352
J. M. Luetz and R. G. Leo
Conceptualising Religion as an Effectual Cultural
Adaptation Resource
Those who work in the environmental humanities have begun to increasingly sense
that the thoughts, institutional frameworks and practices of religion have important
contributions to make in how humanity responds to the challenge of the Anthropocene and climate change (Gard and Veitayaki 2017). For example, with reference
to the Pacific Islands region, Haluza-Delay (2014) notes that whilst theologians have
been working to indigenise the faith, developing an ‘oceanic’ theology appropriate
for a ‘liquid continent’, the broader belief structures of Christianity still hold significant influence across the Pacific. Around 90% of the population of the Solomon
Islands identifies as Christian and other Pacific Island nations have similar rates
(Nunn et al. 2016), with “echoes of pre-Christian spiritual beliefs pervad[ing] many
environmental interactions” (p. 2). As such, a discussion of the wider perspectives in
the field of ecological hermeneutics holds particular relevance in the Pacific region.
Indeed, it is well recognised that religious faith is often highly motivational, wherefore such “groups and their members, scholars of the Abrahamic and other world
religions can help by researching their traditions, reflecting carefully on them for their
fruitfulness in addressing climate change and other ecological problems” (Schaefer
2014, p. 42). In the case of Christianity, careful reflection is becoming quite urgent
given that a commitment to ecology is not yet central to Christian self-understanding
(Eugene Bianchi 1998; Edwards 2006, p. 3). Christians are still not used to thinking
about God’s work of “redeeming the nonhuman world” (Bianchi 1998, p. 68).
For some time, a popular view has been that scientific and religious perspectives
are by their nature in conflict (Barbour 1997, 2000; Orr 2005; Weldon 2017). Richard
Blackwell has suggested we can adopt one of two approaches towards the status of
religion and its relationship with scientific perspectives: strategies of separation or
integration. In his view, the former is a defensive approach, seeking to identify
differences, whereas the latter is a more “confident state of mind” that perceives that
the two can be useful to each other (Blackwell 1998, p. 14). In contrast, Harrison
(2006a, 2015) counters that the territories of science and religion should be more
appropriately seen as being in conversation with each other rather than in conflict,
echoing ideas about Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) introduced by geologist
Stephen Jay Gould (1999). While conflict models continue to “exercise a tenacious
hold on the popular imagination” (Harrison 2015, p. 24; see also Barbour 1997,
2000), Kjaergaard (2016) has described such conceptual perspectives as regrettably
simplistic and no longer useful in explaining the relationship between scientific
and religious positions. His views agree with the ‘complexity thesis’ advanced by
Brooke (1991), who proposed avoiding simplistic representations of conflict and
harmony and instead, as Lindberg and Numbers (2003) suggest, revel in a “thoroughly
entangled relationship” (p. 3) that both motivates and regulates ongoing conversation.
Much recent work shows how religion can be helpful in motivating both individuals and communities to enact positive adaptive change within a construct that
J. M. Luetz and R. G. Leo
Conceptualising Religion as an Effectual Cultural
Adaptation Resource
Those who work in the environmental humanities have begun to increasingly sense
that the thoughts, institutional frameworks and practices of religion have important
contributions to make in how humanity responds to the challenge of the Anthropocene and climate change (Gard and Veitayaki 2017). For example, with reference
to the Pacific Islands region, Haluza-Delay (2014) notes that whilst theologians have
been working to indigenise the faith, developing an ‘oceanic’ theology appropriate
for a ‘liquid continent’, the broader belief structures of Christianity still hold significant influence across the Pacific. Around 90% of the population of the Solomon
Islands identifies as Christian and other Pacific Island nations have similar rates
(Nunn et al. 2016), with “echoes of pre-Christian spiritual beliefs pervad[ing] many
environmental interactions” (p. 2). As such, a discussion of the wider perspectives in
the field of ecological hermeneutics holds particular relevance in the Pacific region.
Indeed, it is well recognised that religious faith is often highly motivational, wherefore such “groups and their members, scholars of the Abrahamic and other world
religions can help by researching their traditions, reflecting carefully on them for their
fruitfulness in addressing climate change and other ecological problems” (Schaefer
2014, p. 42). In the case of Christianity, careful reflection is becoming quite urgent
given that a commitment to ecology is not yet central to Christian self-understanding
(Eugene Bianchi 1998; Edwards 2006, p. 3). Christians are still not used to thinking
about God’s work of “redeeming the nonhuman world” (Bianchi 1998, p. 68).
For some time, a popular view has been that scientific and religious perspectives
are by their nature in conflict (Barbour 1997, 2000; Orr 2005; Weldon 2017). Richard
Blackwell has suggested we can adopt one of two approaches towards the status of
religion and its relationship with scientific perspectives: strategies of separation or
integration. In his view, the former is a defensive approach, seeking to identify
differences, whereas the latter is a more “confident state of mind” that perceives that
the two can be useful to each other (Blackwell 1998, p. 14). In contrast, Harrison
(2006a, 2015) counters that the territories of science and religion should be more
appropriately seen as being in conversation with each other rather than in conflict,
echoing ideas about Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) introduced by geologist
Stephen Jay Gould (1999). While conflict models continue to “exercise a tenacious
hold on the popular imagination” (Harrison 2015, p. 24; see also Barbour 1997,
2000), Kjaergaard (2016) has described such conceptual perspectives as regrettably
simplistic and no longer useful in explaining the relationship between scientific
and religious positions. His views agree with the ‘complexity thesis’ advanced by
Brooke (1991), who proposed avoiding simplistic representations of conflict and
harmony and instead, as Lindberg and Numbers (2003) suggest, revel in a “thoroughly
entangled relationship” (p. 3) that both motivates and regulates ongoing conversation.
Much recent work shows how religion can be helpful in motivating both individuals and communities to enact positive adaptive change within a construct that