17 Wonders in the Heavens Above …
341
of an enchanted creation does have its difficulties, such as the possibility of misenchantment, it is no less a valid starting point than a technocratic understanding of
creation. Indeed, Capra and Luisi note that it may be more scientific, as:
The extensive explorations of the relationships between science and spirituality over the past
three decades have made it evident that the sense of oneness, which is the key characteristic
of spiritual experience, is fully confirmed by the understanding of reality in contemporary
science. … Connectedness, relationship, and interdependence are fundamental concepts of
ecology… and connectedness, relationship, and belonging are also the essence of spiritual
experience. (p. 290–291)
An enchanted understanding of creation, which sees the material imbued with the
spiritual, can be a productive starting place for an effective Pentecostal ecology. Moreover, this enchanted understanding of creation may be a more effective and productive
starting point for developing a deep ecology than a technocratic understanding of
creation.
However, this ecological reading of Acts 2: 17–21 does also direct Pentecostalism’s understanding of an enchanted creation, specifically in the area of misenchantment of creation. This ecological reading highlights the need for a biblically guided discernment of the voice of creation, in particular in two ways. First,
Pentecostalism should be open to understanding ecological disasters as a lament of
creation. Joel 1–2 clearly establishes that creation can lament in the face of injustice
and possibly even over-consumption. Second, the tendency for Pentecostals to understand ecological crises as a call to repentance can be guided to include repentance
for ecological sins. This has already been suggested by other Pentecostal scholars
as an important aspect of a Pentecostal ecology (Clifton 2009; Tallman 2014). For
example, Tallman (2014, p. 199) states, “the confession of our own sinful complicity
in harming and destroying God’s creation is a good starting point for Pentecostal
Christian worship and environmental praxis.”
However, when considering the specific context for climate change mitigation
strategies in the Pacific Islands, perhaps technocratic nations should begin by being
self-reflective, as the technocratic worldview can easily distance human culpability
from ecological disaster. When reflecting upon the ecological disasters occurring on
Fiji, Cox et al. (2018) note:
In the face of Australian government recalcitrance on climate change, disaster “management,” “preparedness,” or “risk reduction” have become the preferred language by which
donors and recipient governments discuss responses to the effects of climate change in the
region. Rendering events such as Tropical Cyclone Pam or Tropical Cyclone Winston as
singular “disasters” and the region as “vulnerable to natural disasters” allows for official
responses that do not consider climate change as a cause or amplifier of these disasters and
do not address the implications of future intensifications of storms and cyclones or rising sea
levels. Rather, international disaster discourse eschews blame, frames catastrophic events as
natural phenomena, and allows government and nongovernment organizations’ relief efforts
to be incorporated into moral political narratives that construct Australia as a generous donor.
(p. 383)
It is hard to call Pacific Islanders to repentance for ecological sins when, in fact,
it is the technocratic nations—who portray themselves as generous in their relief
341
of an enchanted creation does have its difficulties, such as the possibility of misenchantment, it is no less a valid starting point than a technocratic understanding of
creation. Indeed, Capra and Luisi note that it may be more scientific, as:
The extensive explorations of the relationships between science and spirituality over the past
three decades have made it evident that the sense of oneness, which is the key characteristic
of spiritual experience, is fully confirmed by the understanding of reality in contemporary
science. … Connectedness, relationship, and interdependence are fundamental concepts of
ecology… and connectedness, relationship, and belonging are also the essence of spiritual
experience. (p. 290–291)
An enchanted understanding of creation, which sees the material imbued with the
spiritual, can be a productive starting place for an effective Pentecostal ecology. Moreover, this enchanted understanding of creation may be a more effective and productive
starting point for developing a deep ecology than a technocratic understanding of
creation.
However, this ecological reading of Acts 2: 17–21 does also direct Pentecostalism’s understanding of an enchanted creation, specifically in the area of misenchantment of creation. This ecological reading highlights the need for a biblically guided discernment of the voice of creation, in particular in two ways. First,
Pentecostalism should be open to understanding ecological disasters as a lament of
creation. Joel 1–2 clearly establishes that creation can lament in the face of injustice
and possibly even over-consumption. Second, the tendency for Pentecostals to understand ecological crises as a call to repentance can be guided to include repentance
for ecological sins. This has already been suggested by other Pentecostal scholars
as an important aspect of a Pentecostal ecology (Clifton 2009; Tallman 2014). For
example, Tallman (2014, p. 199) states, “the confession of our own sinful complicity
in harming and destroying God’s creation is a good starting point for Pentecostal
Christian worship and environmental praxis.”
However, when considering the specific context for climate change mitigation
strategies in the Pacific Islands, perhaps technocratic nations should begin by being
self-reflective, as the technocratic worldview can easily distance human culpability
from ecological disaster. When reflecting upon the ecological disasters occurring on
Fiji, Cox et al. (2018) note:
In the face of Australian government recalcitrance on climate change, disaster “management,” “preparedness,” or “risk reduction” have become the preferred language by which
donors and recipient governments discuss responses to the effects of climate change in the
region. Rendering events such as Tropical Cyclone Pam or Tropical Cyclone Winston as
singular “disasters” and the region as “vulnerable to natural disasters” allows for official
responses that do not consider climate change as a cause or amplifier of these disasters and
do not address the implications of future intensifications of storms and cyclones or rising sea
levels. Rather, international disaster discourse eschews blame, frames catastrophic events as
natural phenomena, and allows government and nongovernment organizations’ relief efforts
to be incorporated into moral political narratives that construct Australia as a generous donor.
(p. 383)
It is hard to call Pacific Islanders to repentance for ecological sins when, in fact,
it is the technocratic nations—who portray themselves as generous in their relief