Climate Change - Cultural Change

A one day symposium of papers, panels and workshops, from scholarly, faith community and grass-roots presenters on climate change, the need for cultural change, and religious responsibilities and responses. 

Date: Saturday 29 October 2011, 8.45am–5.00pm
Where: Centre for Theology and Ministry
Address: 29 College Crescent, Parkville, Victoria, 3052
Keynote address: Professor Norman Habel will present 'Eco-wisdom and Climate Change'
Cost: $55 full, $45 concession (cost includes lunch and refreshments)

For further information go to Trinity College website.

Do Christians concerned about 'the environment' risk becoming pagans? Part 2

In part 1 I discussed more the value or otherwise of labels, missiology and so on. Now let's deal explicitly with the label itself. Changing the focus a little (given what I wrote last time), let's consider the closely related issue of idolatry. Are Christians who are involved in 'environmental' issues or more properly creation care guilty of or in danger of idolatry?

Well I know and have known plenty of middle class Christians who idolise career, the rites of passage European trip, their minister/pastor, denomination or systematic theology, even the bible itself, to say nothing of sex, money, etc. So to point the finger of idolatry (paganism) at so-called 'green' Christians is a non sequiter really.

The key issue is are we at more risk of idolising creation than anyone else is of idolising anything else? I don't think so. Creation declares God's glory (Psalm 19), points to his divine power (Rm 1) and wisdom (Ps 104). Caring for creation itself is an act of worship - so long as we see past the creation itself. More Christians I suggest fail to do this with wealth than they do with trees.

Note none of this excludes human rule - hence Gen 1:26f, but also proper use - tilling and tending (Gn 2:15). However, even the strong language of Gen 1 is moderated by being made in God's image (is God ultimately destructive or creative?) and by creation being God's temple (c.f. Is 66:1). One doesn't descrate God's temple nor reflect his character by destroying what he says is very good with humans in their proper place, yet good even without humanity.

It is also worth noting (I say this so often I am repeating myself) that divine care extends to that which is useless (pre-eco tourism) or otherwise harmful to humanity, so our priorities often shouldn't come into the picture.

So we shouldn't worship church, our ministers, the music, the cute girl we want to date at church, or even the bible itself but God,. Yet we care for all of these things. Why is creation itself any different

Do Christians concerned about 'the environment' risk becoming pagans? Part 1

As someone who has suggested Christians become active in caring for 'the environment' or more theologically correct 'the creation', even if it means being involved with, following information from and copying those who do not share our faith, I have been labelled a pagan. Is this fair?

In a second part I'll deal with the issue itself - i.e. is creation care itself a pagan practice or do we at least risk becoming so, I want to deal with the biblical critique of idols and what pagan means.


A major part of the Old Testament is a critique of idols and idolatry. It was what sent Israel into exile; idolatry led to an ignoring of the Torah and its emphasis on ethical monotheism; which included sustainable land practices and a reliance on God's provision. A classic example of this is the story of Ahab, Jezebel and Elijah. Ahab followed his wife in idolatrous practices (1 Ki 16:30-34). In 1 Ki 21 is steals another man's ancestral land, his source of livelihood, to make it into a vegetable garden. In 1 Ki 18 Elijah defeats the prophets of Baal, mocking them about their god - is he perhaps on the toilet or asleep (1 Ki 18:27). Such a theology is carried into Romans 1 by Paul - declaring that sins (plural) are the result of idolatry, and indeed are a sign of its punishment.

Modern paganism is on the rise it seems, and some kind of Eco-spirituality undergirds a number of green groups. So what should our approach be?


Firstly, regardless of what we think about environmentalism, pagan should not be a slur. Treat people with respect - we live (for better or worse) in a pluralistic society.

In particular, be slow to label someone who is a brother or sister in Jesus with pagan as a slur. As I'll point out in another post, a thorough biblical theology of creation shows it is something to be valued as coming from the creator for what he says about him, for the gift of its use and for its own sake.

Secondly, it may well be worth reflecting that one of the reasons people turn to paganism in whatever form is that Christianity has often failed to show any value for life in this world, be it peace and justice or regard for our material setting. Blow back perhaps.

Thirdly, Paul shows us the way forward in dealing with those whose beliefs we might find difficult. To be thoroughly mission minded we do not avoid but engage. I think Jesus' principle of being in but not of the world means we can engage in creation care (though more later). When issues of implicit or explicit belief come into play Paul in Acts 17. Paul was provoked (to anger?) at the idols in Athens (v16), yet engages his hearers. He notes that they are very religious, or fearful of gods (v22) and goes on to draw a link between the creator God (v24f) with their poets. Paul builds bridges. Accusations and false denunciations of other Christians, to say nothing of a poor attitude towards those with green sensibilities does not achieve the aims of Christian love or mission.

Next post, what theology do we have to turn to, to engage in green mission without falling pray to syncretism (religious innovation or merging of beliefs).

Ecomission and the AAMS

I’ve just been to the Australian Association for Mission Studies conference in Sydney. This was my first experience of a conference on missiology. I have to confess that missiology was one of those subjects I did during my undergrad theology studies rather reluctantly as I didn’t see myself as a missionary, i.e. as someone who was going to go overseas into another culture to witness to Christ. I’d been through the years of guilt, the thoughts of possibly going and the final realisation that I wasn’t gifted for it or called to it (for now at least?!).

However, if Christians don’t think missiologically, then they are not being true to their calling to be disciple makers (see the end of Matthew’s Gospel). My interest in missiology in particular is ecomissiology, the idea that we have a mission to creation – sent out by God to till and tend creation (Gen 2:15) and to rule over it as the image of God (imago Dei; Gen 1:26-28). This mission is not separate to the Great Commission, and it forms part of the Great Omission of those who do not understand the necessity to live in accordance with kingdom principles now, particularly those of peace and justice, especially for the poor.

Ecomission therefore carries with it both the sense of ecojustice (caring for creation for the benefit of both the global poor and future generations – indeed for all of us) and mission to creation in the form of creation care for the sake of the creation itself. Psalm 104 is a wonderful illustration of divine care of the creation, and as his image we should imitate this as far as is humanly possible.

It was personally great for me to meet and network with Clive Ayres and Norm Habel among others, and I look forward to further dialogue and collaboration.

Objections to global warming: how can we know anything?

Some of what people worry about when they look at the science of global warming all comes down to a matter of being a virtuous knower. Kant said 'dare to know for yourself', but with over 600 scientists involved in the IPCC assessment report, to say nothing of the endless blogs online, who do we trust? How can we individually challenge the science?

Christians are dedicated to the truth. Jesus claimed to be the truth and only path to the Father (Jn 14:6), the truth that sets free (Jn 8:32). In all affairs we are not to give false witness (Ex 20:16). You'd think Christians would be keen on following any inconvenient truth where ever it led.

Yet some might claim that the minds of scientists are darkened, most of the IPCC not being Christian. Paul notes that people suppress the truth about God (Rm 1:21). Yet Paul also acknowledges his own knowledge of God is limited and provisional (1 Cor 13:12), so it is kind of ironic that some Christians are most dogmatic in their denial of science they don't understanding. This is not to say that every aspect of climate science is understood 100%. Science is provisional in its understanding, but understanding can and does convergence about the 'truth'.

When we accuse non-Christians of bad motives in their science - consider how many of your doctors, nurses, mechanics, tradies, etc we all rely upon are also not Christians. Do they not possess wisdom and knowledge in their areas of expertise? Why do we deny the same to climate scientists, both Christian and non-Christian? Note the close parallel between Egyptian and some Hebrew wisdom literature (some of the Psalms and Proverbs) and it becomes harder to maintain that those who do not share our faith do not have real understanding of the world.

In assuming they bring non-science to their science, are we not doing the same? Dare we follow scientific 'truth' to its inconvenient implications?

The costs are real - the Caretet Islanders

Local solutions on a sinking paradise, Carterets Islands, Papua New Guinea from UNUChannel on Vimeo.

The factors in this case are complex, which may include land use, water use, and some have also suggested tectonics. Regardless, the final cause of the progressive abandonment of these atolls is entirely consistent with sea level rise produced by global warming.

Images of climate change

Just been re-doing some lecture notes on evidence of climate change and found World View of Global Warming, with some compelling photographic evidence.