Climate change and the church: some reflections from the South African context.

Conradie, Ernst M.

Christian Discourse on Climate Change

Christian discourse on climate change is plagued by its historical association with those Western countries that have a proportionally high per capita emission of greenhouse gases (currently and historically). There is no need here to reinvestigate the claims by Lynn White and others that Christianity bears a "huge burden of guilt" for the ecological crisis. The simple correlation implies that, at least for outsiders, there is guilt by association. If the Bible, the Christian faith and Christian churches may not have caused ecological destruction, did Christians do enough to prevent or inhibit or warn against it? Was Christianity not used to legitimize such destruction? Indeed, Christianity has been as much a part of the problem as of the solution. As many Christian eco-theologians have recognized, this calls for nothing less than an ecological reformation of the Christian tradition. (1)

This problem is exacerbated by the many conflicts that characterize the Christian tradition. The reality is that there are Christians among the contributors and among the current and future victims of climate change. Christians with a large carbon footprint face other Christians with a small carbon footprint across the table of international discourse on climate change. While Christianity may be associated with the affluent West, at least historically, in (South) Africa most church members are indeed poor and will increasingly become victims of climate change. The problem is that such Christians typically come to the negotiation table without having been reconciled with one another at the communion table.

Clearly, this situation aggravates the dilemma of speaking about climate change from a Christian perspective. How can one still speak with any integrity and authenticity about the common good? Who has the right to speak? To whom is such discourse addressed? Who might overhear the conversation? Will the target audience listen? Will they even receive the many documents that are produced, let alone open the attachments, read the contents and respond appropriately? And what will they expect Christians to be saying?

On this basis, one may appreciate the way in which at least some churches have demonstrated a long-standing commitment to confront the issues around mitigation and especially adaptation. Here the sterling work of the World Council of Churches' working group on climate change over a period of more than 20 years deserves special mention. (2) The All Africa Conference of Churches has also issued several statements on the urgency of responding to climate change (see below). Several Christian structures, especially in Europe and Australia, now regard work on climate change as a priority on their social agendas. (3) Indeed, given the complicity of Christianity in the root causes of climate change, it is highly appropriate that Christian churches address this matter. For Christians in industrialized countries (especially), this may be regarded as a relevant form of contextual theology. Such work has naturally invited theological reflection. In addition to numerous conference papers and articles, several monographs dealing with climate change on the basis of theological and ethical considerations have appeared in English over the last few years. (4)

In this article I will focus on one recent contribution to ecumenical discourse on climate change, namely a document entitled Climate Change: A Challenge to the Churches in South Africa (October 2009), produced by the climate change committee of the South African Council of Churches (SACC). (5) I will offer some brief background on the document and outline a number of its significant features.

Background to the SACC document

This document emerged from a number of ecumenical consultations and conferences on Christianity and climate change in the South African context. It follows on a series of similar theological statements on social issues emerging over the last few decades from within the (South) African region, including the Message to the People of South Africa (1968), the Belhar Confession (1982/1986), the Kairos Document (1985/1986), The Road to Damascus (1989), The Land Is Crying for Justice (2002), the Accra Declaration (2005) and the Oikos Journey (2006). In several respects it is modelled upon the Kairos Document (1985/1986), especially in terms of its emphasis on reading the signs of the time and its prophetic challenge to the church. As will be indicated below, it also departs from the rhetoric of the Kairos Document due to changes in the social context.

This document should be understood as complementing similar ecumenical processes and documents on climate change from other regions of the world. It builds on documents and a series of newsletters on climate change made available by the World Council of Churches (see above). Most recently, it draws on the WCC Statement on Eco-justice and Ecological Debt (2009).

It also draws from statements in the context of the All Africa Conference of Churches (AACC)--including the call from the AACC to the UN Climate Change conference, held from 13 to 19 December 2007 in Bali, Indonesia--entitled Responsible Church Leadership to Reverse Global Warming and to Ensure Equitable Development, the African Church Leaders' Statement on Climate Change and Water (3-5 June 2008); a report on an Ecumenical Consultation on Climate Change (Africa), held in Nairobi (3-5 June 2008); as well as a declaration of the Fellowship of Christian Councils in Southern Africa (FOCCISA) on ecological debt and climate change (27-29 July 2009).

Finally, the SACC document should also be understood against the background of a resolution adopted by the SACC's 2007 triennial national conference on climate change (included as Addendum B in the document).

This document emerged through a process of reflection, discussion and education among Christians in South Africa who were concerned with the many challenges posed by climate change, with specific reference to the South African context. It followed upon a conference on climate change held at the University of the Western Cape in November 2007. This conference recognized the need for such a document and also drafted a four-page outline. Since then, portions of the document have been discussed in various workshops, church meetings, Bible study groups and conference sessions. During the course of this process, more than 10 versions of the document were produced, distributed for comment and the feedback incorporated.

Since March 2009, a climate change committee of the SACC accepted responsibility for the process of producing the document. From the beginning, it was recognized that this process may be as important as the eventual outcome. I served as the editorial scribe of this committee and was as such responsible for drafting the document on the basis of the available outline and for editing comments and inputs emerging from the extended consultative process. The finalized version of the text was submitted to the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the SACC in September 2009. The document was subsequently endorsed by the NEC, as indicated in the preface by Eddie Makue, the current general secretary of the SACC.

The document is aimed primarily at churches in South Africa. Since the process of reflection, education and discernment is crucial in this regard, the NEC subsequently invited other church structures and Christian leaders to endorse the document as well. During the months of October and November 2009 it was distributed for endorsements. By the cut-off date of 8 December, it had been endorsed by some 24 church structures and 211 Christian leaders involved in ministries at various levels in South Africa. (6) The list makes interesting reading and includes some 25 bishops from a wide variety of denominations. A remarkable feature of these endorsements is that they come from across the spectrum--from various African Instituted Churches to the Dutch Reformed Church. Here, it seems, was something that many Christians (excluding those preaching a prosperity gospel) could agree upon in a still deeply divided country.

Recognizing the significance of the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 15), held in December 2009, the document was launched in Cape Town and Durban on 30 November and 8 December respectively. This does not imply that the main purpose of the document was to influence discussions in Copenhagen. Instead, it is primarily a prophetic statement addressed to the church in South Africa, discerning that a moment of truth has arrived where Christians in South Africa must examine their own lives, habits, perceptions, attitudes, ethos and spirituality.

Climate Change--A Challenge to the Churches in South Africa

In responding to the challenges posed by climate change, the document adopts a distinct rhetoric. It is worth looking at six distinguishing features of this rhetoric.

First, it is striking that this document was not addressed directly to the processes around Copenhagen, even though these are very much in the background. It is primarily addressed to churches in South Africa, self-critically seeking to discern how climate change may challenge the church towards reformation, transformation and metanoia (p. 8). It recognizes that others may be overhearing what Christians in South Africa are saying among themselves and that these others may overhear with suspicion. These "others" include Christians elsewhere in Africa and further afield, people of other living faiths, secular critics and those involved in other sectors of society. The document states that "This is not a form of prophecy that safely allocates the blame elsewhere and that merely reiterates a call to do something--which those in government or in the corporate world may not even hear or read, let alone listen to or respond to" (p. 2). Nevertheless, the tacit assumption (and hope!) is that this strategy of "overhearing the gospel" (7) may influence political processes indirectly. For that reason the document was launched just before the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties.

Second, the document repeatedly acknowledges the temptation to speak as if Christians can occupy some moral high ground, especially on the issue of climate change. Instead, it recognizes (see p. 2) that the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, that it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart and that it pierces through our own practices, habits and institutions (Heb. 4:12). This is strikingly different from the Kairos Document and other ecclesial statements on climate change emerging from the African continent. In the context of the struggle against apartheid, there could be little doubt about the right to speak from the moral high ground against structural violence and many instances where human rights were violated. Now the context has changed. This has to be understood in terms of South Africa's high carbon emissions relative to other African countries (as the economic powerhouse of Africa, and sometimes described as building its own "empire" in Africa) and the continuing economic inequalities in South Africa. Moreover, the impact of the ideology of consumerism that is so evident among the consumer class, but that also describes the aspirations of the impoverished majority in South Africa, is emphasized repeatedly. (8)

South Africa's newspapers report daily on the naked greed, lavish lifestyles and powermongering of the former beneficiaries of apartheid and the current ruling elite alike. In view of the high prevalence of organized crime to cause people to obtain wealth instantly, one may observe that many South Africans have become obsessed with acquiring material wealth. Among the lower middle class this goal has fostered not only a strong upward social mobility, but also a culture of entitlement. If one can portray oneself as a victim--of apartheid, of crime, of HIV/AIDS or of fate--this seems to suggest that one is entitled to a degree, a job, a good salary, a house, a car, a position of power or even sexual favours. The prosperity gospel (which thrives in urban centres) renders theological legitimacy to such aspirations and upward social mobility.

This is where the document is at its sharpest, most self-critical, most vulnerable. In short, the document acknowledges that Christians in South Africa cannot occupy the moral high ground on the issue of climate change for four reasons:

   because Christianity is considered by many to be part of the
   problem, not the solution to it; because others [scientists and
   journalists] have been acting as prophets; because South Africa's
   carbon emissions are so high; because human-induced climate change
   results from economic production and consumption involving
   life-style issues; and because the ideology of consumerism affects
   both the affluent and the poor, albeit in diverging ways. (p. 5).

In addition, one should remember that the victims of anthropogenic climate change include non-human animals and that speaking on behalf of other species harbours the dangers of anthropocentrism often highlighted in eco-theology.

Third, this recognition of the dangers of speaking from the moral high ground is illustrated by a questioning of the notion of being "innocent victims". In the struggle against apartheid, the distinction between victims and perpetrators proved helpful. There are those who are sinners and those who are sinned against. The victims obviously include the victims of gross violations of human rights, but also many others whose human dignity was trampled upon through the system of race classification that was reinforced through countless daily reminders. The perpetrators included those who were found guilty of gross violations of human rights, but also those who supported the system in various ways--through voting or simply by not resisting it hard enough. In addition, one could speak about the not so innocent bystanders and also the beneficiaries of apartheid --those who benefited from it financially through "legal" means in the form of tax cuts, employment opportunities education, health care and other social services. The beneficiaries include some who were formerly classified as "white" but who opposed the system nevertheless.

In the context of climate change, the distinction between perpetrators and innocent victims remains valid. The overwhelming thrust of ecumenical discourse on climate change is that this is a matter of justice, since those who are or will become victims have contributed little to the problem, except perhaps in the form of cutting down trees for charcoal, for firewood or for farming. The innocent victims include many already impoverished rural communities in (South) Africa that are predicted to be confronted with crop failure, the spread of diseases and waves of environmental refugees. The SACC document therefore insists that "We do not contribute equally to the problem, nor do we bear an equal responsibility for we occupy different positions of power in society" (p. 14).

Nevertheless, the distinction between perpetrators and victims is relativized. This is found especially in the critique on "blaming theologies" (pp. 14-15), which moves away from the language of the "purely innocent" victims of climate change. Of course, there are many truly innocent victims (for example, of rape), but all too often the victims have become perpetrators as well (as is obviously the case with gangsterism and often with marriage trouble). The core of the critique is two-fold: the need to accept responsibility for Africa's woes and a recognition of the impact of consumerism in South Africa (which does not apply in the same way to other southern African countries). The document explains:

   ... there is an unhelpful tendency to view victims necessarily as
   purely innocent, to always attribute problems to forces from the
   outside, beyond our control ("blame it on colonialism, imperialism,
   racism and apartheid"), never to accept responsibility for the ills
   of society. Sometimes we hold onto histories that we do not have.
   Sometimes we hold onto our pain because it gives us leverage. Then
   we do not really desire healing because our identity is so deeply
   shaped by what we can rightfully complain about. Moreover, people
   are all too often both victims and perpetrators ... In the face of
   climate change we have to accept collective responsibility as a
   species for the damage we are causing. We are in trouble together
   and will only resolve the coming crisis if it is done together. In
   the context of consumerism we have to be aware of the ways in which
   our rampant desires have fuelled the economy and have spiralled
   beyond control. Although the consumer class have led the way in
   this regard, sadly, we who belong to the lower middle class also
   desire that which we do not have. When it comes to a love of money,
   it may well be true that those who have it the least, love it the
   most. (pp. 14-15)

This may be one of the most controversial features of the document--and is clearly recognized as such. The same section therefore adds,

   Here some pastoral sensitivity is clearly required to focus on the
   most serious sources of the problem and not to heap guilt upon the
   innocent or to induce feelings of guilt (that can only inhibit an
   appropriate response). At the same time we must fathom the secret
   corners of the human heart with honesty and integrity. Even this
   recognition, namely that climate change can only be addressed
   together (by the consumer class and the poor), can easily be used
   to underplay the priority of issues concerning justice and equity.
   (p. 15)

Fourth, and following on from this recognition, the document adopts a somewhat curious strategy of speaking with multiple voices in order to reflect the perspectives of Christians from quite different sectors of the South African society, across the divisions of race, class, gender, culture and language. Accordingly, the word "we"/"us" is used in different ways--"to refer to South African citizens, to Christians in South Africa, to those who have endorsed the document or to specific groups of Christians" (p. 1). Often these voices are in tension with each other, for example in articulating attitudes and perceptions regarding climate among South Africans (pp. 8-12). The difficulties in speaking together, although with multiple and even conflicting voices, are expressed in the following way:

   Although multiple voices are present, these voices speak about a
   common challenge and a common task to live together on a planet
   that we share with each other, with people from other faith
   traditions and numerous other forms of life. On this challenge we
   have to learn to speak together and in such a way that the voices
   of the victims are not dominated by others or even by their
   spokespersons. For Christians in South Africa, so deeply divided on
   the basis of race and class (and other variables), this is by no
   means easy. We also have to remind ourselves continuously that the
   victims include not only the poor and coming generations but also
   numerous other species affected by climate change. (p. 1)

The document does not so much seek a common vision that can be shared by others in a multi-faith context. Given the complicity of Christianity in climate change, it asks what churches in South Africa can contribute that others cannot (p. 40). On this basis it explores the distinctiveness of the Christian vision and recognizes that this is ultimately an all-embracing liturgical vision of the triune God. It is through the liturgy that Christians are enabled to look at the world through God's eyes--with compassion and justice (pp. 64-65).

However, the expression of this vision is necessarily particular. This implies that affluent and poor Christians in South Africa must speak about climate change in different ways and that South Africans and citizens from other African countries must acknowledge such differences. Indeed, the many polarizations that characterize global discourse on climate change remain all too obvious--between East and West, North and South, the Christian and the Muslim "worlds", the consumer class and the poor, (over)-industrialized and so-called developing economies, urbanized Africa and rural Africa, gated communities and (environmental) refugees, previous and coming generations (ancestors and the unborn), as well as between the interests of humankind and otherkind (see p. 51).

The challenge therefore remains to learn to speak together about a common agenda, on the common good, on a planet that we share in common, also in common with numerous other forms of life on whom we as humans depend more than they depend upon us. To speak a common language is indeed challenging, because the categories that we use to indicate the "common" may easily degenerate towards the pejorative sense of the word "common"--ill-mannered, unrefined, coarse and vulgar. To protect ourselves against that, we require the courage to speak distinctively, from our own roots, knowing that others may be listening with suspicion.

Whether the SACC's document is able to avoid the many traps of speaking in this vein is hard to judge for someone who was involved in the process. Indeed, as the document also states, "Any form of Christian witness in the context of climate change will therefore be to expose oneself to the judgment of others--who may well urge us to measure ourselves with the measure that we employ (cf. Matt 7:1-5)" (p. 5).

A fifth feature of the document is its focus on the cultural, moral and spiritual dimensions of the challenge. It does not repeat the available data on the many dangers associated with climate change. It insists that Christians are not experts in this regard but have a duty to familiarize themselves with ongoing scientific work. It does not advocate technological solutions or elaborate on practical steps that people can follow at home or at work. It does not comment on policy making at an international level or even seek to influence that, although the need to do so through global ecumenical witness is emphasized.

Instead, the focus of the document follows from two observations. First, climate change has by now been on the global and ecumenical agenda for two decades, but greenhouse emissions have accelerated during this time. (9) Second, although the technological means are already available to address climate change, the global and individual efforts have not nearly been commensurate with the scale of the problem. One may, with considerable efforts, reduce one's individual carbon footprint by 10 percent, but a reduction of around 80 percent is needed in industrialized countries. A call to more action will therefore not suffice; it is also necessary to reflect on how churches and other groups have been acting and whether this has been adequate. This reflection on ecclesial praxis is also behind the methodology of the document, which is based on the spiral of theological reflection described in terms of act-see-judge-act, and is well known in South Africa.

These observations suggest that the problem is not merely one of gathering scientific information, of finding technological solutions or of educating people. Even those who are well informed and have developed an acute environmental awareness still find it difficult to translate that into appropriate praxis, since they find themselves in societal structures that are not easily transformed. It is a liberal fallacy to assume that information and education is sufficient to prompt moral action. Instead, the document maintains that climate change should also be understood as a cultural problem (given the impact of consumerism), a moral problem and indeed a spiritual problem. It is not simply the case that we all wish to address the problem but do not know how to do that. It may well be the case that we know how to do it, but do not want to do so because it will require such a drastic transformation of society. The document therefore suggests that

   ... at a deeper level, the problem may be one of a lack of moral
   imagination, moral courage and moral leadership. It is indeed a
   matter of moral vision. We need to envisage alternatives to the
   current global economic order that has caused climate
   change--alternatives that will be able to generate sufficient
   wealth, distribute such wealth more equitably and help to redefine
   our very understanding of what wealth entails. Such a vision needs
   to be attractive enough to motivate millions of people, to energize
   and mobilize action. (p. 40)

The emphasis on the cultural and structural roots of climate change prompts an important section on the interplay between the needs for the production, distribution and redefinition of wealth (pp. 26-37). On this basis, the document recognizes the need for an alternative vision for the current global economic order. However, it seems that such an alternative vision is currently not attractive enough to mobilize action, probably because it will have implications for the life-styles of the consumer class and the aspirations of the global middle class.

A final feature of the document is related to the previous one. Why may climate change be regarded as a spiritual and not merely a cultural and a moral problem? The intuition of the document is that this is related to the driving force behind the process of social transformation that is required. More information about the dangers associated with climate change and more moral imperatives to address the problem will not suffice. Only an alternative vision that is more attractive than the promise of sustained economic growth and the production of more wealth would be able to energize action. At this point the document sharpens the focus on its own target audience. Following Wolfgang Huber's widely used term of "self-secularization", (10) the document calls upon Christians in South Africa to take their own message seriously--the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit. It thus explores the indicative behind the imperative in terms of God's grace and an understanding of the content and significance of the Christian faith.

This prompts an extended discussion on an appropriate vision to address climate change, namely in terms of the ecumenical vision of a Just, Participatory and Sustainable Society (to use the phrase coined at the Nairobi assembly of the WCC in 1975).

This is followed by a section on a number of "new commandments" that Christians are invited to follow amid climate change. It is particularly striking that none of these commandments is patterned on the imperatives typically issued in ecumenical and secular agendas alike. The importance of such imperatives is beyond dispute in ecumenical circles, but the focus of this document is on the spiritual problem of discerning what God is doing in order to find the spiritual energy to redirect the global economy's reliance on fossil fuels. The emphasis is therefore on the role of the celebration of the liturgy, on Sabbath rest, on the power of Christian confession in community, on Christian witness in "bold humility" (David Bosch), on the virtues of gratitude (for what God has done), generosity and frugality and on the power derived from Christian community and Christian ministry. The final commandment focuses on appropriate forms of consumption as enacted through holy communion.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1758-6623.2010.00054.x

(1) See James A. Nash, "Towards the Ecological Reformation of Christianity", Interpretation 50.1 (1996), p. 5-15.

(2) See, especially, Accelerated Climate Change: Sign of Peril, Test of Faith (1993), Solidarity with Victims of Climate Change (2002), Climate Change (2005), Alternative Globalization Addressing Peoples and Earth (AGAPE) (2005), a dossier entitled Climate Change and the World Council of Churches (November 2008) and a sustained series of climate change newsletters. See http://www.oikoumene.org/en/programmes/ justice-diakonia-and-responsibility-for-creation/ climate-change-and-water.html (Accessed 26 November 2009)

(3) Two examples may suffice: namely, the work done through Christian Aid in the UK and the Fairclimate: http://fairclimateproject.org.

(4) See Sallie McFague, A New Climate for Theology: God, the World and Global Warming, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2008; Michael Northcott, A Moral Climate: The Ethics of Global Warming, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY, 2007; Anne Primavesi, Gaia and Climate Change: A Theology of Gift Events, Routledge, London, 2009; James Martin-Schramm, Climate Justice. Ethics, Energy and Public Policy, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2009; and my own The Church and CLimate Change, Cluster Publications, Pietermaritzburg, 2008. See also the volume God, Creation and Climate Change: A Resource for Reflection and Discussion, Karen L. Bloomquist, ed., with Rolita Machila, The Lutheran World Federation, 2009. See http://www.lutheranworld.org/What_We_Do/DTS/Programs/ DTS-Climate_Change-web.pdf (Accessed November 29, 2009)

(5) This document is also available at www.sacc.org.za. Subsequent page references in parenthesis in the text refer to this document.

(6) The list of endorsements is available at www.sacc.org.za/.

(7) See Fred Craddock, Overhearing the Gospel: Preaching and Teaching the Faith to Persons Who Have Already Heard, Abingdon, Nashville, 1978.

(8) See my investigation of the impact of consumerism on churches in South Africa in Christianity and a Critique of Consumerism: A Survey of Six Points of Entry, Bible Media, Wellington, 2009. http://www.bmedia.co.za/content/view/486/353/ (Accessed November 29, 2009)

(9) The Global Carbon project, a study by 31 leading scientists headed by Prof Corinne Le Quere, reported in December 2009 that annual carbon emissions have increased by 29% from 2000 to 2008 and by 41% from 1990 to 2008. Except for 2009 (due to the global recession), this represents an annual increase of 3%.

(10) See Wolfgang Huber, Kirche in der Zeitenwende: Gesellschaftlicher Wandel und Erneurung der Kirche, Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gutersloh, 1998, p. 31.

Ernst M. Conradie is an associate professor in the department of religion and theology at the University of the Western Cape, South Africa. He teaches systematic theology and ethics.