18 Christianity, Creation, and the Climate Crisis …
367
the case. Our analysis suggests that interpretations that may be common in one part
of the Christian world (e.g., stewardship among North American evangelicals) may
not hold similar relevancy in other parts of the world (e.g., the Pacific) that are more
visibly bearing the impacts of climate change. Haluza-Delay (2014), for example,
notes how North American Christians or Buddhists enact their religion in different
ways to South Pacific Christians or Bhutanese Buddhists whilst still adhering to those
larger common global belief systems (p. 273). In the aftermath of the Aitape tsunami
of 1998 in Papua New Guinea, pastoral teachings explaining the disaster did “not
indicate that the pastors were not evangelical, but rather that they had a Melanesian
evangelical theology [emphasis original]” (Fountain et al. 2004, p. 342). This shows
the importance of local contexts in shaping ecotheological perspectives.
Likewise, Hagevi (2014) found that at a societal level, public opinion in countries
dominated by Catholic or Orthodox culture tended to show a higher level of environmental concern than those societies shaped by a Protestant ethic. Certainly, in their
study of how Southern Baptists responded to ideas of ‘stewardship’, Zaleha and Szasz
(2015) found anti-environmentalism within North American conservative Christianity to be connected to fears that ‘stewardship’ of creation is drifting towards neopagan nature worship (Zaleha and Szasz 2015). Figure 18.6 can provide some guidance towards understanding why this fear of neo-pagan nature worship may dampen
environmental sympathies within more theologically conservative faith communities.
Haluza-Delay (2014) argues that one advantage of listening to religious environmental thought is that it provides “alternative ways of conceptualizing the humanenvironment relationship” (p. 262). While ‘stewardship’ may be the most popular
‘flagship’
15 word (Ayre 2014, p. 102) and the most widespread concept in evangelical circles today (Goldberg et al. 2019), our analysis shows that the model still rests
largely on an anthropocentric paradigm. In consequence, faith communities which
are directly facing the challenges posed by our environmental crisis today may resort
to other conceptual models of environmental concern, both to inform and motivate
their adaptation practices.
Conclusion: New Conceptual Capital for a New Era
Religion is as much practiced as it is a set of beliefs; practices are contextualised
within the communities in which beliefs are acquired and taught. Earlier in this
chapter we identified that it is possible to hold various knowledges concurrently and
these multiple ‘ways of knowing’ contribute to creating ‘thick’ cultural meanings.
Such cultural meanings require critical attention.
15 Clive Ayre stresses that his use of the term comes with several qualifications whereby it should
be used in a ‘composite sense’ and not in the way that it is typically used by North American
evangelicals. In his work (Ayre 2014, p. 101) he lists six qualifying points that do not frame the
term in an anthropocentric manner (pers. comm. 23 Nov 2020).
367
the case. Our analysis suggests that interpretations that may be common in one part
of the Christian world (e.g., stewardship among North American evangelicals) may
not hold similar relevancy in other parts of the world (e.g., the Pacific) that are more
visibly bearing the impacts of climate change. Haluza-Delay (2014), for example,
notes how North American Christians or Buddhists enact their religion in different
ways to South Pacific Christians or Bhutanese Buddhists whilst still adhering to those
larger common global belief systems (p. 273). In the aftermath of the Aitape tsunami
of 1998 in Papua New Guinea, pastoral teachings explaining the disaster did “not
indicate that the pastors were not evangelical, but rather that they had a Melanesian
evangelical theology [emphasis original]” (Fountain et al. 2004, p. 342). This shows
the importance of local contexts in shaping ecotheological perspectives.
Likewise, Hagevi (2014) found that at a societal level, public opinion in countries
dominated by Catholic or Orthodox culture tended to show a higher level of environmental concern than those societies shaped by a Protestant ethic. Certainly, in their
study of how Southern Baptists responded to ideas of ‘stewardship’, Zaleha and Szasz
(2015) found anti-environmentalism within North American conservative Christianity to be connected to fears that ‘stewardship’ of creation is drifting towards neopagan nature worship (Zaleha and Szasz 2015). Figure 18.6 can provide some guidance towards understanding why this fear of neo-pagan nature worship may dampen
environmental sympathies within more theologically conservative faith communities.
Haluza-Delay (2014) argues that one advantage of listening to religious environmental thought is that it provides “alternative ways of conceptualizing the humanenvironment relationship” (p. 262). While ‘stewardship’ may be the most popular
‘flagship’
15 word (Ayre 2014, p. 102) and the most widespread concept in evangelical circles today (Goldberg et al. 2019), our analysis shows that the model still rests
largely on an anthropocentric paradigm. In consequence, faith communities which
are directly facing the challenges posed by our environmental crisis today may resort
to other conceptual models of environmental concern, both to inform and motivate
their adaptation practices.
Conclusion: New Conceptual Capital for a New Era
Religion is as much practiced as it is a set of beliefs; practices are contextualised
within the communities in which beliefs are acquired and taught. Earlier in this
chapter we identified that it is possible to hold various knowledges concurrently and
these multiple ‘ways of knowing’ contribute to creating ‘thick’ cultural meanings.
Such cultural meanings require critical attention.
15 Clive Ayre stresses that his use of the term comes with several qualifications whereby it should
be used in a ‘composite sense’ and not in the way that it is typically used by North American
evangelicals. In his work (Ayre 2014, p. 101) he lists six qualifying points that do not frame the
term in an anthropocentric manner (pers. comm. 23 Nov 2020).