386
C. W. Ayre
Together we noted the importance of being in partnership with the rest of the world, including
the need for resources for smaller nations; as well as building partnerships between countries
in the region for mutual support, encouragement and sharing of resources. We agreed to
work together on a number of initiatives over the coming years to strengthen our network
and build partnerships, and to contribute to the churches’ commitment to the environment
and understanding of broader issues requiring action and change.
To that end they agreed on twelve specific initiatives over the coming years,
including the development of a regional network, partnerships between Churches
in Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific, the maintenance of contact and an ecojustice narrative. The potential of those goals for mutual support, empowerment and
accountability would be difficult to underestimate. This was clearly a wonderful
opportunity for ecumenically oriented faith-based engagement in a critical issue for
the Pacific Island nations. Yet in a personal note to me in March 2020, Colleen
stated that despite some on-going contact with some participants, she was not aware
of any progress with the commitments. At the very least, that is disappointing. The
propensity for ecumenical gatherings to make grand commitments and then not carry
through with them, is a real concern.
If commitments are made, one would expect that they would come with arrangements for a person or group to take the initiative in converting the plan into action;
otherwise they are rendered almost meaningless. What is the significance of any
progress or lack of progress? Two main points may be made. First, we all have a
degree of responsibility to ensure that such a failure to carry through on commitments
becomes a thing of the past. We cannot change the past, but we can change the future.
With that in mind, the second point is that ecumenical action can still take place to
review the 2014 commitments and devise a plan of action.
Pacific Church Responses
The disappointing outcome of the 2014 Green Churches event does not mean that
nothing has happened. On the contrary, the Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC)
and the PNG Council of Churches (PNGCC) are both being very proactive in terms
of the environmental threats in the Pacific region.
At a Conference hosted by the Papua New Guinea Council of Churches in August
2019, James Bhagwan, General Secretary of the PCC, argued that climate initiatives
must change. He picked up the theme of “household” and “highlighted common
Pacific values of spirituality, family life, traditional economy, culture, mutual care
and respect, which celebrates quality of life and values human beings and creation
over the production of things”. Bhagwan (2019) went on to say:
There is something seriously wrong with an economic system that produces so much
suffering and poverty, exploitation of labour and widespread environmental devastation.
The acceptance of things like “planned obsolescence” – intentionally designing things to
break down in the interests of making more money because one doesn’t have to cover the
real costs (pollution, environmental degradation in production methods, etc.) associated with
C. W. Ayre
Together we noted the importance of being in partnership with the rest of the world, including
the need for resources for smaller nations; as well as building partnerships between countries
in the region for mutual support, encouragement and sharing of resources. We agreed to
work together on a number of initiatives over the coming years to strengthen our network
and build partnerships, and to contribute to the churches’ commitment to the environment
and understanding of broader issues requiring action and change.
To that end they agreed on twelve specific initiatives over the coming years,
including the development of a regional network, partnerships between Churches
in Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific, the maintenance of contact and an ecojustice narrative. The potential of those goals for mutual support, empowerment and
accountability would be difficult to underestimate. This was clearly a wonderful
opportunity for ecumenically oriented faith-based engagement in a critical issue for
the Pacific Island nations. Yet in a personal note to me in March 2020, Colleen
stated that despite some on-going contact with some participants, she was not aware
of any progress with the commitments. At the very least, that is disappointing. The
propensity for ecumenical gatherings to make grand commitments and then not carry
through with them, is a real concern.
If commitments are made, one would expect that they would come with arrangements for a person or group to take the initiative in converting the plan into action;
otherwise they are rendered almost meaningless. What is the significance of any
progress or lack of progress? Two main points may be made. First, we all have a
degree of responsibility to ensure that such a failure to carry through on commitments
becomes a thing of the past. We cannot change the past, but we can change the future.
With that in mind, the second point is that ecumenical action can still take place to
review the 2014 commitments and devise a plan of action.
Pacific Church Responses
The disappointing outcome of the 2014 Green Churches event does not mean that
nothing has happened. On the contrary, the Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC)
and the PNG Council of Churches (PNGCC) are both being very proactive in terms
of the environmental threats in the Pacific region.
At a Conference hosted by the Papua New Guinea Council of Churches in August
2019, James Bhagwan, General Secretary of the PCC, argued that climate initiatives
must change. He picked up the theme of “household” and “highlighted common
Pacific values of spirituality, family life, traditional economy, culture, mutual care
and respect, which celebrates quality of life and values human beings and creation
over the production of things”. Bhagwan (2019) went on to say:
There is something seriously wrong with an economic system that produces so much
suffering and poverty, exploitation of labour and widespread environmental devastation.
The acceptance of things like “planned obsolescence” – intentionally designing things to
break down in the interests of making more money because one doesn’t have to cover the
real costs (pollution, environmental degradation in production methods, etc.) associated with