158
K. Bangert
forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.” (2Pet 3:13
NIV; see also: Is 65:17 or Rev 21:1). Hence, for today’s Biblicist end-time soothsayers
the end of the world is imminent, doomsday is just around the corner, and God is
about to establish His own kingdom (see Grey 2013). Climate change—no longer
questioned today (IPCC 2015)—seems to confirm the expectation of the world’s
annihilation and the second coming of Christ. Should it be true that mankind is
meddling with our climate (anthropogenic causes of global warming—which some
are still doubting), then man’s hubris and sinfulness only serves to speed up the
coming of the final judgment and the “restoration of all things, which God has
spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21
NKJV).
There is ample evidence of climate denial due to religious reasoning. Referring to
climate change, the Republican Representative Tim Walberg (Michigan) once told his
constituents: “As a Christian, I believe that there is a creator God who is much bigger
than us”; so he was quoted by the Washington Post, “And I’m confident that, if there’s
a real problem, he can take care of it.” (Washington Post 2017) The popular Christian
American Hal Lindsey, referring to God’s covenants with this earth, expressed his
belief “that as long as this old earth is floating in space, there will be no man-made
climate change” (Lindsey 2015). Lisa Vox, author of the book Existential Threats:
American Apocalyptic Beliefs in the Technological Era, came to the conclusion: “We
must accept that a number of conservative evangelicals, especially from the older
generations, will never support significant action on climate change, especially if it
means signing a global treaty” (Washington Post 2017).
Climate denial is prevalent also in the very countries and regions most affected
by global warming, such as in the Pacific Islands. Teburoro Tito, a former President
of Kiribati, was quoted as saying that “God is not so silly to allow people to perish
just like that” (Fair 2018, p. 5). Some authors have belittled religious thought as
being “barriers” in the fight against global warming. On the other hand, though,
while there is evidence “that the Church has significant potential as a climate change
actor” there is also, according to Hannah Fair, a need “to consider the power and
potency of religious ideas themselves” (Fair 2018, p. 3) which may serve to support
an appropriate climate response in tune with scientific evidence.
A minority of Marshall Islanders, for instance, have combined scientific knowledge and religious faith as a springboard for action (Rudiak-Gould 2009). According
to Fair, “while there is both the potential and prerogative for spiritualising climate
change, it must be recognised that not all religious groups approach the morals and
ethics of climate change in the same way” (Fair 2018, p. 4). Fair strongly advocates
a “balancing” of religious and scientific knowledge which she terms tufala save
(meaning “double knowledge”), but she also recognizes that Pacific Islanders while
seeking to balance religious and scientific knowledge, most often give priority to
their religious beliefs. One Presbyterian pastor was quoted as saying: “Yeah, we can
by scientific research say something will happen but if God says there will be rain,
there’ll be rain. … God is sovereign” (Fair 2018, p. 7).
K. Bangert
forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.” (2Pet 3:13
NIV; see also: Is 65:17 or Rev 21:1). Hence, for today’s Biblicist end-time soothsayers
the end of the world is imminent, doomsday is just around the corner, and God is
about to establish His own kingdom (see Grey 2013). Climate change—no longer
questioned today (IPCC 2015)—seems to confirm the expectation of the world’s
annihilation and the second coming of Christ. Should it be true that mankind is
meddling with our climate (anthropogenic causes of global warming—which some
are still doubting), then man’s hubris and sinfulness only serves to speed up the
coming of the final judgment and the “restoration of all things, which God has
spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21
NKJV).
There is ample evidence of climate denial due to religious reasoning. Referring to
climate change, the Republican Representative Tim Walberg (Michigan) once told his
constituents: “As a Christian, I believe that there is a creator God who is much bigger
than us”; so he was quoted by the Washington Post, “And I’m confident that, if there’s
a real problem, he can take care of it.” (Washington Post 2017) The popular Christian
American Hal Lindsey, referring to God’s covenants with this earth, expressed his
belief “that as long as this old earth is floating in space, there will be no man-made
climate change” (Lindsey 2015). Lisa Vox, author of the book Existential Threats:
American Apocalyptic Beliefs in the Technological Era, came to the conclusion: “We
must accept that a number of conservative evangelicals, especially from the older
generations, will never support significant action on climate change, especially if it
means signing a global treaty” (Washington Post 2017).
Climate denial is prevalent also in the very countries and regions most affected
by global warming, such as in the Pacific Islands. Teburoro Tito, a former President
of Kiribati, was quoted as saying that “God is not so silly to allow people to perish
just like that” (Fair 2018, p. 5). Some authors have belittled religious thought as
being “barriers” in the fight against global warming. On the other hand, though,
while there is evidence “that the Church has significant potential as a climate change
actor” there is also, according to Hannah Fair, a need “to consider the power and
potency of religious ideas themselves” (Fair 2018, p. 3) which may serve to support
an appropriate climate response in tune with scientific evidence.
A minority of Marshall Islanders, for instance, have combined scientific knowledge and religious faith as a springboard for action (Rudiak-Gould 2009). According
to Fair, “while there is both the potential and prerogative for spiritualising climate
change, it must be recognised that not all religious groups approach the morals and
ethics of climate change in the same way” (Fair 2018, p. 4). Fair strongly advocates
a “balancing” of religious and scientific knowledge which she terms tufala save
(meaning “double knowledge”), but she also recognizes that Pacific Islanders while
seeking to balance religious and scientific knowledge, most often give priority to
their religious beliefs. One Presbyterian pastor was quoted as saying: “Yeah, we can
by scientific research say something will happen but if God says there will be rain,
there’ll be rain. … God is sovereign” (Fair 2018, p. 7).