vast turn inhuman consciousness’ [21, p.38]. It requires a radical turn – not just a slight adjustment.The revelation of the new story leads Berry to a cosmo-centric worldview and a geo-cen-tric ethics. This sits in stark contrast to both the Pope and the Patriarch who view humansas the apex of creation.

Berry often reminds his readers that human beings do not live on the earth, but ratherwe are the earth come to consciousness. It is not a choice – as we noted above that Pope

Not green enough: a response 535

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Benedict feared – between seeing human beings above nature, or nature above us: we arenature. We no more exist on the earth than mountains, rivers or trees exist on the earth.They each are the earth flared forth in a particular and marvellous way. Human beings, byvirtue of our level of awareness, are certainly unique, but so too are many aspects of theuniverse. Stellar nurseries give birth to stars. A mother octopus dies so that its offspringmay live. Human uniqueness lay in the fact that we are the aspect of the universe thatsings its praises and wonders about our mysterious origins. We are also the aspect of theearth that is killing our ecosystems. Part of the reason for this is an identity crisis. Wehave forgotten who we are.

Berry, like Benedict and Bartholomew, believes that humankind is failing to understandwhat it means to be human. For the Pope and the Patriarch, the answer lies in going back intothe tradition and finding the right understanding that was already there. Berry, however,believes that this new understanding needs to be primarily informed by contemporary scienceand our experience of the universe. We need, Berry argues, to re-imagine and reinvent, whatit means to be human. Contemporary science proposes that what we perceive to be individualseparate physical and mental beings is, on some level, only appearance. This needs to beincluded in our answers. This significantly expands the definition of what it means to behuman. Human beings are unique in many ways, but we remain always an expression of theearth and a dimension of the universe. According to Berry, we are ‘that being in whom theuniverse reflects on and celebrates itself in conscious self-awareness’ [22, p.30]. This standsas a fundamental difference between Berry, the Pope, and the Patriarch.

We might argue that there is nuance between understanding ourselves as distinct andunderstanding ourselves as different. For the Pope and the Patriarch, our distinction isbased upon the biblical injunction that we, and only we, are made in God’s image. We aredistinct, they believe, because we have a moral compass, free will and, more importantly,a soul. This has been, of course, a central tenet of Christian thought since the early churchadopted the non-biblical Greek philosophical understanding of the soul/body dualism latercodified by Descartes. This, above all else, is why Christians believe human beings aredistinct.

Thomas Berry recognises the differences. In fact, the Teilhardian idea of differentiationis a central tenet of the cosmos for Berry. We are not, however, distinct. When it comes tolanguage about the human soul, Berry determines that any talk of the human ‘soul’ or‘spirit’ needs to cease being used in terms of an exclusive focus on the self as fundamen-tally separate from everything else.4

According to Berry, the unity of being, ‘communion’, is as much a fundamental part ofthe cosmos as differentiation and subjectivity. The union that was present at the momentof the big bang remains intact. Every object – all of which Berry calls subjects – remainsintimately connected, related and bound to every other subject in the universe – across allspace and time. In the end, any conversation about the spiritual component of the cosmosmust be all or nothing. If we are the universe on the macro-level, if we are the universeconscious of itself, then any talk of soul must be collective. We exist communally or notat all.

We are unique. We are conscious. But we remain derivative. Our evolutionary stage ofdevelopment may be important – in that we may be the only conscious celebratory beingswithin the universe – but we are nonetheless, secondary. The universe – and more focusedfor an environmental ethic, the Earth – is primary.

Neither the Book of Genesis, nor Christian teachings agrees with this. This is why, forBerry, they are incomplete and ‘no longer adequate’ at the present time [29, p.57]. The

536 P. Ellard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

scientific story tells us something fundamental about who we are. This sacred story canbe, according to Berry, that which can heal and guide us back from the brink of despairand ecological apocalypse. The earth and the universe, our larger selves, have the answer.We just need to listen, to ‘ourselves’. It is this task, which Berry calls the ‘Great Work’,that is our primary task today – to be ‘present to the planet in a mutually enhancing man-ner’ [22, p.47]. This is how we come to know ourselves and this is how we come to knowthe numinous mysterious sustaining source of all that is.

4.3.3. The all pervasive, mysterious, numinous reality underlying it all

Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew believe that their traditional Christian under-standing of God tells us something real about the divine mystery. Their faith lies in centu-ries of biblical interpretation and communal validation of this tradition. They hold that theGod of the Hebrew Scriptures, the incarnation and the redemptive work of Jesus in theNew Testament, and the Trinitarian formulations of the early church reveal the truth ofwhat God is and how God creates, sustains and redeems the world. Thomas Berry sharedtheir Christian faith, but he offered a radical re-interpretation of these traditions.

Though a priest in good standing for 67 years, who faithfully administered the Catholicsacraments, counselled those in despair and lived a good Catholic life, Berry did not usethe word God all that much. The truth is that for a long time Berry felt that the word Godwas overused and had lost its meaning. In many ways, although Berry does not referencethem, he has a lot in common with theologians Elizabeth Johnson [30], Gordon Kaufman[31] and Sallie McFague [32] who lamented the ‘concretisation’ of God language. Berry,like Teilhard, is more comfortable saying the divine is ‘a mystery too vast for human com-prehension’ [21, p.198] and an ‘awesome, stupendous presence that cannot be explainedadequately in human words’ [23, p.11]. In the last 30 years of his life Berry used expres-sions like: ‘originating power’, ‘originating source’, ‘final term of reference’, ‘mysteriousforce’, ‘all pervasive mysterious power’, ‘that numinous reality whence the universe cameinto being’, ‘the ineffable pervasive presence in the world about us’ and the ‘numinousreality underlining it all’ [33, p.311].

These descriptions are thoroughly non-theistic and thus radically different from thoseused by both Benedict and Bartholomew. Berry does not spend any time speculating onthe inner workings of the divine or speak about God ‘before’ or ‘outside’ the universe. Hewrites ‘[w]e could talk about God as being prior to or outside creation or independent ofcreation, but in actual fact there is no such being as God without creation’ [23, p.10]. Hebelieves human beings have no ability to contemplate God outside of creation and thatany such ideas are devoid of meaning. Even saying something like ‘God is Love’ operateswithin the framework of what humans know about love or about their experience of theuniverse that engendered this idea. For Berry, traditional God talk that is not rooted in thenew story of creation, that is the revelation of modern science, is inadequate. It failsbecause its context is too limited.

Ultimately, Berry reveals that the ‘divine cannot be its own manifestation’ [34, p.44].Creation, for Bartholomew and Benedict, is a gift from God for humanity. Creation, forBerry, is both an expression of the divine and an extension of the human self, our greaterself. It is not ‘from the divine’ but rather embodies and reveals the divine. This revelationis found in binary star systems and in all consuming black holes. It is found in sunsetsand nuclear explosions. It is found in ladybugs and in the smallpox virus. It is productiveand destructive. The story of the universe is the story of God unfolding.5

Not green enough: a response 537

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

This is not the pantheism that we saw Benedict condemn above. It is closer to a panenthe-ism, where God is thought to exist within every thing/subject in the universe in God’sfullness, and where the universe exists within God. God can still be thought of as being‘more than’ the universe, but as noted above, to contemplate such things for Berry is akin toa meaningless exercise – especially as the temperature and sea levels are rising. It is akin towhat Stephen Hawking says about asking what is one mile north of the North Pole – it is ameaningless question [35]. At any rate, for Berry, it is just not helpful right now.

5. Conclusion

Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew have contributed to a greening of Christianthought. It is our contention, however, that both the level of ideological change and thereal effects of such greening are thoroughly inadequate for the crisis at hand. Berry callsus to a dark green view of things. He calls on us to de-centre the human and re-centre theearth. He calls on us to re-image how we express our understanding of the divine. He callson us to recognise the inherent sacredness of both the universe and the story of its unfold-ing. He calls on us to re-evaluate every aspect of our thinking and acting within the con-text of this story and in the face of the current climate crisis. In the end, what comes outof this contemplation will be something very different from that espoused by the Pope andthe Patriarch. It will be different, Berry believed, because it has to be different. This is sobecause being green is not enough to save us from our folly. We must radically alter ourways of acting and this must be rooted in radically altering our ways of thinking. To dootherwise is beyond suicide. It may be biocide.

Notes

1. This was delivered under the alternative title ‘Peace with God the Creator, Peace WithAll of Creation’ on 1 January 1990.

2. Al Gore made a similar point in Earth in the Balance in 1992. As well, it was part ofthe ultimate conclusion of Lynn White in his seminal 1967 essay.

3. This material is the content of my current research and is part of thousands ofdocuments in the Thomas Berry archives at Harvard.

4. It seems hard to read this any other way than as contrary to the official Catholicteaching that holds that each human soul is exempt from evolutionary processes –being created uniquely by God at the moment of conception.

5. This view of the Divine is rooted in the Catholic tradition in the medieval writings ofNicholas of Cusa and Thierry of Chartres.

References

[1] Koenig-Bricker, W., 2009, Ten Commandments for the Environment: Pope Benedict XVI Speaks Outfor Creation and Justice (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press).

[2] Benedict XVI, 2010, Address to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps for the Traditional Exchange of NewYear Greetings. Available online at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100111_diplomatic-corps_en.html (accessed 19 November 2011).

[3] Paul VI, 1971, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens. Available online at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens_en.html (accessed 20August 2011).

538 P. Ellard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

[4] John Paul II, 1988, On social concerns. Origins, 3 March, Vol. 17, No. 38 (641–660).[5] John Paul II, 1989, Peace with all creation. Origins, 14 December, Vol. 19, No. 28 (465–468).[6] John Paul II, 2002, Common Declaration of Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at the

Fourth Ecological Symposium on the Adriatic Sea. Available online at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/july/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040701_jp-ii-bartholomew-i_en.html (accessed 20August 2011).

[7] Benedict XVI., 2009, Caritas in Veritate [Charity in Truth] (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press).[8] Benedict.XVI, 2009, World Day of Peace Message 2010: if you want to cultivate peace, protect creation.

Origins, 39(29), 478–482.[9] Benedict XVI, 2011, Address to Six New Ambassadors Accredited to the Holy See. Available online at: http://

www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2011/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110609_ambassa-dors_en.html (accessed 22 August 2011).

[10] Chryssavgis, J., 2007, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew: insights into an Orthodox Christian worldview.International Journal of Environmental Studies, 64(1), 9–18.

[11] Chryssavgis, J., 2002, Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer (Cambridge: Eerdmans).[12] Bartholomew, I., 2008, Encountering Mystery: Understanding Orthodox Christianity Today (New York:

Doubleday).[13] Bartholomew I, 2009, Saving the Soul of the Planet – Address at the Brookings Institution. Available online

at: http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/saving-the-soul-of-the-planet (accessed 22 October 2011).[14] Bartholomew I, 2010, Saving souls and the planet go together. Available online at: http://www.patriarchate.

org/documents/cnn-op-ed (accessed 22 October 2011).[15] Taylor, B., 2009, Dark Green Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press).[16] Tucker, M.E., n.d., A biography of Thomas Berry. Available online at: http://www.thomasberry.org/Biogra-

phy/tucker-bio.html (accessed 10 December 2011).[17] King, U., 1996, The Spirit of Fire: The Life and Vision of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Maryknoll, NY:

Orbis).[18] Teilhard de Chardin, P., 1959, The Phenomenon of Man (New York: Harper & Row).[19] Teilhard de Chardin, P., 1960, The Divine Milieu (New York: Harper & Row).[20] Berry, T., 1978, The new story. Teilhard Studies, Number 1.[21] Berry, T., 1988, The Dream of the Earth (San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books).[22] Berry, T., 2009, The Christian Future and the Fate of the Earth, Eds M.E. Tucker and J. Grim (Maryknoll,

NY: Orbis).[23] Berry, T. and Clark, T., 1992, Befriending the Earth: A Theology of Reconciliation Between Humans and the

Earth (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications).[24] Berry, T., 1999, The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (New York: Bell Tower).[25] Gallup Poll, December 2010, Available online at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-

Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx (accessed 18 January 2012).[26] Horrell, D. and Hunt, C. (Eds), 2010, Ecological Hermeneutics: Biblical, Historical and Theological

Perspectives (New York: T and T Clark Publishers).[27] Berry, T. and Swimme, B., 1992, The Universe Story: From the Primordial Flaring Forth to the Ecozoic

Era: A Celebration of the Unfolding of the Cosmos (San Francisco, CA: Harper).[28] Lasher, C. and Murphy, C., 2011, ‘With generous courage’: promise and poignancy in the legacies of Pope

John Paul II & Pope Benedict XVI. In: J. Schaefer (Ed.) Confronting the Climate Crisis: Catholic Theologi-cal Perspectives (Marquette, WI: Marquette University Press), pp. 365–388.

[29] Berry, T., 2006, Evening Thoughts: Reflecting on Earth as Sacred Community, Ed. M.E. Tucker (San Fran-cisco, CA: Sierra Club Books).

[30] Johnson, E., 2007, The Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God (New York:Continuum).

[31] Kaufman, G., 1992, Nature, history and God: toward an integrated conceptualization. Zygon, 27, 379–401.[32] McFague, S., 1993, The Body of God: Toward an Ecological Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Books).[33] Ellard, P., 2011, The thought of Thomas Berry as the groundwork for a dark green Catholic theology. In:

J. Schaefer (Ed.) Confronting the Climate Crisis: Catholic Theological Perspectives (Marquette, WI: Mar-quette University Press), pp. 301–320.

[34] Berry, T., 2009, M.E. Tucker (Ed.) The Sacred Universe: Earth, Spirituality and Religion in the Twenty-FirstCentury (New York: Columbia University Press).

[35] The Creation of the Universe, 1985, perf. Timothy Ferris, Stephen Hawking. Film, North Star Associates.

Not green enough: a response 539

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:40

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14