Environmentalism in The Shack
Subdue the Earth Versus Environmentalism In Young’s Novel
Jul 23, 2009
On Wednesday, July 2008 a post, in the blog Herescope, connected the God, Elousia, in The Shack to the archetypal Black Madonna that is found around the globe. The post references an article by Matthew Fox: The Return of the Black Madonna: A Sign of Our Times or How the Black Madonna Is Shaking Us Up for the Twenty-First Century.
In his article, Fox describes the Madonna as being an archetype and goes on to suggest the Black Madonna as being more concerned about environmentalism that the traditional church. William P. Young correctly labels environmentalism as a Christian concern, however, he doesn’t define how a Christian’s view of environment should be different from an unbelievers.
Be a Good Environmentalist
Fox connects the lower charkas to ecological and environmental concerns. Fox then unites Mother Earth to the Black Madonna “Mother Earth is dark and fecund and busy birthing. So is the Black Madonna.”
As a result, Fox suggest that one of the challenges from the Black Madonna is to seek environmental revolution. He says that Mother Earth recycles, nurtures, and feeds; and when her children die, the Black Madonna welcomes them home. Fox concludes his argument for his fourth challenge with a resounding challenge “to be called to cosmology is to be called to its local expression of ecology. One cannot love the universe and not love the earth. And, vice versa, one cannot love the earth and ignore its temporal and spatial matrix, the universe.”
Mother Earth in The Shack
Young carefully steers clear of actually referring to the earth as Mother Earth. However, he does personify the earth in a conversation between Mack and Jesus. “‘Our earth is like a child who had grown up without parents, having no one to guide and direct her…Some have attempted to help her but most have simply tried to use her. Human’s who have been given the task to loving steer the world instead plunder her with no consideration…And they give little though to their own children who will inherit their lack of love.” (145)
Mack replies with the amazement and an accusing question, “You’re an ecologist?” Jesus replies with a lyric from the Bruce Cockburn song Planet of the Clowns “This blue-green ball in black space, Filled with beauty even now battered and abused and lovely.” Cockburn wrote the song in response to the novel Shikasta by Doris Lessing. Cockburn describes the novel as “a beautiful myth that is built out of the myths of all cultures.” (Paul Zollo, SongTalk, vol.4, issue 2, 1994).
Subdue the Earth
Modern environmentalist’s often point to Genesis 1:28 as the source of all environmental problems on earth “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
The word subdue is the pivotal word for people who argue about this verse and how Christians must apply it. According to the New King James Study Bible, the word translated as subdued is literally translated “bring into bondage.” This word is used in other portions of the Bible as a term of military conquest. In still other parts of the Bible it is used to describe God subduing our iniquities. In Micah 7:19 it says “He will again have compassion on us, And will subdue our iniquities. You will cast all our sins Into the depths of the sea.” In this verse, the word becomes a means of freedom, a way out of the sin and darkness that covers the lives of God’s people. God fights the battle and removes sin for the sake of his children. The commentary in the NKJ suggests that while we may not know what God intended “subdue does not mean ‘destroy’ or ‘ruin.’”
Because humans cannot comprehend the mind of God, the Christian’s response is to obey. Like a child learns, Christians often find that understanding comes after obedience rather than before it.
Subdue the Earth Versus Environmentalism
If one looks at the foundation of the Biblical command and at the environmentalist’s concern, the response of the truly committed individual should look the same. Christians and environmentalists can agree that humans ought to manage the earth’s resources so that humans gain the maximum benefit [sufficient food everyone (including the poor), and clean water for all] with minimum impact on the earth and the other creatures living on it
However, the reason for the response should be different. The environmentalist often seems to worship the earth as the provider of all sustenance and attempts to placate it in order to benefit from its ‘blessings’. The environmentalist’s concept that the earth equals a mother is understandable – infants view mom as the source of all sustenance and comfort and as they grow older they attempt to please mom so that they do not suffer punishment or discomfort.
Nowhere in the Bible is the earth described as an anthropomorphic entity like a mother. The most human like behavior attributed to the Earth is that of the rocks who cry out to praise God if humans do not. Nowhere in the Bible does God treat the earth like a mother or a woman. He cares for the earth and He controls it in order to discipline or bless His children. When God commands humans to have dominion and subdue the earth He passes the care of Earth to His children. Christians are to rule the earth as God would, with intelligence and good judgment.
The difference between the motives of a Christian and an ecologist is the difference between worshipping and glorifying a living God or placating an unthinking earth that is bound by the laws of science created by a God whose mind humans cannot comprehend.
Young, William P. The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity. Windblown Media. 2007.
Read more about William P. Young and The Shack at Suite101.
 |
