It is clear that some Anglicans were engaged with the work of the WCTU from the time of Leavitt’s tour in New Zealand. In a letter to Hannah Whitall Smith, co-founder of the WCTU and part of the Holiness Movement, Leavitt praised the work of Rev. Joseph S. Hill. Rev. Hill had come to New Zealand in 1879 to work with the Church Missionary Society, but he ended up working in Auckland to serve as chaplain to the Gaol. As president of the Auckland YMCA, he was able to offer a welcoming site for Leavitt’s work in organising the Auckland WCTU NZ. While most of the venues for Leavitt’s speeches were in Non-Conformist churches or in town halls, the Anglican Church of St. Paul’s in Papanui, a village to the northwest of Christchurch, hosted an event for her. At least three daughters of William G. Filleul, a lay leader in the Anglican Church of Oamaru, worked to keep the fledgling WCTU NZ chapter there going. More detailed work can be done on the home congregations of the women-led groups moving out of the pious and domestic roles expected of them and into the public-facing reform movements of New Zealand.

The post The Church of England and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union of New Zealand appeared first on He Taonga Tuku Iho.

Talanoa is a central concept commonly shared across Pacific Island cultures. Talanoa basically means a conversation, talking, exchange of ideas or thinking, whether formal or informal.^[1] Talanoa is essential, because maintaining relationships is vital for most Pacific cultural activities.^[2] One of the strengths of talanoa is that it tears down the barriers between people of different status, allowing them to interact on a level playing field. Through talanoa, people will not only collect relevant knowledge, but also share important information that will address Pacific issues. Yet while talanoa has been recognised as a strength of the Pacific Islands, it can also be a weakness, particularly when it comes to addressing environmental issues. We must move the agenda forward from talanoa to taking concrete actions on the ground.

In the previous post, I discussed the origin of the widespread recognition within the World Council of Churches that Christians had a duty to care for God’s creation, following Lynn White’s 1967 contention that Western Christianity must be held responsible for the current environmental crisis. My post today will first outline the historical background which led to the connection of the WCC to the Pacific region and then the establishment of the PCC. It’s necessary to explore this backstory in order to understand how the issue of care for God’s creation came to the PCC. I will then expand on the work the PCC has done to address climate issues since its establishment. At this point, I would like to be upfront: my research has found that despite its claims to action for over two decades now, the PCC has not implemented sufficient practical initiatives aimed at addressing the climate crisis. Their focus has been mainly conceptual/theoretical, such as announcing declarations about the threatening impact of climate change, rather than carrying out the concrete work which is urgently needed on the ground.

Pacific Islanders were instrumental in the proclamation of the good news across the islands, but their churches were not included when the WCC was established in 1948. In 1961, Anglican and other Protestant churches of the Pacific region decided to form a regional ecumenical body. This was the beginning of the connection and dialogue between the region and the WCC, which led to the establishment of the PCC in 1966. In 1983, the WCC’s Fifth Assembly was held in Vancouver, and Pacific region issues were emphasised on the agenda, particularly the nuclear testing being carried out at the time in the Pacific by European nations, and its effects on the Pacific islands. Seventeen years later the WCC, through the leadership of the PCC, expanded their concern to include the fight against sea level-rise and the threatening impacts of climate change, which is important globally, but the Pacific Island nations are particularly threatened. In the past few decades, there has been mounting evidence of harm caused to Pacific peoples and their environments by nuclear testing and proliferation, from sea level rises and extreme weather events in the region. This is a result of changing global temperatures and weather patterns. In response to these data, the PCC developed a theology of care for the environment by promoting the responsibilities and unity of Christians in safeguarding God’s creation, and combining this with a cry for social justice for the powerless.

Over the past two decades, the PCC and the WCC have made a series of declarations which affirm their commitment to environmental justice. On March 2004, in Kiribati, the WCC officially announced the Otin Tai Declaration, where church leaders and participants in the Pacific Churches’ Consultation on Climate Change affirmed their commitment not only to care for the earth as a response to God’s love for creation, but also the need to respond urgently to the seriousness of the human-induced climate change to the lives, livelihoods, societies, cultures and eco-systems of the Pacific Islands. The Declaration was clear—that the mainline churches no longer treat climate change as an individual denominational issue, but rather an ecumenical issue. Hence, climate change is an issue which ought to be addressed communally, with churches coming together and collaborating in unity. Even though these declarations represented the shifting of perspective from individual to collective in treating climate issues, the PCC did not translate the talking into action.

On April 2009 in Fiji the leaders of the PCC along with WCC staff, collaborated and adopted the Moana Declaration (MD)—“Our Oikos—a new consciousness on climate change and our call to action” (WCC, 2009). This appeared to be a significant initiative of the PCC, especially in summoning church leaders to advance their ecumenism on climate change and to address its adverse effects on the Pacific islands. The Pacific church leaders presented 12 declarations, including: respecting and protecting the rights of climate migrants; developing plans and framework to accommodate the rights of climate migrants; identifying resources for relocation and resettlement; and conducting public consultations with Pacific communities affected by climate change.

In Fiji on April 2017, PCC leaders, with representatives from communities and civil society organisations, put forward the Statement on Seabed Mining, calling upon the Government of Papua New Guinea and other Pacific Island nations to discontinue any activity or development regarding Seabed Mining technology in lands and seas (PCC, 2017). In August of the same year, PCC leaders met in Auckland, New Zealand and adopted the Moana Calls For Action (MCFA). This was a significant move made by PCC leaders after decades of talanoa, cooperation and collaboration among themselves about these issues. It was time to take action rather than keeping these issues at the talanoa and meeting level. In the MCFA, there were 7 main issues of call for action which included: 1) Self-determination, 2) Seabed mining; 3) Pacific diaspora; 4) Leadership in the church; 5) Church-state relations, 6) Influx of new religions movements, and 7) PCC membership fees. At this point, it appeared that the PCC was finally moving onto taking concrete action.

However, PCC leaders, representatives from communities, and civil society organisations are still stuck in the talanoa and meeting level. One key reason for this has been the lack of a method or model to follow in translating the environmental ideas into actions. Hence, another initiative was developed—Reweaving the Ecological Mat (REM). REM was jointly developed by Pacific Theological College (PTC), the Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC), and Oceania Centre for Arts, Culture and Pacific Studies (OCACPS) of the University of the South Pacific (USP), beginning in 2017. The purpose of REM was basically twofold. First, to guide the partners and their members’ engagement in addressing today’s ecological crisis. Second, to provide governments in the Pacific with alternatives (which includes using theological, biblical, and indigenous lenses) to development as it had been pursued in the past. REM was also intended to generate ideas and situate development in the Pacific region in a new frame.

In 2020, REM escalated to the next stage of its development and published a book, Reweaving the Ecological Mat Framework: Toward an Ecological Framework for Development.^[3] The titular framework actually comprised three frames―theology, economics, and cultures/spirituality. At the centre of these three frames is relationality, and relationality is used as a measurement, by fully recognising and respecting the balance and harmony of all diverse interwoven strands of life. The framework opens with a situational description of the Pacific and how the neoliberal model of economic development does not fit the Pacific context as a whole. The neoliberal model is fuelled by addiction to never-ending growth. When growth is “based on non-renewable resource extraction and exploitation, [it] is not compatible with but destructive to the wellbeing of our one common home, Earth” (UNEP, 2019). The framework emphasises how REM applies an ecological framework towards development in the Pacific.

The authors of REM claim that the neoliberal economic development model mainly benefits the richest minority, and the most powerful individuals/collectives of the world, but not the majority of the world’s population, including those who live in the Pacific. The neoliberal model of economic development promotes the same attitude which White identified and criticised in his analysis of the environmental effects of Western Christianity. It is a model that is based on “sucking up the resources of the earth, cutting down trees, polluting water, pumping industrial waste into the atmosphere, ploughing up wetlands, and mining in ecologically sensitive spaces.”^[4] The neoliberal model has affected the Pacific in various ways such as the heavy reliance on imported processed foods, market-pushed consumerism, environmental destruction due to commercial logging operations, and oil spills in Solomon Islands in 2019, to name just a few.^[5]

There are a number of ways in which this publication was important. It embraces the diversity of small economies, small communities, and small ways of stewardship/resilience that promote abundance of life. It promotes the restoration of power to the everyday economies in the margins by bringing them from the margins to the centre. It also enlightens those who have been pushed into the margins, like the Pacific Island nations, to re-centre their spirituality and ecologically relational values. Every life on Earth is intimately and dynamically interconnected; Earth is home to God, humanity, and all creatures; and the kingdom of God is for the Earth and people to take seriously, because each bit is part of the whole. However, although REM is based on various research from across the globe and Pacific, it is more focused on theory than on providing practical strategies. Although the book has considered the diverse political realities, it does not provide ways to translate these theoretical frameworks into strategies either for the Pacific or for other political contexts.

It’s essential to highlight and acknowledge the achievements of the PCC in addressing climate change since its establishment in 1966 and how effective they have been to date. The PCC has managed to develop a theology of care for nature and continuous proclamation about the significance of Christian responsibilities in respecting and safeguarding God’s creation. The PCC has also made a series of declarations and statements about their serious commitment to respond urgently to the ecological crisis, that climate change is an ecumenical issue, and has issued a call for action. This sounds hopeful but good words and intention do not mean much when action fails to follow. This is evident when the PCC declared their Moana Call For Action in 2017, but continue to fail to live up to their commitment to action. I cannot deny the merit of the REM Framework: it not only embraces the Pacific theologies, cultures and economies, but highly values local knowledge, wisdom, and concepts in addressing climate change in the Pacific. Ultimately, however, it comprised more of the same: talking and meeting. Since then, the talking and meetings have continued.

Outside these organisations, though, lie some grassroots church initiatives. The final post in this series will discuss work being done on the ground in Tonga, one example which emphasises the significance of the role of the PCC via the Tonga National Council of Churches and Tonga Forum of Church Leaders, and which shows in what areas of action PCC is most needed. That is, providing more financial assistances on co-creating and implementing concrete actions on the local church level. There is a need for a greater focus on mobilising the massive organisational resources that churches own and use them effectively for the reduction of carbon emissions. It is critically important to make use of indigenous capacities to combat climate change.

This is the third in a series of four posts. Click here for the first post: A History of Care for God’s Creation within the Church: It’s Time to Walk the Talk! Click here for the second post: Lynn White Jr. and the Origin of Care for God’s Creation in the World Council of Churches. Click here for the fourth post: Churches and Climate Change in Tonga: A Real Measure of the Effectiveness of Pacific Conference of Churches’ Climate Works

Footnotes

[1] T. M. Vaioleti, ‘Talanoa Research Methodology: A developing position on Pacific Research’, Waikato Journal of Education 12 (2006), 21-43.

[2] Timote Masima Vaioleti, ‘Talanoa, Manulua and Founga Ako: Frameworks for Using Enduring Tongan Educational Ideas for Education in Aotearoa/New Zealand’ (PhD Thesis, University of Waikato, 2011), 115.

[3] Cliff Bird, Arnie Saiki, and Meretui Ratunabuabua, Reweaving the Ecological Mat Framework: Toward an Ecological Framework for Development (Pacific Theological College, 2020) (accessed 21 April 2023).

[4] Steve de Gruchy, “Oikos, God and the Olive Agenda: Theological Reflections on Economics and Environment,” 2007.

[5] Karen E. Charlton et al., ‘Fish, Food Security and Health in Pacific Island Countries and Territories: A Systematic Literature Review’, BMC Public Health 16, 1 (24 March 2016), 285; Jocelyn Linnekin, ‘Consuming Cultures: Tourism and the Commoditization of Cultural Identity in the Island Pacific’, in Tourism, Ethnicity, and the State in Asian and Pacific Societies, ed. Michel Picard and Robert E. Wood, (University of Hawaii Press, 1997), 215–50; ‘Logging Rate Unsustainable in Solomons, Admits Official’, RNZ, 5 June 2019; UNESCO World Heritage Centre, ‘Update on East Rennell Oil Spill, Solomon Islands’, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, (accessed 26 August 2024).

The post The Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) and Practical Initiatives Addressing the Climate Crisis appeared first on He Taonga Tuku Iho.

Choose language:

Christians are familiar with the role of prophets in the Old Testament and later throughout the history of the Church. Prophets were called by God in specific eras/contexts to address various issues of concern. Prophets held various roles, including being spokespeople for God through sharing inspired messages, predicting future events, proclaiming God’s messages to the public, serving as moral/intelligent leaders and/or as critics/rebels/reformers of their societies.^[1] While prophets were known for delivering messages of impending danger and calamity, they also sent messages of encouragement and hope to God’s people. I argue that the American historian Lynn T. White Jr. was a prophet of the ecological crisis in the 1960s. The seeds of his message were later grown into the tree of the care for God’s creation in the World Council of Churches (WCC).

The history of environmentalism under the WCC can trace its beginning to the variety of reactions to White’s famous article, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”, in 1967.^[2] White argued that the ecological crisis has deep religious roots, tying it to Western Christianity’s long-standing view that humanity has dominance over nature. White’s article was instrumental in bringing to light the imbrication of Christians’ behaviours and ideologies with environmental damage, and pushing organisations within and between churches to grapple with this legacy and the way forward. In this post, I will connect the intellectual engagement with climate change history to the past and current response of the World Council of Churches (WCC) to the climate crisis.

White’s work was compelling, in part, due to the broader context in which it was published: the rising tide of passionate science communications about the consequences of human exploitation on the environment which became prominent in the 1960s, and an undeniable series of major environmental disasters. In the United States, for example, there was widespread smog in New York City and Los Angeles, a significant oil spill in Santa Barbara in February 1969, and fires in the Cuyahoga River in June of the same year. All of these events received widespread public attention in news reporting and caused alarm and concern for Americans.^[3]

In addition to these events, a series of landmark publications grabbed public attention. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring accused the chemical industry of sending disinformation to the public, hiding the truth about the detrimental effects of DDT (a pesticide) on the environment. Carson also blamed government officials for approving the chemical industry’s marketing campaign without questioning.^[4] Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb, originally published in 1968, brought severe ecological events and the human exploitation of the environment together, helping the public become aware that these issues were all connected. For instance, rapid population growth amounted to rising demands over limited resources, which led to imprudent decisions about resource use. The environmental events around them, plus the effective communication in these texts, pushed the American public to demand change.^[5] This spread to other countries as well.

White’s article attributed the exploitative attitude described in Carson’s and Ehrlich’s work to Christianity’s creation narratives, such as Genesis 2, which declared humanity the centre of creation while relegating nature to a supporting role, serving humanity. According to many ecologists who published after White, because of this Christian belief, Christians had tended to exploit nature for their own gains regardless of the harms being done to the environment and to other species.^[6] This strikingly contrasted with many indigenous peoples’—including Tongans’—beliefs and practices prior to their interaction with European Christian missionaries. Tongans believed in the interconnection and the oneness of creation, and that human beings were just a part of, and not the centre of, creation. We will pick up the story of Tongan churches’ responses to climate change in a later post.

White suggested that Christianity had to revisit its values and beliefs in order to find new approaches to understanding the relationship between humanity and the environment. This included the need for Christianity to transform the theology that declares humanity to have dominion over nature. Although White strongly blamed Western Christianity for the roots of the ecological crisis, his paper did not represent a rejection of Christianity. As he argues, “Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious.”^[7] White proposed some approaches that Christianity could adopt. For example, Christianity needed to revisit its values and beliefs that embrace the environment—such as preserving, respecting and protecting God’s creation (Gen 2:15; Psa 24:1)—and build on those aspects. Another example was to follow the footsteps of Saint Francis of Assisi, especially his care for nature.^[8]

In the past fifty-six years, many have responded to White’s thesis, both in support of and against his arguments. Globally, this has led to some changes in various church denominations; while Anglicans/Episcopalians have mobilised in support of environmentalism, other church denominations (e.g. Pentecostals and Evangelicals) have strengthened their anti-environmentalism. Some churches are denying climate change while others are revisiting their Christian theology and the indigenous cultures of the places where they are based. Though churches have taken different positions on climate change, it is important to highlight how White’s prophetic message had a significant impact on churches and how they have responded to the natural environment throughout the past six decades.

The solutions he proposed in his prophesies have been largely heeded, too; the Christian alignment with environmentalist theologies has been significant, as is represented by the approach taken by the World Council of Churches (WCC). The WCC comprises most of the world’s Orthodox churches (Eastern and Oriental), African Instituted, Anglican, Assyrian, Baptist, Evangelical, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Moravian, Old-Catholic, Pentecostal, Reformed, United/Uniting and Free/Independent churches, Disciples of Christ and Friends (Quakers). WCC has a long history, from the 1960s to the present day, of caring for the wellbeing of humanity and the environment, especially in its concerns over nuclear weapons testing and proliferation. Through most of its history, the WCC has crusaded for disarmament. WCC’s environmentalism has been encouraged and supported throughout the years via its member churches across the globe. The ecumenical mission, social justice, environmental and other issues of concern/interest in the Pacific region have led to the formation of the Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) as a part of the WCC structure and governing bodies in the mid-1960s, the subject of my next post. And yet, for all its claims to care for the environment, and as we will see in the following post, the response of the WCC to environmental issues has been confined to conversations and meetings, without concrete initiatives happening on the ground.

This is the second in a series of four posts. Click here for the first post: A History of Care for God’s Creation within the Church: It’s Time to Walk the Walk! Click here for the third post: The Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) and Practical Initiatives Addressing the Climate Crisis. Click here for the fourth post: Churches and Climate Change in Tonga: A Real Measure of the Effectiveness of Pacific Conference of Churches’ Climate Works

Footnotes

¹ Dorothy Emmet, ‘Prophets and Their Societies’, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 86, 1 (1956), 13–23.

² Lynn T. White, Jr., ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis’, Science 155 (March 1967), 1203-7.

³ Michigan in the World and the Environmental Justice HistoryLab, ‘“Environmental Crisis” in the Late 1960s · Exhibit · Give Earth a Chance: Environmental Activism in Michigan’, Projects of the U-M History Department (accessed 31 July 2024).

⁴ Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin, 1962). For a reflection on its significance, see: Dorothy McLaughlin, ‘Silent Spring Revisited | Fooling With Nature | FRONTLINE | PBS’, n.d. (accessed 31 July 2024).

⁵ Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (Ballantine Books, 1968). Further discussed in “Environmental Crisis” in the Late 1960s · Exhibit · Give Earth a Chance: Environmental Activism in Michigan’.

⁶ Paul Collins, God’s Earth: Religion as if Matter Really Mattered (A Dove Publication, 1995), 87; Peter Harrison, “Having Dominion: Genesis and the Mastery of Nature,” in R. J. Berry, ed, Environmental Stewardship: Critical Perspectives – Past and Present (T & T Clark International, 2006), 21; Thomas Sieger Derr, “Lynn White and his Magical Essay – Religion’s Responsibility for the Ecological Crisis: An Argument Run Amok”; Lisa Sideris, “Environmental Ethics, Ecological Theology and Natural Selection,” in R. J. Berry, ed., Environmental Stewardship: Critical Perspectives – Past and Present (T & T Clark International, 2006), 160, just to name a few.

⁷ White, 1207.

⁸ ibid., 1208.

The post Lynn White Jr. and the Origin of Care for God’s Creation in the World Council of Churches appeared first on He Taonga Tuku Iho.