In my latest reading of Circle of Life: Traditional Teachings of Native American Elders,
James David Audlin talks about eschatology. In reading Audlin's
discussion of this, I thought about Rosemary Ruether's critique of
environmental apocalyptism in her book, Gaia and God. In my post here,
I say that Ruether "criticizes 'militant environmentalists' who expect
'Mother Earth' to rise up 'like a chthonic Jehovah to topple the human
empires and return the earth to precivilized simplicity when humans, in
small hunter-gatherer tribes, lived lightly off the land', apparently
unconcerned that 'most human beings would die in the process' (page
84)." I don't know if Audlin agrees with all of what Ruether criticizes
here, but he did talk about a Native American eschatology that presumes
that nature and the spirits are upset with what humans are doing to the
earth.
On page 332, Audlin refers to Hopi prophecies. He says:
"The end is near, the prophecies say, when the House of Mica in the
Lands to the East where world leaders meet to resolve issues and settle
disputes ignore three times the message of peace and harmony with Nature
(as the United Nations has done) and a 'gourd of ashes' is dropped upon
the earth (nuclear war). Soon after that, all land and life could be
destroyed...unless human beings remember first how to live in peace with
each other and in harmony with Nature." This intrigued me because
Audlin's interpretation of the Hopi prophecies actually wants for the
United Nations to take an active role, a sentiment that you will not see
in Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins' Left Behind series (which
holds that the UN will set the stage for the Antichrist one world
government). But are the Hopi prophecies about the UN? I doubt this
somewhat, for the prophecy says that the world leaders meet in the Lands
to the East, whereas the UN is located in the west, in New York City.
I'd like to quote something that Audlin says on pages 332-333:
"Elders
have told me that this future is all but unavoidable----but that that's
not necessarily a bad thing. And that, in fact, it might be a bad idea
(or at the least wasted effort) to try to stop it from happening. Just
as we are taught not to try to heal someone whose time to die has come
but only use palliative medicines to make their passing as comfortable
as possible, we should do what we can to provide comfort and safety for
all nations. We may need to let the washichu descend into
nuclear war. It will be devastating and many people will unfortunately
die (though remember there is no death, only a change of worlds, so they
will yet live), but, as in homeopathic medicine, the [debacle]
will cleanse the Earth of all chemical, mental and spiritual
pollution. Mainstream modern culture may already be terminally ill; it
may already be impossible to change the direction of this juggernaut
enough to avoid annihilation, but its worst effects might yet be blunted
somewhat. We can prepare for the time that will follow this nuclear
winter, so that the teachings of the traditional ways, the descriptive
law of how humans properly live, will still be remembered and taught and
followed. That is why I must write this book."
That is a very
disturbing passage, and it reminds me of the environmental
apocalypticism that Rosemary Ruether was criticizing. I'd say that
Audlin is a little more generous towards humanity than are the
environmental apocalypticists, however, for he supports ways to blunt
the effects of the catastrophe. But he does appear to envision a new
beginning: after the earth is cleansed of pollution, people can follow
the traditional ways of harmony with nature. Personally, I'd like to
think that we can avoid the catastrophe altogether. Of course, the
Christian apocalypticism with which I was raised would probably be
skeptical that humans can effect any significant good at this stage, and
so it looks for Christ to return to cleanse the earth and renew it.