I Accept Greta’s Dare
It isn’t polite to speak aloud what we privately think. So we write.
Greta Thunberg accused, “How dare you!” in her latest tantrum. For what else can her speeches be called? I can think of many places passion is welcome. The bedroom, the sports field, the battlefield, the Russian novel, the frontier, the pulpit, the wave, and the peak–just to name a few.
But the World Stage? Nope. It’s not appropriate. It’s uncivil. It’s disrespectful. It’s childish. Instead, simply deliver your message and sit down. If I adduce that your words have merit, I’ll take my time to consider your opinion. But when you bring passion to scientific discourse it makes me doubt that you have taken the appropriate amount of time to gather the data. Abstract truths are awful boring.
Greta then said, “We will never forgive you.”
Here Greta reveals her only disability. She is nearsighted. Normally this imperfection is not fatal, but considered in the light of that old sinner, Cain, and his near-sightedness, the problem is fatal indeed.
Greta’s disability would be ironic if she spoke only one time and only to her peers in speech class. But she’s on the world stage advocating the most hateful philosophy mankind has yet developed. And to applause. Have we no shame?
One thing Greta said that shows hints of her available redemption is that “humans” may not be able to fix the problem. Amen, Sister. Humans? No. Jesus? The risen lord? Yes. It’s going to be okay, child.
We able-bodied folks need to decide how to handle the Greta’s of the world. I see two ends to the continuum of response. We can debate what “1.5 degrees” means. Or we can win the long game by forgiving each other as Jesus commanded.
What Greta is doing is forgivable. She’s just a child after all. But, like Cain pleading with the LORD after blood-soaked dirt found its voice, she probably won’t feel the need for forgiveness until after blood has been shed. Until then, we wait.
Brother Pete—Greta is not a seasoned scientist, she is a young, perhaps even a precious advocate for environmental protection. Consequently, in my humble opinion, passion is an appropriate tool for her to employ to amplify her advocacy. While you or I or others might prefer a different approach, a different tone, a different methodology, she has stepped to the plate and spurred thought, discussion and advocacy, even if some of the reaction is negative and/or highly critical. She has therefore, accomplished in part her goal to focus and highlight attention on a critical problem for mankind. As to your larger more abstract religious reflection, I don’t know that free will encourages us to abandon efforts to chart a responsible and sane course of action in favor of Christ bailing us out of bad decisions, pig-headed choices and selfish behavior.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To be clear about the “abstract religious reflection”, as you call it, (concrete is more my assessment btw) there is no bailing out. I believe, as the Bible writers believed, that this current home of ours (earth/universe/cosmos) is on a course to end in fire. So my criticism of Greta is again “near-sightedness”. Simply-put: Her near-sighted passion is going to cause unchristian-like bloodshed. Or maybe she’ll mature, calm-down, and see the light. Until then, we wait.