Anatomy of Papal Ecumenism
The Vatican’s Representative Speaks Frankly and Openly of What Ecumenism Means to Rome, the Importance of “Common Baptism” and How They Understand the Latest Liturgical “Offerings” of the Orthodox
Here is a very good opportunity for all Orthodox to see clearly the face of Ecumenism and, in particular, Roman Catholic Ecumenism. What follows is an analysis of key aspects of a speech delivered by Bishop Brian Farrell, the Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, in Dublin at the beginning of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity (2007).
What do the heterodox understand from Orthodox “overtures” and “love”? Here is one of the Vatican’s point men talking about how he understands the Patriarch of Constantinople’s stance during the recent visit of the Pope.
Our commentary is within the frames.
The full text can be found here.
Take especial note of the history of “the prayer for Christian unity” and what was (and is) meant by this unity.
Bishop Brian Farrell speaking during the recent Papal visit to Constantinople.
January 24, 2007
On reaching Christian unity (Part 1)
DUBLIN, Ireland (Zenit.org)—Here is the first part of a homily delivered on Thursday in Dublin…
…Every time the baptized come together to pray, it is the Spirit who guides them and teaches them how to pray.
* Again and again the followers of the pope stress the idea of a “common baptism” of all Christians, in which the Holy Spirit is present and works. It is this idea of a “common baptism” which is nothing less than another version of the branch theory, which itself states simply that there are various branches of the Church, divided but nonetheless THE CHURCH. In the “common baptism” theory this same idea is expressed, for the WHOLE Christ is present in Baptism, nothing less, and therefore the WHOLE Church is present, too, for the Body cannot be separated from the Head.*
Pope John Paul II sprinkling, not baptizing.
It is the same Spirit who builds the Church’s unity. Naturally, people have been praying for the unity of Christ’s followers since the beginning. Christians who take to heart the 17th chapter of John’s Gospel know that things are not as they should be and that the scandal of division weakens the proclamation of the Gospel; they know that the ecumenical movement is not a luxury in the life of the Church. We cannot separate our following of Christ from our passion for the unity of the Body of Christ that is the Church.
This year, the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is 99 years old.
Ninety-nine years ago, Father Paul Watson, an Anglican priest and co-founder of the Society of the Atonement, introduced a Prayer Octave for Christian Unity that was celebrated for the first time Jan. 18-25, 1908.
Unity for Father Watson meant a “return” to the Roman Catholic Church, hence the symbolic dates of the feast of the Chair of Peter, which at that time was celebrated Jan. 18, and the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul on Jan. 25. This is usually regarded as the beginning of the week as we know it today.
In 1936, a pioneer of ecumenism in French Catholicism, the Abbé Paul Couturier, brought in a new interpretation of the Unity Octave, when he saw that the idea of “return” made it difficult for many Christians to join with Catholics in prayer. He began what he called the “Universal Week of Prayer for Christian Unity,” keeping the same dates of Jan. 18-25, but urging people to pray for the unity of the Church “as Christ wills it.” That is what we are here for this evening: to pray together for the unity, the full communion, of all the baptized, in the way and at the time that the Lord, through the work of the Holy Spirit, will arrange.
* We should remember this deceitful and cunning method when we hear the flattering words of the Pope and his bishops. They are always talking out two sides of their mouth. About such men the Apostle writes: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."*
* Then, in part two, Bishop Brian continues…*
Official international delegations to visit Benedict XVI: from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches; from the Lutheran Church of Finland, of Norway, of Sweden; from the World Methodist Council; the Lutheran World Federation; the visit of the archbishop of Canterbury; the archbishop of Athens and All Greece. As every year there was an exchange of delegations between the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch, at the end of June for the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, the patron saints of Rome, and at the end of November for the feast of St. Andrew, the patron saint of Constantinople. Except that this year the Catholic delegation to Constantinople was led by Pope Benedict himself.
People want to see results from all this activity. But the communion we seek is neither a question of Church diplomacy nor of strategic agreements made in ecclesiastical back-rooms. In its original sense it has to do with “participation,” having a part in, sharing in God’s gift of redemption and grace. We are brought into communion—with God and with one another—when we all share in the same grace: one Lord, one baptism, one Spirit, one Father of all.
* Actually, the passage of Scripture from which this phrase is taken says: “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Eph. 4: 4-6).
We see that he left OUT two or more important phrases . Why? Well, because if, as the ecumenists say, all Christians share “one baptism”, or a “common baptism,” why is it that the Apostle (Eph. 4:5) does not in the least separate the one baptism from the one body, one faith and one Lord, one Spirit, and one Father? The Apostle does not separate them, but the inventors of the “common baptism” theory do! The separate it because it serves their interests, or the interests of the enemy of our salvation, who wants to mix truth with falsehood, light with darkness, Christ with the idols - just the opposite of what the Apostle Paul has written elsewhere:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? (2 Cor. 6:15).
Examine all their rhetoric about our “common baptism” and you will see that they want us to believe that in this “common baptism” we already share in the same grace and therefore have communion. For in their legalistic and rationalistic theology they separate the Mysteries from the power of jurisdiction, which rests in the Pope’s hands alone. That is why they can say that the Orthodox have the Mysteries but are separate from the one who holds the keys of the Kingdom, who has jurisdiction. Therefore, it is a great TRAP for the Orthodox to accept their innovation regarding a common baptism, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Patristic tradition regarding the acceptance of heretics by oikonomia. In the Patristic tradition a kat’oikonomia exception cannot be and is not a basis for our ecclesiological self-understanding. The first is pastoral, the second is dogmatic.*
…Our ecumenical journey is not towards a mere appearance of unity—towards some sort of ecclesiastical good neighborliness. The communion we seek has its source, its model and its fulfillment in the very life of the Trinity. Superficial gestures will not bring about the unity for which the Lord prayed.
Very often it is the significant though almost imperceptible gesture that marks the progress being made. Let me give a few examples.
First, that the Patriarch and the Pope exchanged the sign of peace during the Divine Liturgy itself. Up to now, at the Phanar, this gesture had always taken place after the celebration itself, given that for our Orthodox brothers the sign of peace within the liturgy expresses a very weighty commitment, introduced by the deacon with this exhortation: “Let us love one another that with one mind we may together make our profession of faith.” And then follows the Creed. This may seem like a small thing; but it has much spiritual meaning.
“...that we may confess” the episcopacy of the pope.
* The ecumenists and secularized Orthodox may now take lightly the meaning of our liturgical practices, but the Papists do not. Let all of those Orthodox who downplay the significance of the Patriarchate’s actions read and re-read the above. Is it not clear that step by step a unity, a very real unity, is being forged between the ecumenist-minded of the Patiarchate and other Local Churches and the heterodox - WITHOUT, however, there being ANY real and concrete repentance and change on their part? It is quite clear for him who has eyes to see.*
Another important factor: in the common declaration signed by the Pope and the Patriarch, they recall “the solemn ecclesial act banishing from memory the ancient anathemas which for centuries have had a negative effect on relations between our Churches.”
They then go on to say: “We have not yet drawn from this act all the positive consequences which can flow from it in our progress towards full unity.” They are clearly saying: let us move in very real and practical ways to eliminate the remaining barriers keeping us apart.
And it is significant that Pope Benedict chose the solemn liturgy at the Patriarchate to meet head-on one of the major challenges of the ecumenical journey. In his words: “The issue of the universal service of Peter and his successors has unfortunately given rise to our differences of opinion, which we hope to overcome, thanks also to the theological dialogue which has been recently resumed.”
* Is our understanding of the Church an opinion? Many say that soon they will tell us that the primacy, and perhaps even the dogma of the infallibility of the pope, is a theologoumenon (opinon)! When that happens, may all take heed! For it will be yet a clearer betrayal of the Orthodox Faith.*
And then with emphasis he renewed a commitment undertaken by Pope John Paul II: “Pope John Paul extended an invitation to enter into a fraternal dialogue aimed at identifying ways in which the Petrine ministry might be exercised today, while respecting its nature and essence, so as to ‘accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned’ [’Ut Unum Sint,’ 95]. It is my desire today to recall and renew this invitation.”
*The phrase “while respecting its nature and essence” should be read: there will be no change whatsoever to the papal teaching on primacy. So, at the same time that they appear to humbly set forth the scandal of their demonic pride before all for reconsideration they say in a cryptic way, “we will not changing anything of its essence. Of course, this is no surprise for anyone who has a little sense. But, unfortunately, for the professional ecumenists and worldly clergy, who are looking for a way to “get along with the world” this “two pence” offering is received like a great inheritance...*
The journey towards full communion may be slow and mostly imperceptible; but the Holy Spirit is at work, and someday, without us knowing how, he will bring to completion the work that he has begun.
So, what should we do?
Because the Church is not just her ministers and leaders but the whole body of the faithful, more and more people need to be involved in what is being called “spiritual ecumenism.” Christians, no matter what tradition they belong to, can say with joy and gratitude that “what unites us is much greater than what divides us.”
They believe in God the Father Almighty, in Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior, and in the Holy Spirit, the advocate, the giver of life and holiness. They recognize that through the sacrament of baptism they are spiritually reborn and united with Christ and with one another. Together they honor Sacred Scripture as the word of God and as an abiding norm of belief and action. They share in prayer and in many other common sources of the spiritual life.
*** SEE THE COMMENTARY ABOVE regarding the papal idea of a “common baptism”. ***
The Holy Spirit is operative among all the baptized with his sanctifying power. He calls all to true holiness, and it is he who in every generation has prepared Christians of all traditions to face martyrdom for Christ.
*** SEE THE COMMENTARY ABOVE regarding the papal idea of a “common baptism”. ***
Spiritual ecumenism appreciates and values all these gifts in the Churches of East and West. So we need opportunities for a spiritual exchange of gifts.
Christians from different traditions need to meet each other, and in prayer, through a healing of memories, inspire each other to ever greater fidelity to Christ and to the Gospel.
That, in great part, is the value of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. Having a special week does not exhaust our commitment, but it reminds us that to love Christ’s Church is to yearn for her holiness and her unity.
There are wrinkles, even unpleasant scars, on the face of the Church: and a strong ecumenical commitment is an essential factor in restoring her beauty.
*Quite to the contrary, Orthodox Christians believe and hold the Church to be the Bride of Christ, without spot or wrinkle, the beauty of which the King shall “greatly desire”! The face of the Church is Christ’s Own, for He is the Head of His Body.*
Only when Christ’s prayer at the Last Supper is fulfilled, only when we are all one as he ardently wished, only then will the Church clearly appear as the sign and sacrament of the world’s salvation. Only then will God’s purpose be fulfilled: “that the world may believe.”
* If this is the case, the Church is not One, nor Holy, for if it is not the sign and sacrament of the world’s salvation it is not the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church. And in this way, Bishop Farrell reveals the true identity of his confession. And it is precisely this delusion and, indeed, heresy that the Saints of our day have and will shed blood to defeat, lest Bishop Farrell’s conception of the Church win the day and the truth of the Church be lost to the many, and along with it, their salvation.*
Read Less...
Microchip Implants II: The Psychology of Introducing Enslavement to the Masses
This is a MUST READ for every Orthodox Christian, for it is yet one more important signpost on the path toward Antichrist. . .
“Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is” (Mark 13:33).
A GENERATION IS ALL THEY NEED
One day we will all happily be implanted with microchips, and our every move will be monitored. The technology exists; the only barrier is society’s resistance to the loss of privacy
Dec. 10, 2006. 08:46 AM
Kevin Haggerty
Special to the TORONTO STAR
By the time my four-year-old son is swathed in the soft flesh of old age, he will likely find it unremarkable that he and almost everyone he knows will be permanently implanted with a microchip. Automatically tracking his location in real time, it will connect him with databases monitoring and recording his smallest behavioural traits. Most people anticipate such a prospect with a sense of horrified disbelief, dismissing it as a science-fiction fantasy. The technology, however, already exists. For years humane societies have implanted all the pets that leave their premises with a small identifying microchip. As well, millions of consumer goods are now traced with tiny radio frequency identification chips that allow satellites to reveal their exact location.A select group of people are already “chipped” with devices that automatically open doors, turn on lights, and perform other low-level miracles.
Prominent among such individuals is researcher Kevin Warwick of Reading University in England; Warwick is a leading proponent of the almost limitless potential uses for such chips. Other users include the patrons of the Baja Beach Club in Barcelona, many of whom have paid about $150 (U.S.) for the privilege of being implanted with an identifying chip that allows them to bypass lengthy club queues and purchase drinks by being scanned. These individuals are the advance guard of an effort to expand the technology as widely as possible.
>From this point forward, microchips will become progressively smaller, less invasive, and easier to deploy. Thus, any realistic barrier to the wholesale “chipping” of Western citizens is not technological but cultural. It relies upon the visceral reaction against the prospect of being personally marked as one component in a massive human inventory. Today we might strongly hold such beliefs, but sensibilities can, and probably will, change. How this remarkable attitudinal transformation is likely to occur is clear to anyone who has paid attention to privacy issues over the past quarter-century. There will be no 3 a.m. knock on the door by storm troopers come to force implants into our bodies. The process will be more subtle and cumulative, couched in the unassailable language of progress and social betterment, and mimicking many of the processes that have contributed to the expansion of closed-circuit television cameras and the corporate market in personal data.
A series of tried and tested strategies will be marshalled to familiarize citizens with the technology. These will be coupled with efforts to pressure tainted social groups and entice the remainder of the population into being chipped. This, then, is how the next generation will come to be microchipped.
It starts in distant countries. Having tested the technology on guinea pigs, both human and animal, the first widespread use of human implanting will occur in nations at the periphery of the Western world. Such developments are important in their own right, but their international significance pertains to how they familiarize a global audience with the technology and habituate them to the idea that chipping represents a potential future.
An increasing array of hypothetical chipping scenarios will also be depicted in entertainment media, furthering the familiarization process. In the West, chips will first be implanted in members of stigmatized groups. Pedophiles are the leading candidate for this distinction, although it could start with terrorists, drug dealers, or whatever happens to be that year’s most vilified criminals. Short-lived promises will be made that the technology will only be used on the “worst of the worst.” In fact, the wholesale chipping of incarcerated individuals will quickly ensue, encompassing people on probation and on parole. Even accused individuals will be tagged, a measure justified on the grounds that it would stop them from fleeing justice. Many prisoners will welcome this development, since only chipped inmates will be eligible for parole, weekend release, or community sentences. From the prison system will emerge an evocative vocabulary distinguishing chippers from non-chippers. Although the chips will be justified as a way to reduce fraud and other crimes, criminals will almost immediately develop techniques to simulate other people’s chip codes and manipulate their data.The comparatively small size of the incarcerated population, however, means that prisons would be simply a brief stopover on a longer voyage. Commercial success is contingent on making serious inroads into tagging the larger population of law-abiding citizens. Other stigmatized groups will therefore be targeted. This will undoubtedly entail monitoring welfare recipients, a move justified to reduce fraud, enhance efficiency, and ensure that the poor do not receive “undeserved” benefits.
Once e-commerce is sufficiently advanced, welfare recipients will receive their benefits as electronic vouchers stored on their microchips, a policy that will be tinged with a sense of righteousness, as it will help ensure that clients can only purchase government-approved goods from select merchants, reducing the always disconcerting prospect that poor people might use their limited funds to purchase alcohol or tobacco.Civil libertarians will try to foster a debate on these developments. Their attempts to prohibit chipping will be handicapped by the inherent difficulty in animating public sympathy for criminals and welfare recipients — groups that many citizens are only too happy to see subjected to tighter regulation. Indeed, the lesser public concern for such groups is an inherent part of the unarticulated rationale for why coerced chipping will be disproportionately directed at the stigmatized.
The official privacy arm of the government will now take up the issue. Mandated to determine the legality of such initiatives, privacy commissioners and Senate Committees will produce a forest of reports presented at an archipelago of international conferences. Hampered by lengthy research and publication timelines, their findings will be delivered long after the widespread adoption of chipping is effectively a fait accompli. The research conclusions on the effectiveness of such technologies will be mixed and open to interpretation.Officials will vociferously reassure the chipping industry that they do not oppose chipping itself, which has fast become a growing commercial sector. Instead, they are simply seeking to ensure that the technology is used fairly and that data on the chips is not misused. New policies will be drafted.
What might Hitler or Mao have accomplished if their citizens were chipped, coded, and remotely monitored?
Employers will start to expect implants as a condition of getting a job. The U.S. military will lead the way, requiring chips for all soldiers as a means to enhance battlefield command and control — and to identify human remains. From cooks to commandos, every one of the more than one million U.S. military personnel will see microchips replace their dog tags. Following quickly behind will be the massive security sector. Security guards, police officers, and correctional workers will all be expected to have a chip. Individuals with sensitive jobs will find themselves in the same position.
The first signs of this stage are already apparent. In 2004, the Mexican attorney general’s office started implanting employees to restrict access to secure areas. The category of “sensitive occupation” will be expansive to the point that anyone with a job that requires keys, a password, security clearance, or identification badge will have those replaced by a chip. Judges hearing cases on the constitutionality of these measures will conclude that chipping policies are within legal limits. The thin veneer of “voluntariness” coating many of these programs will allow the judiciary to maintain that individuals are not being coerced into using the technology. In situations where the chips are clearly forced on people, the judgments will deem them to be undeniable infringements of the right to privacy. However, they will then invoke the nebulous and historically shifting standard of “reasonableness” to pronounce coerced chipping a reasonable infringement on privacy rights in a context of demands for governmental efficiency and the pressing need to enhance security in light of the still ongoing wars on terror, drugs, and crime.
At this juncture, an unfortunately common tragedy of modern life will occur: A small child, likely a photogenic toddler, will be murdered or horrifically abused. It will happen in one of the media capitals of the Western world, thereby ensuring non-stop breathless coverage. Chip manufactures will recognize this as the opportunity they have been anticipating for years. With their technology now largely bug-free, familiar to most citizens and comparatively inexpensive, manufacturers will partner with the police to launch a high-profile campaign encouraging parents to implant their children “to ensure your own peace of mind.” Special deals will be offered. Implants will be free, providing the family registers for monitoring services. Loving but unnerved parents will be reassured by the ability to integrate tagging with other functions on their PDA so they can see their child any time from any place.
Paralleling these developments will be initiatives that employ the logic of convenience to entice the increasingly small group of holdouts to embrace the now common practice of being tagged. At first, such convenience tagging will be reserved for the highest echelon of Western society, allowing the elite to move unencumbered through the physical and informational corridors of power. Such practices will spread more widely as the benefits of being chipped become more prosaic. Chipped individuals will, for example, move more rapidly through customs.Indeed, it will ultimately become a condition of using mass-transit systems that officials be allowed to monitor your chip. Companies will offer discounts to individuals who pay by using funds stored on their embedded chip, on the small-print condition that the merchant can access large swaths of their personal data. These “discounts” are effectively punitive pricing schemes, charging unchipped individuals more as a way to encourage them to submit to monitoring. Corporations will seek out the personal data in hopes of producing ever more fine-grained customer profiles for marketing purposes, and to sell to other institutions.
By this point all major organizations will be looking for opportunities to capitalize on the possibilities inherent in an almost universally chipped population. The uses of chips proliferate, as do the types of discounts. Each new generation of household technology becomes configured to operate by interacting with a person’s chip. Finding a computer or appliance that will run though old-fashioned “hands-on”’ interactions becomes progressively more difficult and costly. Patients in hospitals and community care will be routinely chipped, allowing medical staff — or, more accurately, remote computers — to monitor their biological systems in real time.Eager to reduce the health costs associated with a largely docile citizenry, authorities will provide tax incentives to individuals who exercise regularly. Personal chips will be remotely monitored to ensure that their heart rate is consistent with an exercise regime.
By now, the actual process of “chipping” for many individuals will simply involve activating certain functions of their existing chip. Any prospect of removing the chip will become increasingly untenable, as having a chip will be a precondition for engaging in the main dynamics of modern life, such as shopping, voting, and driving. The remaining holdouts will grow increasingly weary of Luddite jokes and subtle accusations that they have something to hide. Exasperated at repeatedly watching neighbours bypass them in “chipped” lines while they remain subject to the delays, inconveniences, and costs reserved for the unchipped, they too will choose the path of least resistance and get an implant.
In one generation, then, the cultural distaste many might see as an innate reaction to the prospect of having our bodies marked like those of an inmate in a concentration camp will likely fade. In the coming years some of the most powerful institutional actors in society will start to align themselves to entice, coerce, and occasionally compel the next generation to get an implant. Now, therefore, is the time to contemplate the unprecedented dangers of this scenario. The most serious of these concern how even comparatively stable modern societies will, in times of fear, embrace treacherous promises. How would the prejudices of a Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, or of southern Klansmen — all of whom were deeply integrated into the American political establishment — have manifest themselves in such a world? What might Hitler or Mao have accomplished if their citizens were chipped, coded, and remotely monitored? Choirs of testimonials will soon start to sing the virtues of implants. Calm reassurances will be forthcoming about democratic traditions, the rule of law, and privacy rights. History, unfortunately, shows that things can go disastrously wrong, and that this happens with disconcerting regularity. Little in the way of international agreements, legality, or democratic sensibilities has proved capable of thwarting single-minded ruthlessness."It can’t happen here” has become the whispered swan song of the disappeared. [remember: “Today in Russia, Tomorrow in America."] Best to contemplate these dystopian potentials before we proffer the tender forearms of our sons and daughters. While we cannot anticipate all of the positive advantages that might be derived from this technology, the negative prospects are almost too terrifying to contemplate.
Read Less...
Another Way: A Look into Alternative Ways of Living in an Abnormal World
A band of idealists in the mountains of North Carolina is trying to build a low-energy lifestyle. But must we all live like hippies in the woods to make a difference?
By Joel Achenbach
Washington Post
Sunday, November 19, 2006; W10
THE SOLUTION TO THE ENERGY CRISIS turns out to be, in part, mood lighting. You go with one gentle bulb, a 10-watt number that shoos away enough of the darkness to keep everyone at the table identifiable. We’re having a delicious, if arguably dim, meal on a pleasant summer evening at a place called Earthaven. It’s an “ecovillage.” It’s in western North Carolina, east of Asheville, in a notch in the Blue Ridge Mountains. We’re off the grid, and deep inside one version of the human future.
Susan Lathrop and Kim Rylander, known in the village as Suchi and Kimchi, are hosting me and my guide, Earthaven resident Greg Geis, as I try to figure out how a bunch of suburbanites who’ve fled mainstream America are able to live in the boondocks half an hour by car from the nearest small town, without electrical lines or water mains or flush toilets or streetlights or microwave ovens or washing machines or home entertainment systems or electric garage door openers or fake-log fireplaces operated by remote control or any of the other things that most people consider essential to survival.
Earthaven is not a “commune,” a term now in disfavor (too stale, too ‘70s); the members prefer to call it an “intentional community.” It’s the kind of counterculture social experiment more typically found in places such as Oregon and Northern California. I visited because, while the rest of us worry about gas prices and global warming and terrorists taking over oil fields, the residents of Earthaven have a special approach to energy. They make their own.
Suchi and Kimchi have solar panels that give them enough juice to run a laptop and a coffee grinder and a few low-wattage light bulbs. They follow the weather reports, dialing a local phone number for the latest forecast.
“If I know it’s going to be sunny tomorrow, I know I can be a little more extravagant—put on the Christmas lights for dinner, check my e-mail at night,” Suchi says.
They’re not absolutists, to be sure. They use propane. Even an ecovillage finds it hard to wean itself completely from fossil fuel. With help from a little stove, Suchi and Kimchi have made a fine meal of stir-fried beef with vegetables, basmati rice, garden salad with greens from the community garden, and a blueberry cobbler with berries from the bushes not far from their front door.
There won’t be any leftovers, because it’s all good, and they don’t have a refrigerator. They use coolers. They had a freezer for a while, but it sucked too much energy. When the leaves came out in spring, their solar panels didn’t get enough sunlight. Maybe Suchi and Kimchi needed to add more panels or cut some trees. In the meantime, they simply unplugged the freezer. That’s another solution to the energy crisis. Unplug what you don’t need. They decided they could make do temporarily by hauling ice in milk jugs from an old freezer that’s a few hundred yards away, powered by a small hydroelectric contraption parked on a tumbling stream.
Suchi doesn’t mince words as we talk over dinner about life in the village: “It’s torment living here sometimes—just torment.” But she loves it still, and says, “I have the sanity of living my principles.”
After dinner, I help with the dishes and do what I can to stretch a little pot of hot water heated on the stove. Most of us mainstream people keep a huge tank of the stuff in our homes, say, 30 gallons, maintained at scalding temperatures, at least 160 degrees, even when we’re out of town on a long vacation—in case we need to fly home suddenly and take a bath.
Washing dishes the Earthaven way works acceptably well (though in the gloaming, it’s kind of hard to see what’s happening down there on the plates as you scrub). It’s energy-efficient. It does not require gratuitous amounts of fossil fuel or result in the prodigious emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
When you live like this, you think differently. You think about energy. You think about where it comes from and where it goes. The people of Earthaven have developed a way of life that’s sophisticated, that’s technologically aware, even as it resembles, at first glance, camping. It’s all rather enlightened. Or so you may conclude, after your eyes adjust.
THE KEY TO MODERN LIFE IS STRATEGIC IGNORANCE. There are so many things we don’t know about our lives and that, frankly, we don’t want to know. We don’t know much about the basic things that sustain us. We are clueless “end users” in elaborate industrial supply lines. Energy comes from distant power plants and oil refineries and pipelines and electrical grids, but we don’t think about them when we flick on a light or turn the key in the ignition. We live in a world we didn’t make, by rules and customs and laws we didn’t invent, using tools and technologies we don’t understand.
Even as science teaches us, constantly, that we are part of the fabric of life, that we have a common genetic heritage with all other living things, we continue to hold nature at arm’s length. Predation and cultivation and gathering and even preparation of food have all been outsourced.
Meat in the store has been carefully butchered and wrapped to obscure any association with an actual animal (hence the counterculture movement toward “food with a face"). Novelist Arthur C. Clarke said that when a technology becomes sufficiently advanced it becomes indistinguishable from magic, but he didn’t go far enough: The final advancement comes when the technology ceases to register at all. Electricity, accessed through an outlet, becomes an intrinsic property of residential walls, as are the drywall and the studs. Power comes from a switch. We have the consciousness of small children. We can conjure power at will. It’s a dream world, but one that might not be sustainable.
I’m guessing that for most of us, the only time we really concentrate on energy is at the gas station, because we can feel the fuel surging through the hose and can see the numbers spinning on the pump. The United States uses about 141 billion gallons of gasoline a year. A barrel of oil yields about 19.6 gallons of gasoline, not far off from the capacity of a typical automobile gas tank. If you were really conscious of your gasoline use, you’d say to yourself: There goes another barrel of oil.
Americans make up 5 percent of the global population, and use about 25 percent of the energy. You wake to an electric alarm clock. You grab your cellphone, which has been charging overnight. Your computer monitor is dark, but it’s not really “off,” because it’s one of those vampire appliances that operate in standby mode all the time (the average house has 20 of them, a Cornell study says). Your hot water heater and air conditioning/heating system have been going strong all night, as has your refrigerator, which is a vintage appliance using 7,000 watts a day (and has been keeping the same half-empty jar of exotic mustard chilled since 2002).
You put coffee beans in an electric grinder that sits next to your electric coffee maker that is adjacent to your electric toaster that is struggling to make a frozen waffle edible. National electricity use has doubled in the past three decades. In 1978, 23 percent of American homes had central air; by 2001, 55 percent had it (the booming Sun Belt is also the AC Belt—gone are the days when people cooled themselves by sitting six inches from the fan or by lounging on the porch with a glass of iced tea held to the forehead). Appliances are far more energy-efficient these days, but we make up for that by having more appliances. Only 14 percent of homes had a microwave oven in 1980, but two decades later, 86 percent had one. Your energy statistics are right there on your monthly bill, not that you pay attention. In 2004, the typical household in Washington used 757 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month; Maryland and Virginia, with a greater percentage of stand-alone houses, averaged 1,117 and 1,188 kWh, respectively. Where is your meter? Hidden.
So, too, is the meter that monitors the fuel you use for the hot water heater. It’s easier to sing in the shower when you’re not thinking about the Btus that went into it. The energy the United States used in 2005 came out to about 337 million Btus per person. One British thermal unit is roughly the amount of energy in the head of a match. Collectively, we all struck a lot of matches.
Most of the electricity we use comes from the burning of coal or natural gas, which heats water to create steam and turn turbines. Thus, when you flick on a light, you’re responsible for a certain amount of carbon that goes into the air. You can go online and calculate your “carbon footprint.” Compared with that of most people in the world, mine is Sasquatch-size. I like to drive in the countryside ("motoring," we call it), fly on business a lot, and although my home seems pretty modest, it’s crammed with human beings, including teenagers who leave so many lights on the house can probably be seen from the moon. One Web site calculates that the combustion of a gallon of gas emits 19.55 pounds of atmospheric carbon, and using that standard, driving my six-cylinder Honda Accord for 450 miles from Washington to Earthaven puts about 338 pounds of carbon into the air. Every time my house burns through a kilowatt of electricity, add another 1.32 pounds of CO2. I ran the numbers (guesstimating my household energy use), and the calculator declared that we emitted 47,350 pounds of carbon annually. On a per-capita basis, that’s less than the American average but a long way from being “carbon neutral.”
“If everyone lived at the lifestyle of Americans,” says Jim McMillan, who works on alternative energy for the Department of Energy, “we’d need five planets.”
So how do we change? What’s practical? Sure, we can lower the thermostat in winter, but do we have to wear a parka and a ski mask around the house? Is the right duration for a hot shower two songs, one song or a couple of stanzas? How much energy is “embedded” in each of our consumer decisions? How much fossil fuel did it take to truck that organic salad from California across the country? Does it make environmental sense to wash a glass instead of tossing a cheap Dixie cup in the trash? Desktop computer or laptop? Paper or plastic?
How should we live?
There are those who argue that using energy is, in fact, good. That the solution to the energy crisis will emerge naturally from a full-throttle economy filled with ingenious people, just one of whom has to invent the new thingamajig that yanks energy from the vacuum of space, or whatever. Believers in the genius of the free market will say we should not fret. It’ll work out. Markets solve problems almost magically.
But the business world also tells us to use as much energy as possible. Oil companies are among the planet’s largest and most politically influential corporations. The advertising industry pumps billions of dollars a year into what amounts to an organized campaign to make us into frenetic consumers. The implicit message is: Live it up. Keep buying. More is better.
Earthaven is a low-budget, backwoods advertisement for the alternative view. Its members are attempting to craft a new society, built not around economic growth but around the idea of sustainability and what they call “permaculture,” the goal of creating modes of living that will never damage the planet. And even if they don’t succeed in saving the world, they hope to survive whatever calamity might be coming down the pike.
FROM INTERSTATE 40, YOU DRIVE UP BAT CAVE ROAD FOR ABOUT EIGHT MILES, and if you know where you’re going, you’ll eventually come to a low sign saying “Earthaven Ecovillage.” A gravel road leads down through the trees. A street sign gives the road a name: “Another Way.”
The property has 320 acres fingering the mountain hollows along several converging creeks. You might catch a glimpse of a ridgeline overhead, but there are no grand vistas. Somewhere out there the Blue Ridge Mountains fall away toward the flatland, and in the other direction are the Smokies, but it’s all a bit disorienting. You’re in the woods.
The main street passes by a few structures and over a creek before reaching the humble center of the village. There’s a visitor’s kiosk where you sign in. The White Owl Cafe and the trading post are directly ahead. Off to the left, down a trail and over a footbridge that crosses a stream, is the Hut Hamlet, the first neighborhood on the site. To your right is the Village Green, a pasture where you might see a small cow, named Bridget.
Landscaping is minimal. Woody debris is piled along the creeks. There’s even a junkyard. The place is an aesthetic mishmash, a bit shabbier than an ecovillage ideally would be. As co-founder Chuck Marsh, 55, puts it, “If we’re going to make a place that’s going to inspire others, we’ve got to make it beautiful.”
At the moment, you’d call it interesting. Permaculture emphasizes such “natural” building techniques as using plastered-over straw bales as wall insulation. Windows are tall, for natural lighting, and floors are often concrete, built thick to hold heat in winter and remain cool in summer. One house, in a style known as an “Earthship,” is set into a hillside, with walls made of dirt-filled, salvaged automobile tires.
Rain is precious here. Rooftops channel it into cisterns. Some people draw water from small springs on higher ground. There’s a communal shower with a water-saver button on the shower head (to shut off the flow while you lather up). It is acceptable to pee on the ground, because it nourishes soil that can later be cultivated. “Pee Here Now” a sign will say in a spot that someday will be a garden. There are several communal composting toilets, which are basically outhouses. Sawdust cuts down on odor. Everything eventually is repatriated to the soil. Permaculture is pretty uncompromising.
There are a couple of satellite dishes on the property, but it’s not really a television-watching culture. There’s no cell coverage whatsoever. Residents rely on voice mail, e-mail and—radically in this modern age—face-to-face communication. At one point, my guide Greg Geis said he had to call someone, stepped outside and whistled. It didn’t seem to work, but I got the point. Birds do it; people can do it.
Founded in 1994, Earthaven is less radical than some intentional communities. Members don’t share income. Some older members are affluent and comfortably retired; others find work inside Earthaven, like construction, or hold jobs in nearby towns. The property is communally owned (and fully paid for), but everyone must lease his or her plot of land. Joining costs $4,000, not counting the lease and the additional cost of housing and energy. So you can’t just walk up and pitch a tent. Applicants go through a six-month-minimum trial period and must win approval from everyone else—Earthaven isn’t a democracy but, rather, is governed by consensus.
There are a lot of philosophies swirling through the air here. Feminism runs strong. A men’s movement searches for “the sacred masculine.” There’s a lot of yoga and meditation and holistic healing. You hear references to “radical honesty” and “neo-tribalism.” “The white cultures no longer remember the tribal knowledge their ancestors had,” says a member named Ivy Bolick.
They talk about Peak Oil. That’s the hypothesis that global oil production will soon decrease, triggering a global economic collapse. (Peak Oil is, in a sense, the cure for global warming.)
One day, one of the founders of Earthaven, Arjuna daSilva, invited Greg and me for lunch, which turned out to be a veritable feast of pasta with red sauce, fish with squash and onions, and a leafy salad. We were all feeling fat and happy, even as the conversation turned toward the end of civilization as we know it.
“It’s a little too late to do major salvation of the planet,” Arjuna, who is 60, said. “We’re screwed.”
Will we face a worldwide economic depression?
“That may be the best-case scenario,” Greg said.
“Worldwide depression is what many of us have been hoping for for the last 30 or 40 years,” Arjuna said.
Wipe the slate clean. Start over. It’s an appealing concept when you’re already in the community-invention business.
One night in the Hut Hamlet, a 37-year-old Earthaven member named Robert Carran talked about the coming collapse.
“Something will come to a head in the next five years. Definitely in 10 years. It could happen tomorrow. There’s a term bandied about called Roving Cannibal Hordes.”
He didn’t explain it fully, but the gist seemed to be that, someday, when the mainstream collapses, people will roam the countryside in search of food and energy supplies and, who knows, any source of meat. If the food supply collapses, Robert said, “I’m ready to eat some bugs. Run up in the hills and eat some bugs.”
I questioned that. He backed off.
“I’m not ready to eat bugs,” he admitted.
It’s all a work in progress. There’s no script. They’re making up a lot of it as they go, and there are basic questions they’re still trying to answer. How many people can be supported by 320 acres of land? What is the right number of people for a village? What does it actually mean, to be “sustaining”?
And finally, how do you create—out here in the sticks, with only a tiny labor pool and very little energy—a functioning economy?
THE SUN WAS OUT, AND GREG GEIS WAS MAKING ENERGY. A little meter on the wall told him how much: 12.4 amps of net gain as our friendly star blasted his solar panels. Greg tapped a button on his meter and learned that his batteries were at 85 percent capacity.
The meter is right there in the living room, next to his bulletin board. That’s typical for Earthaven: The meters are centrally located, crucial to life management. If the sun hasn’t been out for days and your batteries are low, you probably shouldn’t watch that movie on the VCR.
Greg has more creature comforts than many of his neighbors. When you enter his residence, you might well hear Pat Matheny coming from the sound system and see Greg typing away on a desktop computer in the corner. He’s not roughing it.
As we talked, the number on his meter began to go down, below 10 amps, below 5 . . . below zero.
A cloud.
“We’re negative. We’re using more power than we’re getting.”
The sun came out again, and the numbers improved. Greg said his batteries would probably soon be back up to 90 percent.
But when I went back the next day, they were still at 85 percent. Had Greg been profligate with electricity? He had fixed dinner for me and his friend Arjuna the night before, and by his calculation we’d used only about 30 watts of illumination over the course of 90 minutes. Something didn’t quite add up.
Greg was my Earthaven guide, graciously taking me all over the place and setting up interviews. He’s 56, soft-spoken, rail thin. He’d like to put on some weight, but he’s a busy man who lives alone and sometimes forgets to eat. Greg came to Earthaven from the corporate world. He had saved a couple of hundred grand as an energy consultant. He wanted to live in the mountains, in the woods, among tumbling waters. “The question for me was whether I wanted to be a monk, a hermit, or wanted to do something with a broader meaning.” When he first showed up at Earthaven, he had an overly ambitious plan to build a spa. That didn’t fly—too corporate. He put his money into his home, and now he’s a village techie, setting up solar power systems and running the micro-hydro electrical generating station (it can put out about 1,000 watts continuously by funneling stream water into smaller and smaller pipes, creating a jet of water that turns a turbine). He can take a hot bath pretty much whenever he wants, thanks to a solar panel that heats water for a bathtub parked (rather conspicuously, the visitor might think) in his front yard, just off the main road.
He has an electric hot water heater under his sink that only holds 2.5 gallons and is usually turned off. I never saw him turn on more than a single, small halogen light bulb. His propane-powered refrigerator is not much bigger than what a college dorm room would use for beer.
“We all tend to be minimalists. We find that people tend to be happier when it’s simple,” he says.
He is not a big believer in ice, because of the energy penalty when the water goes through the phase change.
“That takes 144 Btu, just to cause the water to become a solid,” he says.
Greg’s batteries continued to hover at 85 percent—oddly low, given the sunny days.
At about 1 the next morning, Greg looked at his meter. It should have been completely quiescent. Off. Blank. No numbers. But it was still on, showing a negative number.
He surveyed his electrical possessions and tried to figure out what could possibly be sucking energy. Finally, it occurred to him: His tenant, away several days, must have left something on.
The next morning at the crack of dawn he walked to the little rental unit a few strides from his own home, and went inside and saw the culprit: The tenant had left her computer on. He yanked the cord out of the wall. He later did a calculation: 1,800 watts down the drain.
“For no reason! There’s nobody there!”
MAYBE SOMEDAY OUR ENERGY PROBLEMS WILL GO AWAY, vanquished by human ingenuity. Right now, we have an energy crisis, even though politicians and the media don’t upper-case the term the way they did in the 1970s. Back then, we worried about Arab oil embargoes and long gas lines. We worried about smog. We worried that we were running out of oil. President Carter famously described his efforts to solve the Energy Crisis as “the moral equivalent of war.” Turn down your thermostat in winter, he said, and put on a sweater. He even wore sweaters himself to show how it could be done.
Americans did, in fact, conserve. They made do with less electricity. They bought energy-efficient appliances. Auto companies, forced to abide by new fuel-efficiency laws, stopped making so many eight-cylinder gas guzzlers. But somewhere along the way we took a detour. The political and cultural climate changed. The word “conservation” gave way to the less loaded term “energy efficiency.”
Marilyn Brown, a Georgia Tech professor of energy policy, says the government decided after the 1970s that it shouldn’t tell people how to live.
“We were wanting not to characterize saving energy as having to live in the cold and the dark,” she says. The emphasis was on using energy wisely, “as opposed to suffering. The whole Jimmy-Carter-wearing-a-sweater.”
The Carter approach seemed to some people to be weak, timid, lacking in confidence. Americans are supposedly a muscular, energetic, independent bunch of folks, living large, always fighting with the urge to light out for the territory like Huck Finn, only not on a raft but in a sport utility vehicle. Meanwhile, in suburbia and exurbia, the newly affluent have had no compunction about expanding their homes to 4,000 square feet or 6,000 or even 8,000, with seldom-used formal living and dining rooms, overwrought guest bedrooms, auxiliary kitchens and even, perhaps, a conservatory on the off chance that someone will drop by to play the violin.
And so we wound up back where we started: worried about energy. Worried about the supply, worried about the demand. Worried about the political consequences of needing it and the environmental hazards of using it. Worried that it’s killing us coming and going.
The big problem of energy supply isn’t that we’re in danger of suddenly running out. We’ve got a couple of hundred years’ worth of coal in the ground, just for starters. And the Peak Oil theory collides with a long history of human ingenuity. The Pennsylvania geologist J.P. Lesley warned that the amazing production of oil in recent decades was a “temporary and vanishing phenomenon.” That was in 1886. (I noticed that some older folks at Earthaven didn’t buy into Peak Oil. “I think it’s fear-based,” Chuck Marsh says.)
The real energy dilemma is geopolitical and atmospheric. The United States imports 60 percent of its oil, much of it from places where even our friends seem to hate us.
Energy security has become a hot-button political issue. And then there’s the whole issue of global warming. By burning coal, oil and gas, we are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and throwing the global climate out of whack. There aren’t a lot of people, outside of the coal industry and Exxon Mobil, who think business as usual will be healthy for the planet. We need to keep that carbon in the ground and out of the air. Our long-term challenge may not be a lack of fossil fuel, but an abundance.
What if we could do with less?
Part of the problem is that we never run out of new ways to use energy. Free-market advocates point to a confounding fact about energy efficiency: It often leads to more
energy use, not less. The reason is that a technology that makes something more energy-efficient can also be used more broadly, in novel ways. Think about the amazing
advances in computer chips, which didn’t simply make those bulky old mainframe computers smaller; the new microchips made possible the desktop computer, then the laptop, then the BlackBerry and all the other gadgetry that marks our lives. Someday your eyeglasses will always be online.
Energy use is calculated every year by the federal government, and from certain angles the numbers look encouraging. As we’ve shifted from an industrial to a service economy, we’ve gotten a lot more economic bang per Btu—about 9,000 Btus per dollar of gross domestic product, compared with nearly 17,000 Btus per dollar three decades ago. But the economy has also tripled in that time, overwhelming the sizable gains in energy efficiency. Our total energy use (and carbon output) keeps going up and up and up. In 2004, we hit a national milestone: 100 quadrillion Btus.
The Department of Energy estimates that global energy use will triple by the end of this century. China wants to build 500 coal-fired electrical plants. The global population of 6.5 billion is expected to rise to at least 9 billion. At the moment, 1.6 billion people don’t have electricity. They’re all going to want it. In half a century, the planet is probably going to have 2 billion cars.
Finding a way to give people the energy, food, water, shelter, clothes, toys and entertainment they demand is going to be hard enough; doing it without roasting the planet is yet more daunting.
We hear all the time about alternative energy sources—biomass, butanol, cellulosic ethanol, fuel cells, photovoltaics, wind farms, geothermal, hydroelectric, “the hydrogen economy.” But even in aggregate, new energy technologies have to overcome the fact that fossil fuels, for all their faults, are rather marvelous. They’re buried in the ground beneath our feet as though waiting for us to find them and use them. They pack a lot of energy into a small amount of matter. They can be easily stored and transported at normal temperatures (unlike, for example, hydrogen). New technologies have to outcompete the old ones.
There are technological optimists who say we have the know-how to solve the climate problem. They say it’s a matter of political will. Many argue that the government has to find a way to factor in the long-term cost of climate change. Right now, carbon emissions are what economists call an “externality,” a cost not included in the price of energy (just as health-care costs aren’t factored into the price of cigarettes). One possibility would be some kind of carbon tax, or a “cap and trade” system that gives companies a financial incentive to cut emissions. The convoluted details of such schemes tend to be a bureaucrat’s dream.
Al Gore has endorsed the “wedge” approach of two scientists, Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala. They argue that we need to remove 7 billion tons of carbon—seven wedges—from what we’re currently projected to emit into the air in mid-century. They believe there are at least 15 potential wedges in their pie-shaped model. We could increase solar power 700-fold. We could stop deforestation. We could double nuclear power. We could increase wind power 80-fold to make hydrogen fuel cells for cars. Some of these ideas may be more difficult to achieve than others, but none of them requires a breakthrough in physics. These technologies exist and are already being used. And three “wedges” can come from energy efficiency and conservation: cutting electricity in homes and businesses; doubling fuel economy from 30 to 60 miles per gallon; driving 5,000 miles a year on average instead of 10,000.
One idea (and potential wedge), already in use by Norway, is burying CO2 underground. The crust of Earth is porous. “Carbon sequestration” captures CO2 at its origin in a power plant and pipes it deep into the ground, into depleted oil and natural gas reservoirs. But the scale of such an enterprise is daunting: “Just to give you an idea on a volume basis, you could be looking at Great Lakes’ worth of carbon dioxide,” says Scott Klara, who works on coal research for the Department of Energy.
Ethanol, already in mass production, offers a modest improvement over the carbon emissions of gasoline. But there may be better results from the next generation of ethanol, which will come not from corn kernels, but from cornstalks and other inedible forms of biomass. Still, transportation costs skyrocket as ethanol factories get larger and require biomass to be hauled from ever-greater distances. Jim McMillan, who works on biomass for DOE, asks: “Do we truck it? Do we barge it? Do we rail it? Do we do some preprocessing of it at the farm? Do we slurry pipeline it?” Cornstalks won’t walk to the factory.
Wind power is booming. James A. Johnson, senior mechanical engineer with the National Wind Technology Center, says the design of wind turbines has greatly improved, and more turbines will come online in the next year than in the past 25 years combined. The problem with wind is not technological, but political, as wind farms run into the NIMBY problem: Not In My Back Yard. People living on Cape Cod or Martha’s Vineyard, for example, have made it clear they want to gaze upon sailboats, not big metallic contraptions.
The photovoltaic industry is thriving, nearly doubling in size every couple of years with a boost from tax rebates. But going solar is still, at the moment, much more expensive than buying electricity from your local utility. You might pay 46 cents for a kilowatt-hour of solar energy, but only 8 or 9 cents a kilowatt-hour from the power company. “The technology needs to improve. Efficiencies need to improve. And then the production scale has to increase in order to bring costs down,” says Tom Surek, manager of the photovoltaic program at DOE’s Natural Renewable Energy Laboratory.
The nuclear power industry boasts that it produces no greenhouse gases. But nuclear has its own set of issues, including disposal of nuclear waste, terrorism fears and the sheer cost of building nuclear plants.
The U.S. Department of Energy recently came up with a comprehensive blueprint for future action. Five years in the making, the “Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan” is what you’d expect from the title: a technophile’s handbook. The word “conservation” pops up in passing on Page 2 of the introduction, but this is not the place you’ll find advice to turn down the thermostat in winter. We can finesse the global warming problem with “the power of markets and technological innovation,” the report states. Human beings are essentially nowhere to be found in the document. In the calculations of energy use, Americans are not a variable but a constant. There’s an assumption, stated explicitly at the outset of the report, that there will be “a continuation of existing patterns and trends in energy use.”
We won’t change. That’s the official word.
FOR A PLACE DEDICATED TO BEING SUSTAINABLE, Earthaven has a fundamental problem: It’s not. Not even close. No one pretends otherwise. There’s not enough money, not enough labor.
“There’s just not enough people here,” longtime member Sue Stone says.
You can’t buy a sandwich at Earthaven. You can’t even buy a loaf of bread. You can buy a dozen organic eggs from a little farm in the center of the village, but no orange juice. There’s a trading post that doubles as an Internet cafe, but it doesn’t have enough of a customer base to carry much merchandise. For a quarter you can buy a cigarette, but you have to roll it yourself.
A dentist would be nice. Greg Geis has a cracked tooth. “I haven’t had my eyes checked for nine years,” he told me.
Washing clothes is a dilemma. There’s no working laundromat yet, and most people take their laundry down the mountain into town. They’d rather not jump in a car, but being a purist isn’t an option at the moment. Tracy Kunkler, for example, briefly carpooled into Asheville on Monday mornings with another of the single moms. They would dash from one errand to another—laundromat, grocery store, bank, hardware store, etc.—with three boys, ages 3 to 7, crammed into the back seat of Kunkler’s Honda Civic. It was chaotic and exhausting. The carpooling plan was what turned out to be non-sustainable. They now drive separately.
“I’m not going to make myself crazy on a Monday with three kids in the back seat. That’s the line I draw,” says Kunkler, 37. “We’re not martyring ourselves.”
For Earthaven to make the next leap forward, it has to solve the basic problem of feeding itself. A community garden helps, but it’s not enough. That’s where Gateway Farm comes in. Anywhere else, the plowed field near the entrance to Earthaven would hardly be worth a second glance. Here, it represents a tremendous change. A gamble, really.
Chris Farmer—everyone just calls him “Farmer”—is the appropriately named driving force behind Gateway Farm. He’s 35, sunburned, muscles taut from hard labor. He grew up mostly in Bethesda and spent a couple of years at Whitman High before his family moved away. While in college, he “had a realization one day that I hadn’t eaten a single thing in my life that I knew where it came from.” Nine years ago, he came to Earthaven, living in an old-fashioned canvas tent for two years, sleeping on a futon, reading by candle-light. On the coldest winter nights he’d boil water, seal it in a Mason jar, wrap the jar in a towel and put it under his blanket. He’d wake up and try to take a sip from his canteen and get nothing. Solid ice.
Almost every week he thought of leaving, but stuck it out. He built himself a microhut, 10.5 feet by 10.5 feet on the inside. He looks around today and wonders: “How do you take a bunch of overeducated suburban refugees and help them train themselves to build a village in the woods?”
The key, he believes, is entrepreneurship. Building an economy. He’s among those who talk of markets, economies of scale, of expanding the definition of “sustainability” to include a larger bioregion defined by the watershed of Cedar Creek.
Last year Farmer, in partnership with a young Earthaven member named Brian Love, persuaded the village council to let them clear four acres of land. It was an agonizing decision. These were people committed to protecting the environment, not ravaging it.
Farmer and Brian and a team of co-workers first built a sweat lodge, a little structure in which they sat naked among stones heated in a fire, and contemplated what they were about to do. An old Indian ritual.
Then they brought in a huge, diesel-guzzling, smoke-belching industrial tractor and ripped out trees and dug out the stumps and piled the brush along the creek. It was, as Farmer put it, “ecological brutality.” He felt a scar on his soul. But he also felt honest.
Humans require food. Earthaven would never be sustainable, never be a real ecovillage, until it could feed itself. Farmer had a guiding principle: It is essential, he says, to “bring the effects of our actions within the horizon of lived experience.” Translation: Someone who can’t stand the idea of cleared land should give up eating vegetables. “They’re not growing under tulip poplar trees.”
If they can get the farm going, they might be able to create biofuel from their crops rather than buy gas and propane from mainstream sources. They could grow vegetables. Raise livestock. They’ve dug a pond for aquaculture (fishing, etc.).
It all takes money, labor, imagination and energy. It’s ambitious. There are times when Farmer sounds as though he’s been reading the Wall Street Journal.
“We’re undercapitalized, and we’re under-entrepreneurized,” he says. “Unless we’re just a bunch of hippies living in the woods.”
JUST A BUNCH OF HIPPIES . . .
Yeah, you could probably make a case for that if you wanted. There’s a lot going on at Earthaven that’s not exactly . . . linear. Being off the grid is just one element of being an “alternative community.” “It’s a social experiment that’s packaged up as environmental awareness-slash-conservation,” Kimchi says. Traditional families are rare. Earthaven has little kids scampering around, and they go to a school on the property, but there’s only a single teenager. Because teenagers find the place boring. “Teenagers just don’t do well here,” Marjorie Vestal says. “They want their peers, they want technology, they want sports, they want to be invisible.”
Privacy is rare, romantic life transparent. One person’s problems become everyone’s problems. “We almost read each other’s minds,” Greg said at one point. If you don’t work hard enough or create a bad vibe, you might be called to face the community in what is known as a Heartshare. Operating by consensus is not exactly fast and efficient. One person can block an initiative. “We can spend years discussing whether one particular word should be included in the bylaws,” Greg said.
Could the rest of us live this way?
Um, no. Not unless held at gunpoint. Most of us aren’t moving to Earthaven or anything like it. On the official Earthaven tour, a banker with a small farm who was taking the tour just to get tips on animal husbandry, shook his head at the thought of living by consensus with lots of other people. “That’d kill me,” he said.
What the visitor realizes at Earthaven is how much energy is expended in mainstream culture just keeping other people out of our hair. There’s a reason everyone on the block drives separately to the grocery store. It’s a waste of energy but, arguably, a rational purchase of independence. For the most part, we don’t use energy to be powerful; we use it to be alone.
And yet for all its imperfections and eccentricities, there’s a lot that’s right about Earthaven. There’s an honesty and directness, not only in the approach to energy but in every aspect of daily life. The people here are self-aware, awake, perceptive. They work hard. They don’t do things the easy way. And I never heard anyone try to hype the place. No one pretends that Another Way is an easy road to travel. They don’t even argue that they represent the future of the planet.
“I don’t think the future is going to be in isolated rural communities like this,” Sue Stone says.
Mall culture, Chuck Marsh says, isn’t going to be changed by “this little experiment that we’re doing in the woods.”
But in the same way that Earthaven is gradually adopting ideas from the mainstream—pushing entrepreneurship, building an economy—the mainstream may have no choice one day but to adopt some ideas from Earthaven. Starting with being conscious about energy.
Cities, where most of us live, are where the battle for energy efficiency has to be won. Fleeing to the woods isn’t an option to begin with. There are not enough resources in the world to allow all 6.5 billion (or 8 or 9 or 10 billion) people to live in their own little Earthaven, says John Anderson, an engineer with Rocky Mountain Institute in Boulder, Colo. And because of their density and higher use of public transportation, cities can actually have a low carbon footprint per capita. “One of the least carbon-intensive places on Earth is Manhattan,” Anderson says.
Individuals—the “end users” in this whole energy drama—can create one of those billion-ton carbon wedges. And being green doesn’t necessarily mean suffering. Many of the things that save energy also improve lives. City planners are trying to design communities with less distance between where people live and work; less time stuck in traffic jams saves energy and sanity simultaneously. Green architecture places an emphasis on natural light—a nice thing in and of itself. Greg’s house at Earthaven is pleasant without any artificial lighting during the day. There’s a big light out there in space, 93 million miles away, doing all the hard work.
Switching to an energy-efficient refrigerator saves money in the long run, and lots of energy. Eating local foods rather than something shipped from California or Brazil or New Zealand may be pleasant on the palate—local often means fresher.
The federal government estimates that if you switch five high-energy light bulbs with Energy Star bulbs, you’ll save $60 a year. If everyone in America did that, we’d delete from our greenhouse emissions the equivalent of what’s emitted annually by 21 power plants.
Mainstream culture can be cynical about those who are self-consciously green. To be ecologically centered is to be eccentric. To tread softly on the planet is to be “crunchy.” What Earthaven seeks to be, an “ecovillage,” at first blush may sound a bit silly, a bit theme-parkish. But the mainstream is its own vast theme park, built around the themes of consumption, convenience and more of everything. We talk a good game about nature, even as we become more and more removed from it. We’re all environmentalists these days but cannot imagine life without paper towels and a microwave.
Change is hard. We have to start somewhere.
“You pick your battles,” Farmer says. “Often the perfect is the enemy of the good.”
When I got home from Earthaven, the first thing I did was turn off some lights.
Joel Achenbach is a staff writer for the Magazine and can be reached at achenbachj@washpost.com
He will be fielding questions and comments about this article Monday at noon.
Read Less...
How Roman Catholic Leaders Are Selling Their Faith for “30 Pieces of Silver”
<< Cardinal Bernard Law, the former archbishop of Boston, followed the late pope’s example at a suburban mosque in 2002. As the Boston Globe reported on Nov. 25, 2002, “Law removed his shoes. Then, as the imam chanted the sunset prayers, the bishop knelt with his forehead just inches from the carpet and offered praise to Allah.” Afterward, Law partook of the meal that breaks the day-long Ramadan fast. ''I feel very much at home with my fellow fundamentalists here,” Law said, “who are convinced that God must be at the center of our lives.” >>
-- This article further illustrates the deluded and apostate state of the leadership of Roman Catholicism. This tragedy of the further apostasy of the leadership of Roman Catholicism should only go to drive home in the hearts and heads of every Orthodox Christian our own hierarchy’s tragic error in identifying themselves with such a decrepit and dying institution.
SLOUCHING TOWARD SUICIDE
By Joseph D’Hippolito
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 13, 2006
During his visit to Germany, Pope Benedict XVI stunned the world on Sept. 12 by issuing a subtle, discreet yet formidable challenge to Islam – a challenge that drew praise from various observers.
The pope’s rhetoric, however, contrasts with his failure to confront a more fundamental problem: the Catholic Church’s willingness to concede its own worship space to Muslims, without regard for the consequences.
In Europe and the United States, Catholic authorities have encouraged the transformation of Catholic schools and churches into Muslim schools and mosques. One order of friars is helping Italian Muslims build a mosque right next to its monastery. In Belgium, meanwhile, the Catholic bishops let illegal Muslim immigrants live and worship in churches to force the government to grant amnesty.
Those same Catholic authorities would not grant similar concessions to Protestants or Eastern Orthodox, whose theologies are infinitely more similar.
Given the violent, anti-Semitic and anti-Western ideology permeating contemporary Islam – as well as decades of massive Muslim immigration to Europe – the implications are obvious.
“While Western Europe is turning Muslim, its Christian churches are committing suicide,” wrote The Brussels Journal’s Paul Belien in May.
The Norwegian author Fjordman expressed the situation less dramatically but no less accurately for the same outlet in September: “The ideological civil war within the West is not just between secularists and religious people; it runs straight through the Church itself.”
The Catholic Church’s problem has its roots in an ecumenism that borders on syncretism and a sense of compassion that crosses into indulgence. Pope John Paul II set the example by praying in a Damascus mosque during his 2001 trip to the Middle East.
Cardinal Bernard Law, the former archbishop of Boston, followed the late pope’s example at a suburban mosque in 2002. As the Boston Globe reported on Nov. 25, 2002, “Law removed his shoes. Then, as the imam chanted the sunset prayers, the bishop knelt with his forehead just inches from the carpet and offered praise to Allah.”
Afterward, Law partook of the meal that breaks the day-long Ramadan fast. ‘’I feel very much at home with my fellow fundamentalists here,” Law said, “who are convinced that God must be at the center of our lives.”
Law’s basic attitude appears to be prevailing as Catholicism declines in the West. In Detroit, Our Lady Help of the Christians Catholic Church held its final Mass on Oct. 29. The Archdiocese of Detroit sold the church’s property to the Islamic Center of North Detroit, which plans to convert the complex into a mosque, an Islamic community center and a school for the neighborhood of Bangladeshi immigrants.
The archdiocese had leased another one of its properties to Muslims, the Detroit News reported Oct. 27, but did not disclose the location. The church, built in 1923 for Polish immigrants, was serving just 124 families when it closed.
The same month in Italy, the Capuchin Franciscan friars agreed to help the Union of Islamic Communities and Organizations in Italy (UCOII) build a mosque in Genoa immediately adjacent to one of its monasteries. The order agreed to exchange the land for an abandoned factory that the union had planned to convert into a mosque – and even agreed to build the new mosque’s foundation.
One of the deal’s most vociferous opponents is Magri Alam, an Egyptian immigrant to Italy who became a conservative journalist and a passionate critic of radical Islam.
In the Oct. 16 edition of the Milan daily Corriere della Sera, Alam wrote that the UCOII encourages “an extremist version of the Qu’ran, where Christians, Jews and Westerners are criminalized, as well as women and other Muslims who don’t submit to their rule.”
The union’s president, Mohammed Nour Dachan, has refused to sign a document in which Muslims pledged to accept Italy’s constitution, denounce terrorism and recognize Israel’s right to exist. His organization also demands Islamic schools, Islamic banks and clerical supervision of textbooks, as Front Page Magazine reported in its article, “How Will Rome Face Mecca?”
In Glasgow in 2003, Catholic officials approved attempts by Muslims to turn St. Albert’s School into an Islamic institution. More than 90 percent of the school’s 360 students were Muslim.
“We are in favor of Muslim schools,” an unidentified church spokesman told Edinburgh’s The Scotsman on Nov. 23, 2003. “We support faith schools across the board. In the case of St. Albert’s, we see a school in which for 95 percent of the children, the festival of Eid has more significance than Christmas or Easter. It is de facto not a Catholic school.”
The Catholic Establishment’s indulgent sense of compassion manifests itself most powerfully in its attitude toward immigrants. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster in London, demonstrated that attitude in his May 1, 2006 sermon at Westminster Cathedral: “In migrants, the Church has always contemplated the image of Christ who said, “I was a stranger and you made me welcome” (Matthew 25:35). Their condition is, therefore, a challenge to the faith and love of believers who are called on to heal the evils caused by migration and discover the plan God pursues through migration even when there are obvious injustices. God’s appeal, made so forcefully in both the Old and the New Testaments, is for fraternity – for there to be new bonds of friendship forged between newcomer and native.
“The Church does not approve of illegal immigration…But nor can the Church ignore the plight among us of those who are here without legal status…We stand in solidarity with you too.” The Church, said Pope John Paul II in his migration day message, “is the place where illegal immigrants are also recognized and welcomed as brothers and sisters.”
“It is one of the central tasks of Christians – a constant theme of the Old and New Testaments – to offer hospitality to the exile and the stranger, seeing in him and her, the face of Christ. Faith in the presence of Christ in the migrant leads to a conversion of mind and heart, which leads to a renewed spirit of communion.”
The Catholic Establishment is so infatuated with creating such a spirit that it refuses to ask immigrants even to show a fundamental respect for others, let alone to assimilate into their new societies and obey the laws. Perhaps this is most true in Belgium, where the bishops encourage illegal Muslim immigrants to take over churches in virtually every diocese.
Since the late 1990’s, Belgium’s bishops have turned their churches into immigrant centers as part of a campaign to intimidate the government into granting amnesty. Such a campaign in 2000 forced the government to legalize 50,000 immigrants.
In March, Belgian Home Secretary Patrick Dewael granted residency permits to 60 Muslim squatters at St. Boniface Church in suburban Brussels after all 118 squatters went on a hunger strike. Then came the deluge. By mid-May, more than 30 Catholic churches throughout Belgium were occupied by illegal immigrants, the vast majority of them Muslim. About 300 Africans occupied Antwerp’s Magdalena Chapel; other churches had more than 700 squatters living inside.
The squatters also conduct Muslim services in the churches; a banner bearing the word “Allah” in Arabic hung in Our Lady of Perpetual Succor Church in Brussels.
Pictures from the same church showed squatters’ tents – gifts from Catholic relief agencies – filling floor space in the sanctuary, computer tables standing near the pulpit – and a group of people lighting a fire on the church floor.
Our Lady of Perpetual Succor has not been the only site for such activities. Father Herwig Arts, a conservative author, described the scene at Antwerp’s Jesuit chapel for the daily Gazet van Antwerpen in 1998:
“(Immigrants) removed the tabernacle, (and) installed a television set and radios, depriving us of the opportunity to pray in our own chapel and say Mass. It has upset me very much. For me, the place has been desecrated. I feel I cannot enter it anymore.”
Yet the Belgian bishops do not care about such trivia as the desecration of their own worship space.
“Everybody is entitled to a good place in our society. Also illegal fugitives,” said Monsignor Luc van Looy, the bishop of Ghent.
“Solidarity cannot be limited to one’s own nation,” added Cardinal Godfried Danneels, the archbishop of Brussels and Belgium’s leading prelate.
As The Brussels Journal reported on May 5, “Father Arts was severely criticized for his comments. Today he remains silent, as do all Catholic priests…”
Even the Vatican supports the bishops. Monsignor Karl-Josef Rauber – the Holy See’s nuncio, or diplomatic representative, to Belgium – told the leftist daily De Morgen on May 10 that “the Church has always sided with the weak.” But public criticism forced Rauber’s office to retreat slightly. On May 11, the Brussels daily De Standaard published this quote from Rauber’s office: “The nuncio cannot interfere in this issue. However, whatever the Belgian bishops say, the nuncio supports them because the bishops are wise men.
Ironically, the nuncio and the bishops are violating official church policy as expressed in paragraph 61 of the 2004 document, Erga Migrantes Caritas Christi (The Love of Christ towards Migrants):
“To avoid misunderstandings and confusion, and considering the religious diversity that we mutually recognize, and out of respect for sacred places and the religion of the other too, we do not consider it opportune for Christian churches, chapels, places of worship or other places reserved for evangelization and pastoral work to be made available for members of non-Christian religions. Still less should they be used to obtain recognition of demands made on the public authorities.”
Without papal enforcement through canon law, however, such a policy is merely ink on paper.
“Benedict XVI understands that Catholicism is in trouble in Europe,” Tom Bethell wrote in the October edition of The American Spectator, “but has not yet shown that he has the courage to do anything about it.”
Read Less...
An Unmistakable “Sign of the Times”: “Britons ‘could be microchipped like dogs in a decade‘“
What should an Orthodox Christian think when he sees people opening talking about the probablity of whole societies advocating and implementing the implantation of microchips under their skin for “security” reasons and “peace of mind” and the like? Well perhaps the following passages of Holy Scripture ought to come to mind:
“For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief” (1 Th. 5:3)
Or, “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God...” (Rev. 14:9).
But above all, such articles should only reinforce the following words of the Saviour:
“And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass,and to stand before the Son of man” (Lk. 21:36).
Read it on the original web page.
Britons ‘could be microchipped like dogs in a decade’
30.10.06
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news
Experts predict that humans could soon have ID chips implanted under the skin
Human beings may be forced to be ‘microchipped’ like pet dogs, a shocking official report into the rise of the Big Brother state has warned.
The microchips - which are implanted under the skin - allow the wearer’s movements to be tracked and store personal information about them.
They could be used by companies who want to keep tabs on an employee’s movements or by Governments who want a foolproof way of identifying their citizens - and storing information about them.
The prospect of ‘chip-citizens’ - with its terrifying echoes of George Orwell’s ‘Big Brother’ police state in the book 1984 - was raised in an official report for Britain’s Information Commissioner Richard Thomas into the spread of surveillance technology.
The report, drawn up by a team of respected academics, claims that Britain is a world-leader in the use of surveillance technology and its citizens the most spied-upon in the free world.
It paints a frightening picture of what Britain might be like in ten years time unless steps are taken to regulate the use of CCTV and other spy technologies.
The reports editors Dr David Murakami Wood, managing editor of the journal Surveillance and Society and Dr Kirstie Ball, an Open University lecturer in Organisation Studies, claim that by 2016 our almost every movement, purchase and communication could be monitored by a complex network of interlinking surveillance technologies.
The most contentious prediction is the spread in the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology.
The RFID chips - which can be detected and read by radio waves - are already used in new UK passports and are also used the Oyster card system to access the London Transport network.
For the past six years European countries have been using RFID chips to identify pet animals.
Already used in America
However, its use in humans has already been trialled in America, where the chips were implanted in 70 mentally-ill elderly people in order to track their movements.
And earlier this year a security company in Ohio chipped two of its employees to allow them to enter a secure area. The glass-encased chips were planted in the recipients’ upper right arms and ‘read’ by a device similar to a credit card reader.
In their Report on the Surveillance Society, the authors now warn: ”The call for everyone to be implanted is now being seriously debated.”
The authors also highlight the Government’s huge enthusiasm for CCTV, pointing out that during the 1990s the Home Office spent 78 per cent of its crime prevention budget - a total of £500 million - on installing the cameras.
There are now 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain and the average Briton is caught on camera an astonishing 300 times every day.
This huge enthusiasm comes despite official Home Office statistics showing that CCTV cameras have ‘little effect on crime levels’.
They write: “The surveillance society has come about us without us realising”, adding: “Some of it is essential for providing the services we need: health, benefits, education. Some of it is more questionable. Some of it may be unjustified, intrusive and oppressive.”
Yesterday Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, whose office is investigating the Post Office, HSBC, NatWest and the Royal Bank of Scotland over claims they dumped sensitive customer details in the street, said: “Many of these schemes are public sector driven, and the individual has no choice over whether or not to take part.”
”People are being scrutinised and having their lives tracked, and are not even aware of it.”
He has also voiced his concern about the consequences of companies, or Government agencies, building up too much personal information about someone.
He said: “It can stigmatise people. I have worries about technology being used to identify classes of people who present some kind of risk to society. And I think there are real anxieties about that.”
Yesterday a spokesman for civil liberties campaigners Liberty said: “We have got nothing about these surveillance technologies in themselves, but it is their potential uses about which there are legitimate fears. Unless their uses are regulated properly, people really could find themselves living in a surveillance society.
“There is a rather scary underlying feeling that people may worry that these microchips are less about being a human being than becoming a barcoded product.”
Read Less...
Apocalypse Now: The Convergence of Three Religions in Expectation of Basically One Man
What do mega-church pastors, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Jewish groups in Jerusalem all have in common? They are all awaiting their “messiah” who will reign on earth. They are all chiliasts, or hold the belief that their respective kingdoms and messiahs will set up their reign on earth. But, this will actually be the reign of Antichrist, for Christ’s kingdom is “not of this world.” He has “no place to lay His head” below. His reign is eternal, as we confess in the Symbol of Faith of Nicea (and have for 1700 years): “And [He] shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.” On the other hand, he who will attempt to set up a kingdom on earth over the entire earth will be none other than the Antichrist - apparently he who these three religions (or sects within religions) are expecting…
Read the original story here.
‘End Times’ Religious Groups Want Apocalypse Soon
‘End times’ religious groups want apocalypse sooner than later, and they’re relying on high tech—and red heifers—to hasten its arrival.
By Louis Sahagun, Times Staff Writer
June 22, 2006
For thousands of years, prophets have predicted the end of the world. Today, various religious groups, using the latest technology, are trying to hasten it.
Their endgame is to speed the promised arrival of a messiah.
For some Christians this means laying the groundwork for Armageddon.
With that goal in mind, mega-church pastors recently met in Inglewood to polish strategies for using global communications and aircraft to transport missionaries to fulfill the Great Commission: to make every person on Earth aware of Jesus’ message. Doing so, they believe, will bring about the end, perhaps within two decades.
In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a far different vision. As mayor of Tehran in 2004, he spent millions on improvements to make the city more welcoming for the return of a Muslim messiah known as the Mahdi, according to a recent report by the American Foreign Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank.
To the majority of Shiites, the Mahdi was the last of the prophet Muhammad’s true heirs, his 12 righteous descendants chosen by God to lead the faithful.
Ahmadinejad hopes to welcome the Mahdi to Tehran within two years.
Conversely, some Jewish groups in Jerusalem hope to clear the path for their own messiah by rebuilding a temple on a site now occupied by one of Islam’s holiest shrines.
Artisans have re-created priestly robes of white linen, gem-studded breastplates, silver trumpets and solid-gold menorahs to be used in the Holy Temple — along with two 6½-ton marble cornerstones for the building’s foundation.
Then there is Clyde Lott, a Mississippi revivalist preacher and cattle rancher. He is trying to raise a unique herd of red heifers to satisfy an obscure injunction in the Book of Numbers: the sacrifice of a blemish-free red heifer for purification rituals needed to pave the way for the messiah.
So far, only one of his cows has been verified by rabbis as worthy, meaning they failed to turn up even three white or black hairs on the animal’s body.
Linking these efforts is a belief that modern technologies and global communications have made it possible to induce completion of God’s plan within this generation.
Though there are myriad interpretations of how it will play out, the basic Christian apocalyptic countdown — as described by the Book of Revelation in the New Testament — is as follows:
Jews return to Israel after 2,000 years, the Holy Temple is rebuilt, billions of people perish during seven years of natural disasters and plagues, the antichrist arises and rules the world, the battle of Armageddon erupts in the vicinity of Israel, Jesus returns to defeat Satan’s armies and preside over Judgment Day.
Generations of Christians have hoped for the Second Coming of Jesus, said UCLA historian Eugen Weber, author of the 1999 book “Apocalypses: Prophecies, Cults and Millennial Beliefs Through the Ages.”
“And it’s always been an ultimately bloody hope, a slaughterhouse hope,” he added with a sigh. “What we have now in this global age is a vaster and bloodier-than-ever Wagnerian version. But, then, we are a very imaginative race.”
Apocalyptic movements are nothing new; even Christopher Columbus hoped to assist in the Great Commission by evangelizing New World inhabitants.
Some religious scholars saw apocalyptic fever rise as the year 2000 approached, and they expected it to subside after the millennium arrived without a hitch.
It didn’t. According to various polls, an estimated 40% of Americans believe that a sequence of events presaging the end times is already underway. Among the believers are pastors of some of the largest evangelical churches in America, who converged at Faith Central Bible Church in Inglewood in February to finalize plans to start 5 million new churches worldwide in 10 years.
“Jesus Christ commissioned his disciples to go to the ends of the Earth and tell everyone how they could achieve eternal life,” said James Davis, president of the Global Pastors Network’s “Billion Souls Initiative,” one of an estimated 2,000 initiatives worldwide designed to boost the Christian population.
“As we advance around the world,” Davis said, “we’ll be shortening the time needed to fulfill that Great Commission. Then, the Bible says, the end will come.”
An opposing vision, invoked by Ahmadinejad in an address before the United Nations last year, suggests that the Imam Mahdi, a 9th century figure, will soon emerge from a well to conquer the world and convert everyone to Islam.
“O mighty Lord,” he said, “I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace.”
At the appropriate time, according to Shiite tradition, the Mahdi will reappear and, along with Jesus, lead Muslims in a struggle to rid the world of corruption and establish justice.
For Christians, the future of Israel is the key to any end-times scenario, and various groups are reaching out to Jews — or proselytizing among them — to advance the Second Coming.
A growing number of fundamentalist Christians in mostly Southern states are adopting Jewish religious practices to align themselves with prophecies saying that Gentiles will stand as one with Jews when the end is near.
Evangelist John C. Hagee of the 19,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio has helped 12,000 Russian Jews move to Israel, and donated several million dollars to Israeli hospitals and orphanages.
“We are the generation that will probably see the rapture of the church,” Hagee said, referring to a moment in advance of Jesus’ return when the world’s true believers will be airlifted into heaven.
“In Christian theology, the first thing that happens when Christ returns to Earth is the judgment of nations,” said Hagee, who wears a Jewish prayer shawl when he ministers. ”It will have one criterion: How did you treat the Jewish people? Anyone who understands that will want to be on the right side of that question. Those who are anti-Semitic will go to eternal damnation.”
On July 18, Hagee plans to lead a contingent of high-profile evangelists to Washington to make their concerns about Israel’s security known to congressional leaders. More than 1,200 evangelists are expected for the gathering.
“Twenty-five years ago, I called a meeting of evangelists to discuss such an effort, and the conversation didn’t last an hour,” he said. “This time, I called and they all came and stayed. And when the meeting was over, they all agreed to speak up for Israel.”
Underlining the sense of urgency is a belief that the end-times clock started ticking May 15, 1948, when the United Nations formally recognized Israel.
“I’ll never forget that night,” Hagee said. “I was 8 years old at the time and in the kitchen with my father listening to the news about Israel’s rebirth on the radio. He said, ‘Son, this is the most important day in the 20th century.’ “
Hagee’s message is carried on 160 television stations and 50 radio stations and can be seen in Africa, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and most Third World nations.
By contrast, Bill McCartney, a former University of Colorado football coach and co-founder of the evangelical Promise Keepers movement for men, which became huge in the 1990s, has had a devil of a time getting his own apocalyptic campaign off the ground.
It’s called The Road to Jerusalem, and its mission is to convert Jews to Christianity — while there is still time.
“Our whole purpose is to hasten the end times,” he said. “The Bible says Jews will be brought to jealousy when they see Christians and Jewish believers together as one — they’ll want to be a part of that. That’s going to signal Jesus’ return.”
Jews and others who don’t accept Jesus, he added matter-of-factly, “are toast.”
McCartney, who only a decade ago sermonized to stadium-size crowds of Promise Keepers, said finding people to back his sputtering cause has been “like plowing cement.”
Given end-times scenarios saying that non-believers will die before Jesus returns — and that the antichrist will rule from Jerusalem’s rebuilt Holy Temple — Jews have mixed feelings about the outpouring of support Israel has been getting from evangelical organizations.
“I truly believe John Hagee is at once a daring, beautiful person — and quite dangerous,” said Orthodox Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, vice president of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership in New York.
“I sincerely recognize him as a hero for bringing planeloads of people to Israel at a time when people there were getting blown up by the busloads,” Hirschfield said. “But he also believes that the only path to the father is through Jesus. That leaves me out.”
Meanwhile, in what has become a spectacular annual routine, Jews — hoping to rebuild the Holy Temple destroyed by the Romans in AD 70 — attempt to haul the 6 1/2 -ton cornerstones by truck up to the Temple Mount, the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock shrine. Each year, they are turned back by police.
Among those turned away is Gershon Solomon, spokesman for Jerusalem’s Temple Institute. When the temple is built, he said, “Islam is over.”
“I’m grateful for all the wonderful Christian angels wanting to help us,” Solomon added, acknowledging the political support from “Christians who are now Israel’s best lobbyists in the United States.”
However, when asked to comment on the fate of non-Christians upon the Second Coming of Jesus, he said, “That’s a very embarrassing question. What can I tell you? That’s a very terrible Christian idea.
“What kind of religion is it that expects another religion will be destroyed?”
But are all of these efforts to hasten the end of the world a bit like, well, playing God?
Some Christians, such as Roman Catholics and some Protestant denominations, believe in the Second Coming but don’t try to advance it. It’s important to be ready for the Second Coming, they say, though its timetable cannot be manipulated.
Hirschfield said he prays every day for the coming of the Jewish messiah, but he too believes that God can’t be hurried.
“For me,” he said, “the messiah is like the mechanical bunny at a racetrack: It always stays a little ahead of the runners but keeps the pace toward a redeemed world.
“Trouble is, there are many people who want to bring a messiah who looks just like them. For me, that kind of messianism is spiritual narcissism.”
But some Christian leaders say they aren’t playing God; they’re just carrying out his will.
Ted Haggard, president of the National Assn. of Evangelicals, says the commitment to fulfilling the Great Commission has naturally intensified along with the technological advances God provided to carry out his plans.
Over in Mississippi, Lott believes that he is doing God’s work, and that is why he wants to raise a few head of red heifers for Jewish high priests. Citing Scripture, Lott and others say a pure red heifer must be sacrificed and burned and its ashes used in purification rituals to allow Jews to rebuild the temple.
But Lott’s plans have been sidetracked.
Facing a maze of red tape and testing involved in shipping animals overseas — and rumors of threats from Arabs and Jews alike who say the cows would only bring more trouble to the Middle East — he has given up on plans to fly planeloads of cows to Israel. For now.
In the meantime, some local ranchers have expressed an interest in raising their own red heifers for Israel, and fears of hoof-and-mouth disease and blue tongue forced Lott to relocate his only verified red heifer — a female born in 1993 — to Nebraska.
Cloning is out of the question, he said, because the technique “is not approved by the rabbinical council of Israel.” Artificial insemination has so far failed to produce another heifer certified by rabbis.
“Something deep in my heart says God wants me to be a blessing to Israel,” Lott said in a telephone interview. “But it’s complicated. We’re just not ready to send any red heifers over there.”
If not now, when?
“If there’s a sovereign God with his hand in the affairs of men, it’ll happen, and it’ll be a pivotal event,” he said. “That time is soon. Very soon.”
Read Less...