332
J. D. Griffiths
spirits” (Smith 2010, p. 41). This mis-enchantment of creation is often found in situations where creation is having harmful effects on humans (e.g. sickness, famine,
rising sea levels). This enchanted worldview, which combines the material and the
spiritual, then opens the door to a mis-enchantment of creation, which attributes the
effects of the degradation of creation to other spiritual forces.
4
When Pentecostal theologians engage with this tendency towards the misenchantment of creation, it is usually in the context of healing (Warrington 2000,
2005). Once the Pentecostal worldview of an enchanted creation is accepted, their
theology of healing can easily become dualistic; the material (the sickness) is associated with the spiritual (an unrepented sin, a demonic force, a lack of belief) and the
cure for the material is therefore spiritual. This obviously presents numerous pastoral
and theological issues, which Pentecostal theologians have been addressing in recent
history (Warrington 2000, 2005).
This enchanted view of creation, as embodying both the Holy Spirit and other
spirits, has implications for understanding how Pentecostals view ecological crises.
When exploring geographically how Pentecostals understand creation and more
specifically climate change, Pentecostal scholars have focussed on North America
(Chan 2014), Africa (Tallman 2014), Europe (Ede 2014), and Latin America
(Waldrop 2014). However, less attention has been directed towards the Pacific Islands
and how this enchanted understanding of creation understands ecological crises.
This Enchanted Worldview in the Pacific Islands
In the last decade, there has been increasing research into Pentecostalism in the Pacific
Islands from anthropologists (Brison 2007, 2017; Ryle 2011, 2012; Eriksen 2017).
However, little of this work specifically engages with Pentecostalism’s understanding
of climate change (Cox et al. 2018). Interestingly, Eriksen’s anthropological insights
from researching Pentecostalism in Vanuatu, while being quite independent of Pentecostal scholarship articulating their worldview, has articulated this enchanted view
of creation (Eriksen 2017). Eriksen (2017) notes that for Pentecostals in Melanesia
any place can be,
a ‘place’ where the immediate experience of the Holy Spirit is a defining feature of everyday
life. … In this world, it is not only the believers who can see and feel the Spirit. Rather, the
Spirit is already there: it is a taken-for-granted part of this ‘place,’ and some engage with it
and others do not. Thus, the ‘distance’ between the materially ‘real’ and the spiritually ‘real’
is negated analytically. (p. 166)
The worldview that Eriksen is describing here, is an enchanted worldview, where
the ‘place’ (creation) is imbued with spiritual significance. There is no distance
4 When building a theology of creation, Pentecostal theologians rarely address this possibility of a
negative enchantment of creation, possibly due to the desire to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. That is, a Pentecostal theology of creation must account for the degradation of our environment and Pentecostalism’s tendency to understand this degradation through the lens of a negative
enchantment.
J. D. Griffiths
spirits” (Smith 2010, p. 41). This mis-enchantment of creation is often found in situations where creation is having harmful effects on humans (e.g. sickness, famine,
rising sea levels). This enchanted worldview, which combines the material and the
spiritual, then opens the door to a mis-enchantment of creation, which attributes the
effects of the degradation of creation to other spiritual forces.
4
When Pentecostal theologians engage with this tendency towards the misenchantment of creation, it is usually in the context of healing (Warrington 2000,
2005). Once the Pentecostal worldview of an enchanted creation is accepted, their
theology of healing can easily become dualistic; the material (the sickness) is associated with the spiritual (an unrepented sin, a demonic force, a lack of belief) and the
cure for the material is therefore spiritual. This obviously presents numerous pastoral
and theological issues, which Pentecostal theologians have been addressing in recent
history (Warrington 2000, 2005).
This enchanted view of creation, as embodying both the Holy Spirit and other
spirits, has implications for understanding how Pentecostals view ecological crises.
When exploring geographically how Pentecostals understand creation and more
specifically climate change, Pentecostal scholars have focussed on North America
(Chan 2014), Africa (Tallman 2014), Europe (Ede 2014), and Latin America
(Waldrop 2014). However, less attention has been directed towards the Pacific Islands
and how this enchanted understanding of creation understands ecological crises.
This Enchanted Worldview in the Pacific Islands
In the last decade, there has been increasing research into Pentecostalism in the Pacific
Islands from anthropologists (Brison 2007, 2017; Ryle 2011, 2012; Eriksen 2017).
However, little of this work specifically engages with Pentecostalism’s understanding
of climate change (Cox et al. 2018). Interestingly, Eriksen’s anthropological insights
from researching Pentecostalism in Vanuatu, while being quite independent of Pentecostal scholarship articulating their worldview, has articulated this enchanted view
of creation (Eriksen 2017). Eriksen (2017) notes that for Pentecostals in Melanesia
any place can be,
a ‘place’ where the immediate experience of the Holy Spirit is a defining feature of everyday
life. … In this world, it is not only the believers who can see and feel the Spirit. Rather, the
Spirit is already there: it is a taken-for-granted part of this ‘place,’ and some engage with it
and others do not. Thus, the ‘distance’ between the materially ‘real’ and the spiritually ‘real’
is negated analytically. (p. 166)
The worldview that Eriksen is describing here, is an enchanted worldview, where
the ‘place’ (creation) is imbued with spiritual significance. There is no distance
4 When building a theology of creation, Pentecostal theologians rarely address this possibility of a
negative enchantment of creation, possibly due to the desire to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. That is, a Pentecostal theology of creation must account for the degradation of our environment and Pentecostalism’s tendency to understand this degradation through the lens of a negative
enchantment.