This recurring nightmare ties in with the 1st Reading and Gospel because they are also apocalyptic. Even though both readings share similar descriptions of a devastated future, however, their foci are more salvific rather than despair at the catastrophe befalling the world. In other words, the difference between the conception of the future as reflected in popular media and the Gospel is a chasm or a gulf. For example, the gospel of climate change projects a desolate future whereas the readings emphasise the climax of history or temporality. Sadly, the proponents of climate change philosophy have outlined an existence whereby “temporary” time has been elevated to the status of eternity. The moral is, if only we do not “destroy” the environment, we should be able to live on earth forever. This logic operates comfortably within a space where God is not only helpless but rather irrelevant. It simply means that the transformation we desire has to be wrought by us.[1]
That is clearly not the picture drawn by Sacred Scripture. The apocalypse may be cataclysmic but the tone is more of an encouragement in the midst of troubles. In fact, the Gospel was written sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem (AD70). The populace was persecuted, pressed down and pessimistic. To these suffering believers, the message was that God would still be in charge. The backdrop of this cosmic upheaval is the “eschaton”, that is, the consummation of time. It points to a future when the Saviour will return to wrap up the work of salvation. Thus, the end of the world, calamitous or not, should be welcome because our salvation is at hand.[2]
However, swirling in this whirlpool of an ongoing climate crisis, it is easy to confuse the current environmental crisis with the end of the world. The conflation of the two can blind us from recognising the eschaton as an event of salvation rather than of damnation. Given that we are force-fed a daily diet of ecological degradation that will ultimately end tragically, the question is, what should our response be?
At the most basic level, in our live-a-day world, we must accept our responsibility towards the environment. Pope Francis when he met the President of Ecuador stressed that we ought to, “Take good care of creation. St. Francis (of Assisi) wanted that. People occasionally forgive, but nature never does. If we do not take care of the environment, there is no way of getting around it”. Through concerted actions we contribute to the sustenance of our common home.
But still, the scriptural end of the world, which is a reminder to render a good account of ourselves, is not and cannot be restricted to merely matters concerning environmental justice. Many of us can recall when we straddled the turn of the millennium and how gripped we were by the Y2K conundrum. It was a good thing that we were not millennials in the sense of “millenarianism”. We were just terrified at the prospect of the global computational highway grinding to a halt. While such a situation could have heralded a disastrous end, what is more relevant to us is located in the 1st Reading. There will be judgement which separates the evil-doers from those who are faithful to the Lord.
The end of time flashes before us the four last things—death, judgement, heaven and hell. To embrace a vision in which we need to “save” the world for the future may just miss the point of the “eschaton”. Without a vision of a life beyond the impermanent, beyond what is passing, we will be grasping at the straws of transience.
In conclusion, we may have imbued too much of eternity into this passing world. While climate change is crucial to the long-term impact of a world that should be habitable for future generations, we do not sufficiently give enough thoughts to the end of the world as a reckoning of our lives. Whatever the shape of the near future, each one of us will have to face the end of time via two possible paths. The remote route is really the end of world when creation will cease to exist. The more proximate passage is when we die. There is a far greater chance that we will die before the Parousia, that is, before the 2nd Coming. The distracting dilemma is when the immediate concern for the environment enters the picture. It is justifiably so for in the last decade we have been socialised to fear the end associated with a disaster of ecological proportion. That has blinded us to the need to face our “end of time” which is when we die.
Any disaster is always an invitation to self-inspection because our actions vis-à-vis nature have consequences. However, our thoughts must span the sustainability of life on earth and the salvation of our souls in heaven. Caring for ecology is also caring for the state of our souls. What Pope Francis said about nature is true. But it is to the peril of our souls if we associate the environmental destruction as the end of the world. As Jesus Himself aptly reminded us in Mk 8: 36 and as St Ignatius himself warned St Francis Xavier, we can paraphrase: “What profits mankind if he saves the environment but loses his soul?”.
Survival on earth and salvation of our souls are not mutually exclusive. Even though we are living in the last days, we should never confuse it with the end of time. Let us remember that the Incarnation has ushered us into the last days where God speaks to us through His Son (and through His Church). Even though these times may be tumultuous, just like in the 1st Reading and the Gospel, we are assured because the Incarnation is God’s eternal covenant of love and faithfulness with us. In fact, in the midst of the confusion surrounding change, at the turn of the last millennium, St John Paul II exhorted us to “Duc in altum”. Put out into the deep for despite the uncertainty of the times, we can trust that God will always be great in His love. We should always face the future with a joyful confidence that whatever comes to us or at us, God will always be there. Be not afraid.
____________
[1] Bio-engineering is gearing for this, egged on by the religion of youthfulness. Consider all the pills and potions available that give in to the lie that human biological does not obey the laws of nature but instead can overcome the passage of time.
[2] Do we desire heaven? Or closer to the sad truth is that we do not really care that much for heaven. Life is good here. Life is too good here.
