Any effort to connect contemporary environmental pursuits to theological presuppositions seems to be a paradoxical and perhaps eccentric venture. In the minds of most, ecology represents a practical and tangible methodology. On the contrary, theology and theological cosmology, even as terminology, are for most people naturally connected to abstract theoretical pursuits. They refer to associations of doctrines and ideologies that are irrelevant to daily life and its problems.

Contemporary ecology, as a matter of scientific study, but also in the form of crusades and movements for the salvation of our earthly ecosystem, is one of the most characteristic expressions of human interest concentrated on practical goals. The logic of environmental protection is presented as a purely utilitarian matter. If we do not protect our natural environment, then our own survival will increasingly be rendered more difficult and problematic, while the very presence of the human race on this planet will be threatened very soon. The danger of degeneration or even of annihilation of the human race is described as imminent.

The Logic of Ecology and the Logic of Theology

In the context of this apparent way of thinking, the natural environment is conceived as a necessary and sufficient condition for human existence and survival; yet, this condition or context is perceived as utilitarian. The method of thinking is limited to the manner of usage. What is of interest is not the source or cause of the natural reality; nor is any hermeneutical “meaning” sought in the cosmic order and harmony, or in the wisdom and beauty of nature. It is of course quite possible that those things which exist in nature were created by some unknown “higher power,” or that they are the products of inexplicable “chance” and automatic force – again without explanation – that exists innately in the very structure of matter. At any rate, the interpretation of any cause or end is not what gives meaning to everything that exists.

Based, then, on such an utilitarian logic, contemporary ecological movements demand the definition of rules for the use of nature by humanity. Ecology seeks to be seen as a practical ethic of human conduct in relation to the environment. Nevertheless, like any other ethic, ecology too provokes us to ask the question: Who is it that defines these rules of human conduct, and with what authority are they defined? What logic renders these rules obligatory? From what source do they derive their validity?

The rationalism of this utilitarian mentality is perhaps the only answer that ecologists can provide to this question. The correctness of an ecological ethic is derived from and based on its apparent utilitarianism. It is reasonably beyond any doubt that, in order for the human race to survive on this earth, there are certain conditions that are necessary also for the natural environment.

Nevertheless, the rationalism of this utilitarian ethic is precisely what led to the destruction of the natural environment. Humanity has not destroyed the environment out of some senseless masochism. Humanity destroys the environment in an effort to exploit nature, in order to secure more facilities and comforts in daily life. The logic that led to the destruction of the environment is precisely the same logic now as that concerning the protection of the environment. Both “systems of logic” approach nature as something exclusively utilitarian. Neither attributes any different meaning to nature. Both exist on the same level of an ontological interpretation of the natural reality, or rather on the vacuum of deliberate ignorance of any ontological interpretation.

Consequently, the difference revealed by these two “systems of logic” (namely, that which leads to the destruction and that which looks to the protection of the environment) is only quantitative. Ecologists demand a limited and controlled use of the natural environment, a quantitative reduction that will allow its longer use by humanity. They seek a rational limitation of our limitless use of nature. Therefore, they seek a more rational application of a rational system that already exploits nature. They seek a utilitarian restraint in our utilitarian abuse.

Yet, who will define this quantitatively lesser and more correct use of nature within the context of the very same logic? By what measures will this be defined? Although the goal appears to be extremely rational, in fact it is by definition as well as in practice irrational. By definition, it is self-contradictory inasmuch as utilitarianism cannot work against utilitarianism. In practice, it is irrational because the majority of this earth’s population does not accept to be deprived of facilities and comforts secured for the convenience of a very small minority in “advanced” societies through the destruction of the environment.

In order, then, to meet the demands of ecologists, another logic is required, one that is able to substitute the logic of utilitarianism. Their demand must be established on an entirely different basis. For example, it may be rooted in an altruism that is concerned for the survival of future generations, or else based on the demand for some “quality” of life that is not measured by consumer comfort and greed. Therefore, we need to find a basis that is not utilitarian but is universally accepted. And it is impossible to define non-utilitarian goals, on which everyone would agree, based on purely rational criteria. We must discern within the human person different needs and a different hierarchy of values. This can only happen when the human conscience acknowledges a different meaning in life and the world, one that is not exclusively utilitarian.

A Religious Ethic and Logic

The monotheistic religions preserve an appreciation of the natural reality that is not exclusively utilitarian. According to their traditions, the world is the creation of God. The use, then, of the world by humanity constitutes a practical relationship between humanity and God, since God bestows and humanity receives the natural goods as an expression of divine love.

Two fundamental consequences follow from this understanding.

• First, the use of the world is not an end in itself for humanity, but a way of relating to God. If humanity distorts the use of this world into an egocentric abuse of greed, by dominating and destroying nature, then humanity id denying and destroying its own life-giving relationship with God, a relationship destined to continue into eternity.

• Second, the world, as God’s creation, ceases to be a neutral object for human use. It incarnates the word of the Creator like every other creation embodies the word of its artist. The objects of natural reality bear the seal of their divine Creator’s wisdom and love; they are words (logoi, which also implies meaning) of God inviting humanity to dialogue (dialogos) with God.

In spite of all this, it is a given historical fact that the contemporary concept of the world as a neutral object that may be used and exploited by humanity for its own individualistic pleasure, is a concept that arose and was articulated with the context of Christian Europe. It would take a special analysis of the historical circumstances and theoretical presuppositions that led Christian Europe to replace the relationship between humanity and the world with the understanding that humanity has limitless domination over the world. The reasons for the divergence are not unrelated to the causes that led to the painful Schism in the eleventh century, namely to the severance of Western Christianity from the unified body of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It nevertheless remains a fact that the change in human behavior toward the environment today requires a change in meaning, namely a change in the meaning attribute by human beings to matter and nature. Ecology will not inspire any respect toward nature if it is not informed by a different cosmology to that which prevails today in our culture and civilization, if it is not exempted from a naïve materialism and an equally naïve idealism alike.

An Orthodox Cosmology

Let us endeavor to underline in brief the potential of an Orthodox ecclesiastical cosmology to contribute toward the discovery of a new and different logic. Our superficial remarks will be primarily based on the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus the Confessor and St, Gregory Palamas. However, this does not imply that other patristic writers do not substantially contribute to this discussion.

The fundamental patristic contribution here is the introduction of a third ontological category for the interpretation of existent reality and its principal source. I am referring to the category of divine energies, which are added to the couplet known as divine essence and divine hypostasis, which prevails in ontological philosophical analysis. Although the starting-point of ecclesiastical thought was primarily theological, we shall draw upon the anthropological experience in order to discern analogies, which may better clarify contemporary categories of thought.

We speak of the essence of the human person, thereby referring to the common manner through which every person shares in life, in being. We say, then, that the human person is a being that walks uprightly, laughs, thinks, creates, possesses imagination, judgment, willpower, the ability to love, and so on. All these are characteristics of a common human essence or nature.

Naturally, human essence, this universal manner of human existence, cannot exist independently of individual and particular beings. Each individual being realizes the common essence in an actual expression; each person “hypostasizes” the common essence, it constitutes the hypostasis of that essence. Human essence only exists within human hypostases.

Yet, the common features of essence, which are hypostasized by each individual person, are truly existent possibilities, characteristics of the manner in which every human existence is actualized. Here, we encounter the notion of the energies or actualization of essence or nature. Each human existence is potentially energized or actualized through its material and spiritual functions, in the expression of its reason, will, imagination, judgment, and so forth.

An Orthodox Anthropology

Each human individual hypostasizes the common energies of human nature in a unique and unrepeatable manner. Each person has reason, will, imagination and judgment; yet each person reasons, wills, imagines and judges in a unique, different and unrepeatable manner. Consequently, the energies of human nature constitute an ontological reality, not simply because they characterize the common manner of existence among people but also because they express each person’s hypostatic manner of being. The human energies, which are hypostasized within each person, also constitute and reveal the absolute existential otherness and uniqueness of each person.

We come to know a human person, the otherness of that person’s existence, by means of the energies through which that person’s being is realized and revealed. Therefore, we come to know the composer J.-S. Bach by listening to his music; we come to know the artist Rembrandt by means of his paintings. The musical notes of Bach and the paint colors of Rembrandt differ in essence from the human essence of the two artists. Yet, the creative energy of one artist, which reveals the hypostatic otherness and uniqueness of that artist, is also actualized through different essences. The music, colors, writing, marble and clay actualize the logos (meaning or purpose) of the musician, artist, writer and sculptor. They reveal the person of the artist, his or her existential identity and otherness.

The ontological content of this category of hypostasized energies permits us to attribute the ontological “principle” or beginning of the material world to a personal God. We do not attribute this to the divine essence (which would lead to pantheism), but to the hypostatic divine energies. The divine energies reveal the logos (meaning or purpose) of God’s personal otherness in relation to the world, a meaning that is actualized in matter, yet which remains entirely different to God in essence.

Almost fifteen centuries before the quantum theory was conceived in contemporary physics, Greek ecclesiastical thought confirmed that matter is energy, “a syndrome of rational (or logical) attributes,” the created result of the uncreated divine energies. The difference in essence between created and uncreated neither excludes nor hinders the created from being actualized as the logos (purpose or word) of the uncreated, from revealing the creative energy and hypostatic otherness of the personal divineLogos (or Word). Just as the notes and the colors, while being different in essence to their artists nevertheless actualize the logos (meaning or purpose) of the creative energy and hypostatic otherness of Bach and Rembrandt.

Human Beings in Relation to Nature

It is only when people regard matter and nature in its entirety as a creation of a personal Creator that the use of matter and nature in its entirety constitutes a genuine relationship and not a uniform domination of humanity over the natural reality. It is only then that we are able to speak of an “ecological ethic,” which derives its definitive character not from conventional rationalistic codes of conduct but from humanity’s need to love and be loved in the context of a personal relationship. The logos (purpose or meaning) of the beauty of creation is an invitation addressed by God to humanity, an invitation to a personal relationship and communion with Him. It is a living and life-giving relationship. Contemporary ecology could then become the practical response of humanity to this divine invitation, a tangible participation in a relationship with God.

Is it, however, sufficient to speak of an ontological clarification of the meaning of matter and the world in order to provoke a different relationship between contemporary humanity and the material world? Surely not! In order for humanity to reach the point of responding to nature with the respect and awe that it responds to a personal artistic creation, this theoretical clarification must become an experiential knowledge and a social attitude. And, at this point, the role of social dynamics contained within the ecclesiastical tradition and community can be decisive. This will occur so long as the ecclesiastical conscience is purified from its estrangement into an ideological structure and from its inactive rest in the preservation of established forms.

The great challenge, which the Orthodox ecclesiastical conscience is called to appreciate today is the surprising reality of the contemporary science of physics, the new fascinating cosmology that results from the study of quantum mechanics: namely, the potential of matter as energy, the relativity of space and time as the connection for the presence of matter, and the increasingly clearer anthropocentric purpose of the universe. The language of physics today reveals the universal reality as alogos (purpose or meaning) that is actualized and only hypostasized in its encounter with the human personal logos (purpose or word).

If there exists a future for the demands of contemporary ecology, then this future is surely based, we would believe, in the free encounter of the historical experience in the Church of the living God with the experiential affirmation of His logos (word or purpose) actualized in nature.