382
C. W. Ayre
framework. As people of faith, I see it as part of our calling to demonstrate how
that may be done, initially through the way in which we interact with each other
in the Spirit of Christ. If we are as adversarial as anyone else, then we have no
moral authority to presume to set an example for others. My contention is that
if communities and political operatives were to address the increasingly serious
environmental threats to our future in the search for global ecological health, we
would discover an enormous unifying potential. We could help to dismantle the
politics of division, and to build bridges instead of walls.
The engagement of Church and State in the search for global ecological health
requires a whole of life and whole of community approach. As Christians we cannot
do this alone, but rather seek to make our contribution alongside political operatives, social scientists, climatologists, psychologists, economists, educationalists,
and others. However, such engagement needs to affirm God’s concern for the whole
of creation and not just the human world. The Church needs to speak with its own
voice.
Some important issues centre on the process of decision-making locally. In dealing
with people from another culture, it is essential to know who the decision makers in
that society are, and to respect that tradition. It can be easy for non-Pacific visitors,
albeit with the best of intentions, to have discussions about a range of topics and make
plans for the future, only to find later on that nothing at all is happening because they
have been speaking to people who do not have the authority to make decisions about
such matters.
Current Pacific Audit
In order to explore faith-based opportunities in the context of multi-faceted climate
change, it is necessary to have an idea of the current ecological situation in the Pacific
region, even though this is a global crisis that ultimately cannot be resolved by any
one section of the globe acting in isolation. Impacts are rarely commensurate with a
country’s contribution to the problem, but we all must play our part.
At one level it is legitimate to speak of “the Pacific Islands” in a general sense as a
regional group of island nations that would include those on the Pacific rim, including
Papua New Guinea. Australia and New Zealand also relate to the area, but more
indirectly. When considered in this way, it is immediately clear that many of the island
nations of the Pacific may appear to some as little more than sparsely populated specks
scattered across a vast ocean. Over many decades, such a problematic perception has
led some of the major powers to regard the region as ideal for exploitation. Any
analysis of this issue would have to include the lasting impacts of war and of nuclear
testing in the Pacific, the outcomes of which tend to live on for generations.
At another level, however, despite some areas of commonality, there are significant
differences. The geographical and geological contexts are varied, so that the impacts
of the global ecological crisis present and are perceived differently in different parts
of the Pacific. With that important caveat, and without presuming to cover the crisis
C. W. Ayre
framework. As people of faith, I see it as part of our calling to demonstrate how
that may be done, initially through the way in which we interact with each other
in the Spirit of Christ. If we are as adversarial as anyone else, then we have no
moral authority to presume to set an example for others. My contention is that
if communities and political operatives were to address the increasingly serious
environmental threats to our future in the search for global ecological health, we
would discover an enormous unifying potential. We could help to dismantle the
politics of division, and to build bridges instead of walls.
The engagement of Church and State in the search for global ecological health
requires a whole of life and whole of community approach. As Christians we cannot
do this alone, but rather seek to make our contribution alongside political operatives, social scientists, climatologists, psychologists, economists, educationalists,
and others. However, such engagement needs to affirm God’s concern for the whole
of creation and not just the human world. The Church needs to speak with its own
voice.
Some important issues centre on the process of decision-making locally. In dealing
with people from another culture, it is essential to know who the decision makers in
that society are, and to respect that tradition. It can be easy for non-Pacific visitors,
albeit with the best of intentions, to have discussions about a range of topics and make
plans for the future, only to find later on that nothing at all is happening because they
have been speaking to people who do not have the authority to make decisions about
such matters.
Current Pacific Audit
In order to explore faith-based opportunities in the context of multi-faceted climate
change, it is necessary to have an idea of the current ecological situation in the Pacific
region, even though this is a global crisis that ultimately cannot be resolved by any
one section of the globe acting in isolation. Impacts are rarely commensurate with a
country’s contribution to the problem, but we all must play our part.
At one level it is legitimate to speak of “the Pacific Islands” in a general sense as a
regional group of island nations that would include those on the Pacific rim, including
Papua New Guinea. Australia and New Zealand also relate to the area, but more
indirectly. When considered in this way, it is immediately clear that many of the island
nations of the Pacific may appear to some as little more than sparsely populated specks
scattered across a vast ocean. Over many decades, such a problematic perception has
led some of the major powers to regard the region as ideal for exploitation. Any
analysis of this issue would have to include the lasting impacts of war and of nuclear
testing in the Pacific, the outcomes of which tend to live on for generations.
At another level, however, despite some areas of commonality, there are significant
differences. The geographical and geological contexts are varied, so that the impacts
of the global ecological crisis present and are perceived differently in different parts
of the Pacific. With that important caveat, and without presuming to cover the crisis