Perishing

This past Sunday at church, I spoke a bit about the story we read from the Gospel of Matthew for today, how I could very easily imagine myself in that boat, shaking Jesus—wake up, we’re sinking, we’re perishing.

I’ve always read this story as a story about faith—it sounds a lot like Jesus critiquing the disciples—why are you afraid, you of little faith. And you could read this story that way: don’t panic, have trust in God.

But as I prepared this reflection, a note caught my attention, saying this story was probably intended as a metaphor for following Jesus. And I like that interpretation better—rather than being a judgment on having too little faith, it’s a description of the difficulties we’ll encounter on the Christian journey and a promise that that the storm won’t overwhelm us.

This story comes immediately after Jesus approached by a series of potential followers. To one he says, the birds have nests, the fox have dens, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head. To another who wants Jesus to wait while he buries his family, Jesus says let the dead bury the dead. In other words, the journey isn’t going to be easy, the journey cannot wait… and now this story: we’ll encounter storms, but the one who we are following can overcome those storms. Even the wind and waves obey him.

I’m drawn to the disciples’ exclamation: “Lord, save us! We are perishing!”

It is a cry that is both true, yet incomplete. They were perishing but they had not yet perished. In the story, Jesus rebukes the winds and waves and they do not perish; he rebukes them like he would a demon—further evidence that there are parallels intended to be drawn to the Christian journey.

Jesus asks, “Why are you afraid, you of little faith?”, which makes sense as a metaphor. While actual boats do sink, God does promise to walk with us on our journey. This story can be read as part of that promise: that God will rebuke the demons that assail us; we will be loved, even if our boat sinks.

I want to suggest to you today that we are perishing. Find your favorite reason: is it the destruction of the environment? Economic collapse? Terrorism? Individualism? Corporatism? Racism? We can legitimately cry out, “Lord save us, we are perishing!”

Like it has been for millennia, this world is perishing, and it is perishing while it is also filled with promise.

We shouldn’t deny that we’re in trouble. I think the disciples had it right—they were in trouble. And so they turned to Jesus—Lord, save us. It wouldn’t be such a bad thing if we were to run to Jesus and wake him up, have him calm the storm.
If we do the hard work of calling on God, and following Jesus, reconciling with our neighbor, challenging power—then we can calm the storm of racism, at least enough so our boat doesn’t sink. And if we call on the word of God, and live in the way of Jesus in harmony with creation, then we can calm the rising storm and rising tides of environmental destruction.

And that is the good news: the Word of God, active in our lives, can calm the storm.

Tax Energy Use, Not Work

The Boston Globe today offers a thought on local food: perhaps not so good for the environment (Hat tip to M).

But a gathering body of evidence suggests that local food can sometimes consume more energy -- and produce more greenhouse gases -- than food imported from great distances. Moving food by train or ship is quite efficient, pound for pound, and transportation can often be a relatively small part of the total energy "footprint" of food compared with growing, packaging, or, for that matter, cooking it. A head of lettuce grown in Vermont may have less of an energy impact than one shipped up from Chile. But grow that Vermont lettuce late in the season in a heated greenhouse and its energy impact leapfrogs the imported option. So while local food may have its benefits, helping with climate change is not always one of them.

Eating local food has a number of benefits-- which the article points out-- but reducing energy consumption isn't necessarily one of them. (An Economist article a few months ago offers more documentation for this claim.

The environmental consumption movement in general faces a problem: we don't have a simple measure to quantify a product's impact on the environment. For instance, the production of cotton may use less energy than polyester, but because it needs more washing and longer dry cycles, over a lifetime, a cotton garment may use more energy.

I'm with economists in thinking that the price system is the best way of addressing this: let the price of a product reflect the harm it does to the environment. Tax CO2 emissions or energy use more generally. It's called a Pigovian tax.
Simple political program that everyone should support:
1) increase gas taxes and energy taxes
2) reduce income taxes progressively, so that there is no net financial impact on low-income households

Results: equivalent tax burden, lower energy usage

The Prius: Because no one sees you not drive a car.

When we do good things, we often want others to know that we're doing good things. (What was it that Jesus said about your right and left hands?) As a result, the environmental movement will tend to focus too much on green consumption and not enough on reducing consumption.

Great quotes from Prius owners (New York Times archive, July 4, 2004):

''I really want people to know that I care about the environment,'' said Joy Feasley of Philadelphia, owner of a green 2006 Prius. ''I like that people stop and ask me how I like my car.''

Mary Gatch of Charleston, S.C., chose the car over a hybrid version of the Toyota Camry after trading in a Lexus sedan.

''I felt like the Camry Hybrid was too subtle for the message I wanted to put out there,'' Ms. Gatch said. ''I wanted to have the biggest impact that I could, and the Prius puts out a clearer message.''

No one sees you not drive a car.

Question of the day: is there some way to brand non-consumption? Green wristbands that indicate you've taken a pledge to cut back on buying things?