Christmas trees verbotten in and around the UN climate summit in Copenhagen.
In the aftermath of the whole “climategate” leaked emails fiasco, this seemingly small gesture has a whole new light cast on it. The alarmism of the UN global warming climate change activists has a foundational fatal flaw deeper than, and contributory to, dishonesty and greed: it lacks Hope. The denial of the traditional Christmas trees is a poignant reminder of this fact.
They’ve shut out Hope, and not just purely Christian “hope.” The practice of decorating an evergreen, of course, derives from ancient practices among many pre-Christian peoples–Egyptians, druids, and tribes of the Scandinavian and Germanic regions as well–as a sign of the coming Spring, and the triumph of life over death the depth of the bitter and barren winter–”in the bleak midwinter,” as one carol tells it.
Christianity, as is our wont, adopted this practice when we recognized the Truth that it pointed to: yes, even in the midst of despair and desolation, Hope springs eternal, and was embodied, enfleshed, Incarnated, in Jesus Christ. Decorating an evergreen tree during the celebration of the birth of Christ became one more way to remind ourselves of the indomitable Spirit of Hope. But the practice did arise, preternaturally, among those who recognized that hope for rebirth and new life was good and necessary, but who did not as yet recognize the grander Truth that underlay their pagan practice.
Now of course, there is uncertainty about whether Christ was actually born on December 25 (though many, including myself, believe the evidence suggests it’s a fine estimate), and there is little doubt that winters in Palestine circa 6 B.C. are far less bleak than those in northern Europe. But what there is no uncertainty about is the despair, desolation, and bleakness to which the human spirit is prone when it lacks Hope; and the fact that the Son was born, lived, died, and resurrected at a time and in conditions perfectly coordinated to give the greatest lesson of Hope possible.
Contra the message of the manger in Bethlehem, what is the message of the high thinkers of climatology in Copenhagen if not one of despair (disaster will befall us all unless we do exactly as they say, and even then it may not work)? They rely upon uncertain declamations about the conditions of the world to make certain pronouncements about how we all ought to live and think about each other. And then they make the ominous leap from climate science to “social justice.” They have a particular world-condition in mind as the way things ought to be climate-wise, and then presume to make “social justice” pronouncements based on that climate vision. They heap a zombie social morality on top of tendentious climate science, and expect all to get in line.
They have crafted doctrine (“the science is settled”), established a criteria for being allowed to discuss the doctrine and shut out all voices to the contrary (“what do you know, you haven’t been peer reviewed”), have established governing institutions with something like teaching authority (East Anglia University and the activities of the various UN bodies, summits, and conferences), and they expect the decisions they arrive at to affect not only each individual’s personal choices, but the policies and laws established by national governments, in the name of “social justice.” (This is far more direct and overwhelming influence than that expected by even the U.S. Catholic bishops on the healthcare debate.) They claim to have the best intentions and really believe they have identified the Big Problem facing mankind and are in pursuit of the Right Solution.
But there is a fatal flaw, and it is the same fatal flaw that has led to destroyed societies and mass graves in Russia and eastern Europe, among other places: projecting man-conceived, man-achieved utopian outcomes on earth and imposing the lifestyles and systems of government on populations today which they, the “enlightened ones,” determine are necessary to achieve utopia (or, at the least, assure that the fat grant checks keep rolling in). But the lifestyles and regimes they seek to impose the people would not choose and do not prefer; would crush liberty and deny conscience its sovereignty; would replace true justice with theoretical social justice; would supplant God’s providence with “enlightened” planning.
They deny Hope and uphold their plan. They shut out the Creator and deify a mere creation–worse, an artifice of a creation since their goal is a non-existent utopia of their own conception.
What more perfect way to describe what is happening in Copenhagen, in the editorial boards of the compliant media outlets, and in every capital where the same zeitgeist holds sway? How else to describe what it happening in every capital where the evergreen tree is turned away but the “science” that has undergirded the climatologist castle on a cloud is accepted as the real good news?
Bad climate science likely will not directly result in mass graves, but broken societies and crippled economies are certain–which in turn result in more misery and death. Good society and healthy economic activity grow from recognizing and respecting the laws of God–rules as basic and accessible to all as the Golden Rule–and trusting that as the chips fall where they may, they will fall in a way pleasing to God and therefore healthy for all. That is not scientific planning to avoid uncertain disaster scenarios and achieve materialist utopias; that is Hope.
The really smart people in Copenhagen plan social justice through climate control, or vice versa. They plan your life and my life with the authority of Zeus, but with feet of clay and tile. Meanwhile, Hope is delivered to their door and they say, “No thanks, can’t have any of that nonsense around here.”
“If you ever want to hear God laugh, tell Him your plans,” the self-reflective veteran of vocational discernment mutters bemusedly. In Copenhagen, as Hope is turned away with the evergreen, I believe God weeps.
Thomas Crowe tweets @tomcrowe but doesn’t blog anywhere exclusive yet
