Is 'green' religion the solution to
the ecological crisis?
A case study of mainstream
religion in Australia
by
Steven Murray Douglas
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
of the Australian National University
March 2008
ii
Candidate's Declaration
This thesis contains no material that has been accepted for the award of any other degree or
diploma in any university. To the best of the author’s knowledge, it contains no material
previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the
text.
Steven Murray Douglas
Date:
iii
Acknowledgements
“All actions take place in time by the interweaving of the forces of nature;
but the man lost in selfish delusion thinks he himself is the actor.”
(Bhagavad Gita 3:27).
‘Religion’ remains a somewhat taboo subject in Australia. When combined with
environmentalism, notions of spirituality, the practice of criticality, and the concept of self-
actualisation, it becomes even harder to ‘pigeonhole’ as a topic, and does not fit comfortably
into the realms of academia. In addition to the numerous personal challenges faced during the
preparation of this thesis, its very nature challenged the academic environment in which it took
place.
I consider that I was fortunate to be able to undertake this research with the aid of a
scholarship provided by the Fenner School of Environment & Society and the College of
Science. I acknowledge David Dumaresq for supporting my scholarship application and
candidature, and for being my supervisor for my first year at ANU. Emeritus Professor Valerie
Brown took on the role of my supervisor in David’s absence during my second year. Dr Robin
Tennant-Wood acted as my supervisor during the remainder of my candidature. Head of School,
Professor Peter Kanowski, supported my scholarship and provided valuable administrative
assistance. Acting Head of School, Associated Professor Janette Lindesay, also provided much
appreciated support towards the end of my candidature.
I particularly thank Dr John Harris for sharing the latter half of the thesis preparation
journey. As a retired academic from the University of Canberra, John was not rewarded in
conventional forms for his substantial professional support in bringing the thesis to fruition.
Whilst John was not my official supervisor, he ably fulfilled that role.
I also thank Dr John Schooneveldt of Sustainability Science for reading the first full draft
of the thesis and for his valuable and insightful feedback.
In the first half of my candidature, Dr Jacqui Russell, then a fellow PhD student, assisted
me with philosophical and essential methodological matters and an introduction to the field of
Critical Human Ecology.
I acknowledge the on-going support of my mother, Sylvia Robyn, who whilst she was
readily lost in all the “philosophy” continued to encourage me to progress the thesis irrespective
of the many administrative and personal challenges that I faced along the way.
iv
My partner, Dr Emma Rush, was aboard for the latter half of the journey. As a fellow
‘survivor’ of the PhD process, and as another who wants to change the world, knowing that this
means changing oneself, her multifaceted support was invaluable. She also read the first full
draft of the thesis and provided useful feedback.
I acknowledge the support of various ‘healthcare’ professionals who I often called upon to
help restore my body, mind and spirit (with apologies for the questionable trichotomy). These
practitioners include Jenny Laurenson, Wesley Smith, Avigail Abarbanel, Cordelia Dalton, Tim
Thomas, Michael Stenning, Léonie John, Nicole Wilson, and Greta von Gavel.
I also appreciated the support of staff from the ANU’s Hancock and Chifley Libraries,
especially the extent to which they agreed to purchase important literature that aided the
preparation of this thesis.
Finally, I acknowledge the contributions made by my research participants, many of whom
are unnamed in this thesis.
“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I –
I took the one less travelled by,
And that has made all the difference.”
(Robert Frost, cited in Gunderson & Holling, 2002 ‘Panarchy’ p 419)
v
Abstract
A significant and growing number of authors and commentators have proposed that
ecologically enlightened (‘greened’) religion is the solution or at least a major part of the
solution to the global ecological crisis. These include Birch, 1965 p90; Brindle, 2000; Callicott,
1994; Gardner, 2002, 2003, 2006; Gore Jr., 1992; Gottlieb, 2006, 2007; Hallman, 2000;
Hamilton, 2006b, a, 2007b; Hessel & Ruether, 2000b; Hitchcock, 1999; King, 2002; Lerner,
2006a; McDonagh, 1987; McFague, 2001; McKenzie, 2005; Nasr, 1996; Oelschlaeger, 1994;
Palmer, 1992; Randers, 1972; Tucker & Grim, 2000; and White Jr., 1967. Proponents offer a
variety of reasons for this view, including that the majority of the world’s and many nations’
people identify themselves as religious, and that there is a large amount of land and
infrastructure controlled by religious organisations worldwide. However, the most important
reason is that ‘religion’ is said to have one or more exceptional qualities that can drive and
sustain dramatic personal and societal change. The underlying or sometimes overt suggestion is
that as the ecological crisis is ultimately a moral crisis, religion is best placed to address the
problem at its root.
Proponents of the above views are often religious, though there are many who are not.
Many proponents are from the USA and write in the context of the powerful role of religion in
that country. Others write in a global context. Very few write from or about the Australian
context where the role of religion in society is variously argued to be virtually non-existent,
soon to be non-existent, or profound but covert.
This thesis tests the proposition that religion is the solution to the ecological crisis. It does
this using a case study of mainstream religion in Australia, represented by the Catholic,
Anglican, and Uniting Churches. The Churches’ ecological policies and practices are analysed
to determine the extent to which these denominations are fulfilling, or might be able to fulfil,
the proposition. The primary research method is an Internet-based search for policy and praxis
material. The methodology is Critical Human Ecology.
The research finds that: the ‘greening’ of these denominations is evident; it is a recent
phenomenon in the older Churches; there is a growing wealth of environmentalist sentiment and
ecological policy being produced; but little institutional praxis has occurred. Despite the often-
strong rhetoric, there is no evidence to suggest that ecological concerns, even linked to broader
social concerns (termed ‘ecojustice’) are ‘core business’ for the Churches as institutions.
Conventional institutional and anthropocentric welfare concerns remain dominant.
vi
Overall, the three Churches struggle with organisational, demographic, and cultural
problems that impede their ability to convert their official ecological concerns into institutional
praxis. Despite these problems, there are some outstanding examples of ecological policy and
praxis in institutional and non-institutional forms that at least match those seen in mainstream
secular society.
I conclude that in Australia, mainstream religion is a limited part of the solution to the
ecological crisis. It is not the solution to the crisis, at least not in its present institutional form.
Institutional Christianity is in decline in Australia and is being replaced by non-institutional
Christianity, other religions and non-religious spiritualities (Tacey, 2000, 2003; Bouma, 2006;
Tacey, 2007). The ecological crisis is a moral crisis, but in Australia, morality is increasingly
outside the domain of institutional religion. The growth of the non-institutional religious and the
‘spiritual but not religious’ demographic may, if ecologically informed, offer more of a
contribution to addressing the ecological crisis in future. This may occur in combination with
some of the more progressive movements seen at the periphery of institutional Christianity such
as the ‘eco-ministry’ of Rev. Dr. Jason John in Adelaide, and the ‘Creation Spirituality’ taught,
advocated and practiced by the Mercy Sisters’ Earth Link project in Queensland.
vii
Table of Contents
Candidate's Declaration ..................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xi
Glossary of key terms and concepts ................................................................................ xii
Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Outline of the chapters ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 Preliminaries ........................................................................................................... 3
1.2.1 What does ‘God’ have to do with it?................................................................ 3
1.2.2 ‘Nature’ not ‘nature’........................................................................................ 3
1.2.3 “It’s the ecology, stupid”................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2: The proposition: ‘religion is the answer’ ..................................................... 6
2.1 The nature of the proponents................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Religious proponents ....................................................................................... 9
2.1.2 Non-religious proponents .............................................................................. 11
2.2 The moral dimension of the ecocrisis and of environmentalism........................... 12
2.3 A contrary proposition – ‘religion’ is irrelevant ................................................... 13
2.4 The potential role of ‘green’ religion .................................................................... 16
2.5 Summary ............................................................................................................... 18
Chapter 3: Critical Human Ecology ............................................................................... 19
3.1 Criticality and transpersonal research ................................................................... 19
3.2 Extended transdisciplinarity.................................................................................. 26
3.3 Human Ecology..................................................................................................... 27
3.3.1 Critical Human Ecology ................................................................................ 31
3.4 Boundary judgements............................................................................................ 33
3.4.1 Forum on Religion and Ecology .................................................................... 33
3.4.2 Australia and mainstream Christianity.......................................................... 37
3.5 Methodology as research-in-action ....................................................................... 38
Chapter 4: The Australian focus ..................................................................................... 41
4.1 A gap in the literature............................................................................................ 41
4.2 Is Australia secular? .............................................................................................. 44
4.2.1 What does ‘secular’ mean?............................................................................ 45
4.2.1.1 Measuring secularity and religiosity......................................................... 46
4.2.2 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 50
4.3 Political dimensions .............................................................................................. 51
viii
Chapter 5: Why Christianity? ......................................................................................... 55
5.1 The mainstream..................................................................................................... 55
5.2 Diversity within the denominations ...................................................................... 57
5.3 The Church and Christendom ............................................................................... 58
5.4 The ecological reformation ................................................................................... 59
5.5 Why not non-Christian religions? ......................................................................... 61
5.6 Why not Pentecostal or Evangelical forms of Christianity? ................................. 65
5.6.1 Pentecostal/Evangelical Christianity............................................................. 65
5.6.2 Hillsong Church............................................................................................. 67
5.6.3 Exclusive Brethren ......................................................................................... 68
5.7 Why not forms of Christianity long known as ecologically progressive?............. 69
5.7.1 Lutheran......................................................................................................... 69
5.7.2 Jehovah’s Witnesses....................................................................................... 70
5.7.3 The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) .................................................. 70
5.8 Back to the mainstream ......................................................................................... 70
Chapter 6: An iterative approach ................................................................................... 71
6.1 The ‘greening’ of mainstream religion in Australia – a case study....................... 72
6.2 Action Research .................................................................................................... 72
6.3 Insider or outsider?................................................................................................ 73
6.4 Critical policy analysis .......................................................................................... 75
6.4.1 Overview ........................................................................................................ 75
6.4.2 Secular policy analysis meets the Church...................................................... 77
6.4.3 Composite (descriptive/prescriptive) analysis ............................................... 82
6.5 Internet-based policy research............................................................................... 85
6.5.1 Why the Internet?........................................................................................... 85
6.5.2 Data collection – the ‘web’............................................................................ 88
6.6 Policy research beyond the ‘web’ ......................................................................... 90
6.7 Summary of constraints and boundaries ............................................................... 92
Chapter 7: Church structures and their relevance to ecological policies and praxis . 94
7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 94
7.2 International context.............................................................................................. 94
7.2.1 The Roman Catholic Church.......................................................................... 95
7.2.2 The Anglican Communion.............................................................................. 99
7.3 The national context – organisational structure .................................................. 103
7.3.1 The Catholic Church of Australia................................................................ 103
7.3.1.1 Catholic Earthcare Australia................................................................... 105
7.3.1.2 Diocesan social and ecological justice bodies ........................................ 105
7.3.2 The Anglican Church of Australia ............................................................... 106
7.3.2.1 Environment Working Group................................................................. 107
7.3.2.2 Diocesan Environment Commissions..................................................... 107
7.3.3 The Uniting Church of Australia ................................................................. 109
7.3.3.1 UnitingJustice ......................................................................................... 110
7.3.3.2 Synod and presbytery bodies.................................................................. 112
7.4 Summary ............................................................................................................. 113
ix
Chapter 8: Catholic Church ecological policy & praxis............................................. 115
8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 115
8.2 National policy and praxis................................................................................... 115
8.2.1.1 ‘Christians and their duty towards Nature’............................................. 116
8.2.1.2 Social Justice Sunday Statement 2001 ................................................... 117
8.2.1.3 Social Justice Sunday Statement 2002 ................................................... 118
8.2.1.4 Social Justice Statement 2005 ................................................................ 119
8.2.2 Catholic Earthcare Australia (CEA)............................................................ 120
8.2.2.1 Internet connectivity ............................................................................... 120
8.2.2.2 Organisational constraints ...................................................................... 121
8.2.2.3 Emphasis on education ........................................................................... 122
8.2.2.4 The future of CEA .................................................................................. 123
8.2.2.5 ‘The garden planet’ (video) .................................................................... 124
8.2.2.6 ‘The grains of life’.................................................................................. 125
8.2.2.7 ‘Freshwater is sacred water’ ................................................................... 125
8.2.2.8 ‘Let the many coastlands be glad’ .......................................................... 125
8.2.2.9 ‘The gift of water’ .................................................................................. 127
8.2.2.10 ‘Towards environmental futures’ (audit CD) ....................................... 129
8.2.2.11 ‘Climate change: our responsibility to sustain God’s Earth’................ 133
8.3 Summary of research on Catholic diocesan policy and praxis............................ 137
8.3.1 Archdiocese of Sydney ................................................................................. 137
8.3.2 Archdiocese of Perth.................................................................................... 138
8.3.3 Archdiocese of Brisbane .............................................................................. 139
8.3.3.1 Earth Link............................................................................................... 139
8.3.4 Diocese of Rockhampton.............................................................................. 140
8.3.5 Diocese of Townsville .................................................................................. 141
8.3.6 Diocese of Maitland/Newcastle ................................................................... 141
8.3.7 Diocese of Broome....................................................................................... 142
8.3.8 Diocese of Sale............................................................................................. 142
8.3.9 Archdiocese of Hobart ................................................................................. 142
8.3.10 Diocese of Lismore...................................................................................... 144
8.3.10.1 Marian Grove Retirement Village ........................................................ 144
8.3.11 Archdiocese of Canberra & Goulburn........................................................ 145
8.3.11.1 St Clements Retreat, Galong ................................................................ 147
8.4 Summary and conclusions................................................................................... 149
x
Chapter 9: Anglican Church ecological policy & praxis............................................. 152
9.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 152
9.2 The national website ........................................................................................... 152
9.3 National Environment Working Group............................................................... 153
9.3.1 The Kyoto Protocol ...................................................................................... 155
9.3.2 The Working Group since 2004 ................................................................... 156
9.3.3 ‘Green by Grace’ ......................................................................................... 159
9.4 Diocesan policy and praxis ................................................................................. 161
9.4.1 Archdiocese of Melbourne ........................................................................... 161
9.4.2 Archdiocese of Perth.................................................................................... 164
9.4.3 Archdiocese of Adelaide .............................................................................. 164
9.4.4 Archdiocese of Brisbane .............................................................................. 165
9.4.5 Diocese of Newcastle ................................................................................... 165
9.4.5.1 Parish of Gosford.................................................................................... 166
9.4.6 Diocese of Grafton....................................................................................... 167
9.4.7 Archdiocese of Sydney ................................................................................. 170
9.4.7.1 ‘Environment: a Christian response’ ...................................................... 173
9.4.8 Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn ............................................................... 174
9.4.8.1 Environmental audit ............................................................................... 177
9.5 Summary and conclusions................................................................................... 178
Chapter 10: Uniting Church ecological policy & praxis ............................................. 180
10.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 180
10.2 The National Assembly ................................................................................... 181
10.2.1 Statements and policies from 1977 to 2003 ................................................ 183
10.2.2 UnitingJustice ............................................................................................. 186
10.2.2.1 No security without justice: Election 2004........................................... 187
10.2.2.2 For the sake of the planet and all its people (2006).............................. 189
10.2.2.3 International Human Rights Day 2006 ................................................. 191
10.2.2.4 Assembly commits to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions (2007).. 192
10.3 Ecological policy and praxis at the Synod level.............................................. 193
10.3.1 Synod of Victoria & Tasmania.................................................................... 194
10.3.1.1 Justice and International Mission Unit ................................................. 194
10.3.1.2 National Threatened Species Day......................................................... 201
10.3.1.3 The Earth Team .................................................................................... 202
10.3.1.4 MorePraxis website .............................................................................. 204
10.4 Synod of NSW & the ACT.............................................................................. 205
10.4.1.1 UnitingCare NSW ................................................................................ 205
10.4.1.2 Regional praxis - Earth Ministry .......................................................... 210
10.4.1.3 Local praxis – Maroubra Junction ‘Green Church’.............................. 211
10.4.2 Synod of Queensland................................................................................... 213
10.4.3 Synod of South Australia............................................................................. 217
10.4.3.1 Ecofaith Community ............................................................................ 219
10.4.3.2 Landcare and related works.................................................................. 219
10.4.4 Synod of Western Australia......................................................................... 220
10.4.4.1 ‘The Transit Lounge’............................................................................ 220
xi
10.4.5 Northern Synod ........................................................................................... 221
10.5 Summary and conclusions ............................................................................... 223
Chapter 11: Synopsis...................................................................................................... 225
11.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 225
11.1.1 The Churches are part of the solution… ..................................................... 225
11.1.2 The significance of climate change as an issue........................................... 225
11.1.3 The burden of anthropocentrism................................................................. 226
11.1.4 Organisational problems - subsidiarity ...................................................... 226
11.1.5 Abuse of children is illegal, abuse of Creation is optional ......................... 228
11.1.6 Low ecological literacy ............................................................................... 229
11.1.7 The role of change agents ........................................................................... 232
11.2 Are ‘greened’ Churches the solution to the ecological crisis?......................... 234
11.2.1 Summary of the case study of the mainstream Churches in Australia ........ 235
11.3 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 238
References........................................................................................................................ 240
Appendix 1: National & State-level ecumenical & multifaith policies....................... 259
A1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 259
A1.2 National ecumenical & multi-faith responses.................................................. 259
A1.2.1 ‘Common belief: Australia’s faith communities on climate change’.......... 260
A1.2.2 National Council of Churches in Australia ................................................ 264
A1.2.2.1 Social Justice Network ........................................................................ 265
A1.3 State & Territory ecumenical responses .......................................................... 272
A1.3.1 NSW Council of Churches .......................................................................... 273
A1.3.2 NSW Ecumenical Council........................................................................... 273
A1.3.2.1 ‘Urgent call to focus on environment’................................................. 274
A1.3.2.2 2007 NSW Election Statement ............................................................ 276
A1.3.3 Victorian Council of Churches ................................................................... 277
A1.3.4 Council of Churches of Western Australia ................................................. 278
A1.3.5 Queensland Churches Together ................................................................. 278
A1.3.6 South Australian Council of Churches ....................................................... 278
A1.4 Summary of national & state ecumenical & multifaith responses................... 280
List of Figures
Figure 0.1 Relationship of philosophical orientations...............................................................................xiii
Figure 3.1 Schematic representation of the research methodology............................................................ 40
List of Tables
Table 10.1 Summary of UCA national ecological policies 1977-2003.................................................... 184
xii
Glossary of key terms and concepts
I have arranged most of the following terms and concepts alphabetically, but some are
otherwise-grouped because they are best understood together.
Anthropocentric - I use ‘anthropocentric’ to refer to an ideology or policy in which
humans are placed at the centre of moral considerability, i.e. concerns for humans are prioritised
over concerns for other beings or non-beings. I also use the term ‘anthropoexclusive’. This is an
extreme form of anthropocentrism in which only humans are considered.
‘Anthropocentric’ should not be conflated with ‘anthropogenic’. The latter term means
‘created by a human or humans’. Something that is anthropogenic need not be anthropocentric.
Rush, 2004 p33, points out that ‘anthropocentric’ and ‘anthropogenic’ are regularly confused in
ecophilosophical literature. Citing Plumwood, 2002, p134, Rush says that “Although it is
clearly impossible to abandon a human epistemological location, and therefore, human attitudes
will always be anthropogenic,… anthropocentrism is far from necessary: ‘it is no more
necessary for humans to be human-centred than it is for males to be male-centred, or for whites
to be Eurocentric or racist in their outlook. Human-centredness is no more inescapable than any
other form of centrism’.”
Biocentric - I use ‘biocentric’ to refer to an ideology of policy in which the life of an
individual, a population, or a species, is given moral considerability on an equal footing to that
of humans. It is an ecologically naïve orientation that does not give weight to ecosystem
functions. For example, it can prioritise the protection of an introduced animal species ‘because
it has a right to life’ over the impact that this species has on other species, populations,
communities, and ecosystems. It perceives individuals or individual species outside their
ecosystemic context. Biocentrism is often seen in the animal rights movement and can be
contrasted with the more systemic, though not necessarily ecocentric view of the broader
environmental movement.
Ecocentric - I use ‘ecocentrism’ to refer to an ideology or policy that prioritises the moral
considerability of the ecosphere or ecosystems over the interests or perceived interests of
individuals, populations or species. It a holistic and systemic perspective and in my usage of the
term, includes but does not specifically favour humans, rather than being inherently hostile to
humans as it is sometimes argued to be. I do not use ‘ecocentrism’ as defined by Hay, 2002 p8,
i.e. “Nature as a vast community of equals”. For me, ecocentrism is not necessarily egalitarian.
xiii
Theocentric - I use this term to mean an ideology that places ‘God’ at the top of what is
usually a hierarchy of more considerability. For example, in normative Western Christianity,
‘God’ is given primacy, followed by humans (being made in the image of God), followed by the
rest of Nature. Strict theocentrism rarely exists, if at all, because God is not afforded moral
primacy without any reference to humans (God being at least interpreted in human terms).
Therefore, I sometimes use hybrid terms such as ‘theoanthropocentric’. This particular term
means that ‘God’ has ultimate primacy but humans are at the centre of the ideology – being
viewed as essentially deputies, stewards, or children of ‘God’. Other hybrid terms include
‘theobiocentric’ which is biocentrism subsumed by theocentrism. ‘Theoecocentrism’ is where
‘God’ has ultimate primacy but ecosystems or the ecosphere is the central focus.
Often these concepts run into each other and they can be best understood as a spectrum
moving from anthropoexclusivism through to ecocentrism but with theocentrism being an
optional overarching orientation (see Figure 0.1 below).
Figure 0.1 Relationship of philosophical orientations
Agrarian/ism - ‘Agrarianism’ has several recognised meanings1. I use it to mean ‘pro-
farmer’, ‘pro-farming’ and ‘pro-agricultural productivism’. Historically, agrarianism was
contrasted with industrialism (see for example Quinn, 1940). Today, industrial agriculture may
see no direct contact between the farmer and the soil, let alone with natural systems (meaning
those not converted primarily or solely to serve human productive purposes). Modern
agriculture is often simply industrialism of land and food production such that any contrast
between farming and industrialism is marginal at best, though much less so in broad acre
grazing (as opposed to feedlots). As such, the Church’s agrarianism, which sees farming as an
activity that brings one closer to God, is now largely an outdated romanticism.
1 See for example http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/agrarian.html, and for a more substantial
explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarianism.
xiv
I raise the problem of Christian agrarianism because in its present form, it amounts to the
Church endorsing farming irrespective of its ecological impact, and indeed its social impact in
many colonial nations.
Contextual theology - “As a theological method, contextualism may be said to be that way
of doing theology which seeks to explore and exhibit the dialectical relation between the content
and the setting of theology. When Schleiermacher suggested that Christian doctrines are to be
understood as accounts of Christian religious affections set forth in speech, and that they are
limited to a particular time, he was emphasizing the dialectical relation between content and
setting in the doing of theology, with special stress upon contemporaneity” (Lehmann, 1972
p3-4).
Ecojustice - This term, also spelt ‘eco-justice’ in some of the literature, relates to the
recognition that the previously notionally separate and potentially antithetical fields of social
and ecological justice are linked to varying degrees depending on the extent to which one
philosophically separates humans from the rest of the ecosystem. Social justice has
conventionally focussed on human welfare with little or no regard to or at least understanding of
ecosystemic factors. For example, social justice campaigners may argue that it is appropriate for
Amazonian peoples to clear rainforest for grazing because the associated economic benefits are
seen as essential to those people’s well-being. Environmentalists may have sought to stop the
deforestation and been totally or largely unconcerned for the economic well-being of local
people. More recently, it was recognised that trying to fuel economic development with
ecologically devastating practices often had all sorts of negative consequences, on various time
scales, for the people it was supposed to be benefitting. From such a realisation emerged
ecojustice – the linkage of social and ecological justice.
Ecospirituality - Refer to the definition of ‘religion & spirituality’ given later in this
section. I use ‘ecospirituality’ to mean a metaphysic in which there is no fundamental division
between humans and non-human Nature, and in which Nature (therefore inclusive of humans) is
sacred. It can be deemed sacred because it is, at least in part, divine, or because it is the product
of the Divine. It could even be sacred simply because it came into being irrespective of any
divine input, i.e. an atheist ecospirituality (somewhat like Buddhism).
Ecumenism (ecumenical) – literally means ‘one house’ (Gk) and refers to the coming
together of the Christian denominations in any collaborative effort.
Pantheism - “Pantheism says that God is embodied, necessarily and totally; traditional
theism claims that God is disembodied, necessarily and totally (McFague, 1993).
xv
Panentheism - “Panentheism suggests that God is embodied but not necessarily or totally”
(McFague, 1993).
Policy - This term is used here to mean a statement of intent or orientation. It can relate to
actions that have been taken, or are intended to be taken. It can also state a general position
rather than being operational in the sense of directing particular works or practices.
Policies can be formal and can be named as a policy by their author or publisher, for
example, ‘The Catholic Church policy on climate change’, or the ‘Diocesan Policy on
Environmental Building Standards’. Policies can also be less formal such as published letters,
for example, ‘An open letter to the Prime Minister in regards to climate change’. Policies can
also be symbolic or operational or a mix of these.
Symbolic policy - is that which is not directly functional or operational but which is
essentially intended to indicate a particular stance, rather than converting that stance to action.
For example, the Catholic Church in Australia has a policy relating to the stewardship of the
Murray-Darling River Basin, yet the Church is not in a position to directly influence the Basin’s
management. In contrast, a parish may have a policy that states that all church buildings will
switch to ‘green power’ electricity within a given time.
Praxis - Essentially means the same as ‘practise’, ‘implementation’, or more specifically,
the process of putting theoretical knowledge into action. Whilst ‘praxis’ is not a term in
common usage, it is the term used in ecotheology and related literature, being of ancient Greek
origin.
Process philosophy – I use the definition provided by (Rescher, 2002):
“The philosophy of process is a venture in metaphysics, the general theory of
reality. Its concern is with what exists in the world and with the terms of
reference in which this reality is to be understood and explained. The task of
metaphysics is, after all, to provide a cogent and plausible account of the
nature of reality at the broadest, most synoptic and comprehensive level.
And it is to this mission of enabling us to characterise, describe, clarify and
explain the most general features of the real that process philosophy
addresses itself in its own characteristic way. The guiding idea of its
approach is that natural existence consists in and is best understood in terms
of processes rather than things -- of modes of change rather than fixed
stabilities. For processists, change of every sort – physical, organic,
psychological – is the pervasive and predominant feature of the real”.
xvi
Religion and spirituality - The concepts ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality’ are highly contested
(see for example, Hamilton, 2000; Rose, 2001). I do not attempt to resolve the debate about
their meaning and the use of these terms. I generally use ‘religion’ to mean an institutionalised
belief system that addresses the relationship between the self, +/- the physical universe, and the
numinous (after C.G. Jung) or divine. This is broadly within the scope of the definition of
religion as a “relationship between the human self and some non-human entity, the Sacred, the
Supernatural, the Self Existent, the absolute, or simply ‘God’” (Bouquet, 1967 cited by
Thompson, 2002). I also accept the definition of religion used by Milton, 2002 p9: that which is
“concerned with ultimate meanings as a basis for moral rules, rules which are often, though not
always, believed to be sanctioned by a sacred authority in the form of a divine being or beings.”
I use ‘spirituality’ to mean much the same as ‘religion’ but without the institutional
dimension. Thus, I hold that one can have religion that incorporates spirituality (which I believe
it must do in order to be authentic as a religion) and religion that lacks spirituality (where it is
primarily about beliefs, values and practices that reinforce the institution itself and where
reflexivity and contemplation are absent or suppressed, being replaced by dogma). Tacey, 2003
p8, writes, “Spirituality is by no means incompatible with religion, but it is existential rather
than creedal. It grows out of the individual person from an inward source, is intensely intimate
and transformative, and is not imposed upon the person from an outside authority or force.”
I use the term ‘religio-spirituality’ to convey both the abovementioned concept of religion
and the broader concept of spirituality.
Secular - I discuss the meaning of the term ‘secular’ in detail in Chapter 4, section 2.1
Stewardship and custodianship - ‘Stewardship’ is a term used extensively in Christian
ecotheology. It is essentially a Christian (though not specifically Christian) version of the ‘wise
use’ paradigm of the secular ‘natural resource management’ field. It is an ethic in which Earth is
seen to have been made for and given to humans by God for their use but subject to the proviso
that they do not abuse this gift by ruining it, i.e. ‘use it but don’t lose it’. Stewardship is
variously anthropoexclusive to anthropocentric and operates in a theocentric context with
humans seen, in effect or actually, as God’s stewards of His (sic) Creation.
Stewardship is gradually being replaced in more progressive ecotheology by the concept of
custodianship. This latter notion attempts to address the problematic anthropocentrism and
blatant utilitarianism of the stewardship model by adopting a bio- or ecocentric basis on which
humans are permitted to make use of Creation but not beyond their reasonable needs and not at
an unreasonable cost to the rest of Creation.
xvii
The custodianship model sometimes purports to draw on the perspectives of indigenous
people. It tends to view all of Creation as good and worthy of moral considerability. Some
versions still place human needs above those of other beings, whilst others resemble forms of
Deep Ecology by placing the needs of all beings on an equal footing. The latter is a much less
common view and pushes the boundaries of even relatively progressive Christian belief.
Goosen, 2000, discusses three forms of ‘stewardship’: deep ecology (panentheistic); deep
stewardship (“human being as the stewards of the non-human cosmos and fulfilling that
stewardship in conformity to God's own will for the earth. Benedict of Nursia is a good example
of this view”); and shallow stewardship (“stewardship of the non-human but from a fairly
pragmatic point of view, that is, if the stewardship is not exercised we all will perish”). He
claims that “In ecotheology the question of how stewardship is understood is the vital point”
(Goosen, 2000 p209). The approach of John Paul II is to “affirm the interdependence of humans
and the rest of creation without using the word ‘solidarity’ which might suggest monism”
(which Goosen holds to be beyond Christianity) (Goosen, 2000 p209-10).
Sustainability - the long-term viability of society in terms of the ‘triple bottom line’ of
ecological, social, and economic parameters. I generally use the term ‘sustainable’ with an
adjective such as ‘more’ or ‘less’ because I consider sustainability to be a relative variable that
is best viewed as a trajectory rather than as an endpoint, see for example, Land & Water
Australia, 2001.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
This thesis tests the proposition that (ecologically informed) religion is the solution or a
major contributor to the solution of the ecological crisis. The proposition has been made by
many authors and in many forms, but it is primarily made from a global, North American or
European perspective. I test the proposition in an Australian context by examining the
ecological policies and practices of the three largest denominations: the Catholic, Anglican and
Uniting Churches.
1.1 Outline of the chapters
Chapter 2 details the proposition tested by the thesis. It looks at the nature of the
proposition, those who propose it (religious and not), an example of those who oppose it, and
my own perspective on what the proposition entails.
Chapter 3 explains the methodology used in the thesis – Critical Human Ecology. This is
an orientation that is at least transdisciplinary and which accepts but moves beyond
conventional science. Its central tenet is criticality and the linked application of reflexivity. The
methodology informs the nature of the methods employed.
Chapter 4 discusses one of two key ‘boundary judgements’ that are linked to the
methodology but which are also within the scope of the conventional literature review section of
a thesis. Chapter 4 describes why I chose to confine the scope of the thesis to Australia, despite
the views of some who claim that there is little or no ‘religion’ in Australia to study. I address
this controversy and the key terms of ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ in this context. In doing so, I deal
with different notions and measures of religiosity, as well as some general trends in Australia’s
religious demographics. I conclude that Australia is not ‘secular’ in the sense of having no
religion, and that the majority of its population still identify as Christian, even though a far
smaller and rapidly declining portion attend Church frequently or regularly. Furthermore,
religion in Australia is increasingly deinstitutionalised and is instead more personalised.
Religion in Australia is typically expressed in a much quieter and less social manner than in the
USA. Australia is barely mentioned in the literature that deals with the ‘greening’ of religion.
This thesis seeks to fill some of that gap.
2
Chapter 5 discusses the second major ‘boundary’ judgement. It addresses the reasons for
my focus on mainstream Christianity in Australia including the basis for including some groups
and excluding others. I raise the key issue of diversity between and within the subject
denominations, and the difference between the institutional Church and individual Christians.
The latter is a particularly significant boundary judgement because this thesis focuses on the
denominations as institutions, rather than on Christianity as a religion, or on Christians as
believers. This approach is in contrast to most of the related literature, which deals primarily
with ecotheology or, to a much lesser extent, with the views and actions of Christians on the
fringe of the Church.
Chapter 6 details the methods used to conduct the case study involving the three subject
denominations. I used the Internet as a primary, but by no means the sole research tool to gather
and to test information.
Chapter 7 provides important information about the organisational structure of the three
subject denominations ranging from the international to the local scale. It then addresses the
national and state-scale bodies that deal with ecological policy-making within the Churches.
This chapter serves as an introduction to the following three denominational chapters.
Chapters 8 and 9 present and analyse the ecological policies and praxis of the Catholic and
Anglican Churches of Australia respectively. National matters are addressed first and most
comprehensively. A summary of the regional (diocese) scale is addressed next, including a
small number of local-scale examples of policy and praxis. A case study of diocesan policy and
praxis is provided in the Anglican context.
Chapter 10 describes and analyses the ecological policies and praxis of the Uniting Church
in Australia (UCA). This Church has a structure different to that of its older and larger
counterparts, and it has a far longer and more voluminous history of ecological policy-making.
Consequently, this chapter is larger and structured differently to those dealing with the Anglican
and Catholic Churches. It includes a tabular summary of the evaluation of Uniting Church
ecological policy from 1977 to 2003 based on the work of John, 2005. Policies from 2004 to
2007 are then analysed at a national and state level.
Chapter 11 summarises and synthesises the results of the research into and analysis of the
Churches’ ecological policies and praxis. It then returns to the case study-based testing of the
proposition that ‘green’ religion is the/a solution to the ecological crisis.
Appendix 1 addresses ecumenical and multifaith ecological policies and policy-making
structures at the national and state level. This information is provided as background material
for the focus on the three subject denominations.
3
1.2 Preliminaries
This section is intended to clarify some aspects of my approach to the thesis.
1.2.1 What does ‘God’ have to do with it?
Because this thesis deals with mainstream religion in Australia, i.e. Western Christianity, I
tend to use the term ‘God’ in the common manner of the Christianised West. It does not mean
that I adopt the normative Western Christian conception of the Divine as “our father, who art in
Heaven”. The concept of ‘God’ in normative Western Christianity is far too anthropomorphised,
patriarchal, triumphalist, and otherworldly to be compatible with my own worldview or
spirituality. Some similarly oriented readers may find my use of the word ‘God’ problematic but
I use it only when referring to the Christian concept of the Divine. I adopt the same approach
with the Christian term ‘Creation’ in relation to Nature.
1.2.2 ‘Nature’ not ‘nature’
I capitalise ‘Nature’ where I refer to ‘the natural world’ because I see the word as a proper
noun when used in this context. Christian writers tend not to capitalise ‘Nature’ even when they
are clearly using it as a proper noun. They rarely use the term ‘Nature’, capitalised or not and
instead use the term ‘creation’. They very rarely capitalise ‘creation’, again, even when using it
as a proper noun. I use both ‘Nature’ and ‘Creation’ but the latter is primarily reserved for
where I am referring to the Christian concept of a divinely created universe.
The generalised non-capitalisation of ‘Nature’ and ‘Creation’ by Christian writers is
apparently a consequence of a long-standing theology and related tradition that views such
capitalisation as an inappropriate, indeed heretical, elevation of the status of the natural world or
cosmos to a level equivalent to God. The underlying theology is deliberately anti-pagan and
anti-pantheist. Even in its most progressive variant it holds that God can be accepted as manifest
in the world (as opposed to being restricted to Heaven), but God must not be equated with the
world, nor the world with God, other than to the extent that God made the world – hence
‘creation’ (see for example Gnanakan, 1999).
Even some of the most progressive Christian ecotheologians do not capitalise ‘Nature’ or
‘Creation’. Thomas Berry, 1992, is a notable exception. Most apparently fail to see that in
addition to being arguably grammatically incorrect, they are at least unconsciously maintaining
the trappings of one of the key theological problems that some of them seek to correct, i.e. the
separation and ultimate subordination of Nature/Creation (including humans) from God.
4
1.2.3 “It’s the ecology, stupid”2
I accept the existence of a global ecological crisis but I do not epistemologically separate it
from the various human social and personal problems that we face worldwide. I see the so-
called ‘environmental crisis’ as an ecological crisis in which humans are part of, not apart from
Nature. For this reason, I use the term ‘ecological crisis’ or abbreviate it to ‘ecocrisis’, rather
than using ‘environmental crisis’. I try to avoid using the common phrase ‘the environment’,
instead using the terms ‘Nature’ or ‘Creation’. This is consistent with the usage of the term
‘ecology’ by Harvard University’s Forum On Religion and Ecology (FORE)3 program (note
that the acronym uses ‘Ecology’, not ‘Environment’, at least because the latter can be
ambiguous).
The common usage of the phrase ‘the environment’ can serve to uphold the philosophical
and theological separation of humans from Nature, and the notion of the natural world as
something of a separate stage or backdrop (an environment) on which human lives are played
out.
My philosophical approach in this respect is consistent with the concept of ecojustice in
which ecological and social justice matters are not only interrelated or interconnected, but also
interdependent. It is also consistent with some Vedic4 theologies such as the Mahayana
Buddhist notion of interdependence (pratityasamutpada) as explained through the metaphor of
Indra’s Web, and in the term ‘interbeing’5 used by Vietnamese Buddhist Master and
ecotheologian, Thich Nhat Hanh. A modern Christian equivalent is the concept of ‘the integrity
of Creation’.
Under the heading “Creation is the unity of Nature in God”, Birch, 1965 p112-3, illustrates
this concept of interconnectedness with a poem by Francis Thompson6:
“All things by immortal power
Near and far
Hiddenly
To each other linkèd are,
That thou canst not stir a flower
Without troubling of a star”
2 The phrase is a pointed corruption (by me) of its original form, “It’s the economy, stupid”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy_stupid)
3 FORE is discussed further in Chapter 3
4 ‘Vedic’ refers to the belief systems based on or influenced by the Vedas – a series of ancient texts of
India. Vedic belief systems include Buddhism, Hinduism, Yoga, and Jainism.
5 http://www.interbeing.org.uk/
6 The Mistress of Vision XXII
5
In opting to use the above terms as described, I use ‘environmental’, ‘environmentalism’
and ‘environmentalist’ to refer to the related amalgam of social change/political movements that
seek to positively address the ecological crisis. In this thesis, I generally don’t divide my
understanding or use of ‘environmentalism’ into the various forms recognised by some authors
such as Dryzek, 1997. Whilst I don’t adopt the two primary forms of environmentalism
perceived by Milton, 2002, i.e. ‘nature conservation’ and ‘nature protection’, I recognise the
basis of her distinction between anthropocentric and eco/biocentric orientations.
There are some established terms, such as ‘environmental scientist’, that I have retained as
commonly used. In some circumstances, my use of ‘ecological’ could be understood to refer
strictly to the science of ecology rather than to what is commonly understood to have broader
‘environmental’ meaning. I have attempted to clarify the meaning of each use directly or
through their context.
6
Chapter 2: The proposition:
‘religion is the answer’
In 1965 when modern environmentalism was just beginning, the influential Australian
Christian ecophilosopher and ecotheologian, Charles Birch, recognised the potential power of
religion as an agent of ecosocial change. In his seminal work, Nature and God, he wrote:
“The doctrine of creation stands for the sacredness of all things. If we could
recapture its inner meaning, the effect could be profound. A world bent on
obliterating and exploiting nature for its pleasures might come again to a
sense of deep concern wherever the opposite influence of destruction and
devaluation holds sway” (Birch, 1965 p90).
Soon after, in 1967, the highly controversial and influential historian, Lynn White Jr. gave
a speech, later published (White Jr., 1967), that was widely misinterpreted as blaming Western
Christianity for the ecological crisis. White, himself a Christian, was not condemning the faith
or religion in general, but was scathingly critical of the damage wrought by the dominant
interpretation of the tradition. In stark contrast to the claims of his many critics, White Jr. was
actually advocating a crucial role for religion in resolving the ecological crisis, concluding that:
“…since the roots [of the ecological crisis] are so largely religious, the
remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.”
(White Jr., 1967).
In 1972, Jørgen Randers’ conclusion when he finished work on the significant publication,
‘Limits to growth’, was that: “Probably only religion has the moral force to bring about (the
necessary) change” needed to address the ecological crisis (Randers, 1972 cited in Rasmussen,
1993).
Whilst focusing on Western secular views as the major cause of the ecocrisis, Muslim
scholar, Seyyed Hossein Nasr also argued that religion must have a pivotal role in the solution:
“Only religion can discipline the soul to live more ascetically, to accept the
virtue of simple living and frugality as ornaments of the soul, and to see such
sins as greed for exactly what they are. And only religion, or traditional
philosophies drawn from spiritual, metaphysical, and religious sources, can
reveal the relativity of man in light of the Divine Principle…” (Nasr, 1996
p272).
7
Similarly concerned with the impact of post-Enlightenment secular, scientistic and
religious rationality, Quaker author Susannah Kay Brindle wrote:
“Although weakened by centuries of separation from Earth reality, it is,
nevertheless, religion that now must ask ‘who are we humans?’ and ‘what is
our place in Nature?’ These are questions (that) our a-spiritual, scientific and
materialistic world cannot frame on its own” (Brindle, 2000 p57).
A growing number of contemporary authors share the views, in various forms, of the
above-mentioned authors, for example Callicott, 1994; Gardner, 2002, 2003, 2006; Gore Jr.,
1992; Gottlieb, 2006, 2007; Hallman, 2000; Hessel & Ruether, 2000b; Hitchcock, 1999; King,
2002; Lerner, 2006a; McDonagh, 1987; McFague, 2001; McKenzie, 2005; Oelschlaeger, 1994;
Palmer, 1992; Tucker & Grim, 2000. Some use the term ‘religion’ more broadly than do others.
For example, it is used to refer to institutionalised spiritual belief systems, such as Christianity,
but it can also refer to spirituality outside religions, and it can include reference to speculative
future religions.
The view expressed by such authors is in essence, that religion in some form or forms is at
least a significant part of the solution to the ecocrisis, if not the whole or the basis of the
solution. This view can be summarised as ‘religion is the answer’, and is herein referred to as
‘the proposition’.
The basis of the proposition is explained in Chapter 3 of ‘Inspiring progress: Religions’
contributions to sustainable development’ (Gardner, 2006). Note that like most authors in this
field, Gardner is writing about religion in an international sense, but he is also North American
and arguably has a view influenced by the very powerful and overt role of Western Christianity
in his society. He sees religion as having five key assets that potentially empower it to be a
major factor, perhaps the major factor in driving and sustaining global personal and social
change to address the ecological crisis:
Meaning – “having purpose and meaning is necessary for an individual’s emotional and
psychological health, and can spell the difference between tackling a set of goals each day and
remaining disengaged from them.” Meaning is traditionally conveyed by religions through
powerful stories. “Stories in general are a profoundly meaningful form of human
communication. When coupled with the authority that religious teaching holds for many people,
stories have the potential to change lives or societies” (Gardner, 2006 p43).
Moral capital – “While hardly omnipotent in imposing their views, religious leaders often
have the ear of their congregations, and major leaders such as the Dalai Lama, the Archbishop
of Canterbury, the Ecumenical Patriarch, or the Pope often get broad media coverage…”
(Gardner, 2006 p47). This has clear political ramifications.
8
Numbers of adherents – “…roughly 85 percent of the people on the planet belong to one
of 10,000 or so religions, and 150 or so of these faith traditions have at least a million followers
each. Adherents of the three largest traditions – Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism – account for
about two-thirds of the global population today… Degrees of adherence among the billions of
religious people vary greatly, of course, as does the readiness of adherents to translate their faith
into political action or lifestyle choices… But the raw numbers are so impressive that
mobilising even a fraction of adherents to the cause of building a just and environmentally
healthy society could advance the sustainability agenda dramatically… Adding non-religious
but spiritually oriented people to the total boosts the potential for influence even more”
(Gardner, 2006 p49-50).
Land and other physical assets – “…religions own up to 7 percent of the land area of
many countries” (Gardner, 2006 p51; see also Finlay & Palmer, 2003) “… and buildings
abound… in the United States alone, member agencies of Catholic Charities spent more than
$2.5 billion in 2000 to serve over nine million people” (Gardner, 2006 p51-52). He also notes
the large amount influence brought to bear on the corporate world by bodies such as the
Interfaith Centre on Corporate Responsibility. Religions can also have very large holdings of
invested funds such as superannuation (see for example the work of the international and
interfaith religious ethical investment body, 3iG7).
Social capital – “…religion has a particular capacity to generate social capital – the bonds
of trust, communication, cooperation, and information dissemination that create strong
communities… The willingness to work for social betterment, not just for the particular
interests of a religious group, holds potential for the movement to build a sustainable world
because environmental health is an issue of common concern for the planet and future
generations that transcends religious and national differences” (Gardner, 2006 p52-53). In this
context, Gottlieb, 2007 p81, also argues that ‘religious environmentalism’ is “good for
environmentalism, good for religion, and good for the earth community.” This suggests that
another aspect of the potential contribution of ‘greened’ religions is through their collaboration
with the broader environmentalist movement.
7 http://www.3ignet.org/
9
2.1 The nature of the proponents
The number of authors who see religion in some form as either the solution or an important
part of the solution to the ecological crisis is now extensive. There is a noticeable surge in the
prevalence of works of this nature from the mid-1980s8, with further growth post-2000, and the
volume of work and the number of authors is continuing to grow significantly.
There are also early and mid-20th century authors who advocated the same view, though in
relation to philosophical, ecological and related social problems that preceded the existence or at
least general awareness of a global ecological crisis. Examples include the above-mentioned
L.C. Birch (1965; 1976; 1984), along with P. Teilhard de Chardin (1959), C. Hartshorne (1948;
1967; 1978), P. Tillich (1949; 1955), and A.N. Whitehead (1926; 1929).
Both the older literature and more recent works on this theme can be intertwined with the
broader philosophical argument that in the West, ‘science’ and ‘religion’ (and spirituality) have
been wrongly considered and addressed as completely separate and incommensurate knowledge
systems (see for example Hitchcock, 1999; McGrath, 2003). However, some of the literature
goes much further and addresses what Gore Jr., 1992 p12, refers to as “the collection of values
and assumptions that determine our basic understanding of how we fit into the universe”.
2.1.1 Religious proponents
The increasing ‘greening’ of global religions9 is associated with growth in the number of
authors who perceive a central role for religion in addressing the ecological crisis and who are
themselves from religious backgrounds. Examples include the Christian authors: Batten, 2005;
Binde, 2001; Breuilly & Palmer, 1992; Chew, 1999; Cobb, 2000; Collins, 1995; Deane-
Drummond, 2004; Finlay & Palmer, 2003; Gnanakan, 1999; Habel et al., 2004; John, 2005;
King, 2002; Leal, 2004a; McFague, 2001; McGrath, 2003; Monbiot, 2003; Shelby-Spong, 2001;
Tacey, 2000; Wallis, 2005; and Wansbrough, 1997. Taylor, 2004 p 992, notes that many works
in the field of religion and ecology have been “written either by devotees of the traditions they
were exploring, or by scholars devoted to the study of specific traditions who, generally
8 Rasmussen, 1993 p174-5 attributes growth in this field to the deepening of the ecocrisis and an
associated increasingly urgent need to invent or reinvent an ecologically workable worldview.
9 There is inadequate scope in the thesis format for me to discuss in detail the process and extent of the
global ‘greening’ of religions. Readers are directed to the many publications of the Forum on Religion &
Ecology, the international interfaith group, The Alliance of Religions & Conservation, The Encyclopaedia
of Religion & Nature Taylor, 2005, and the journal Ecotheology, and its replacement, Journal for the
Study of Religion, Nature and Culture. Numerous other publications relevant to this field are cited in the
References section of this thesis.
10
speaking, usually had some personal affinity with them, as well as a desire to help them ‘turn
green’”.
The growth in religious writers entering the realm of environmental ethics and ecotheology
suggests that the call for religion to engage with ‘the environment’ is being increasingly
accepted and internalised by religion. Earlier writings appeared to come from what was then the
theological fringe (or what Nasr, 1996 p5 terms the “occultist margin”), but more recently, the
literature can be shown to have moved towards the theological mainstream. We now see world
Christian denominational leaders such as the late Pope John Paul II (1990); the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Rowan Williams (2005); and the Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew (2002; 2003)
advocating strong pro-ecological policies and actions. All three have stated, directly or
indirectly, that deliberate harm of ‘the environment’ is a sin.
Despite the increasing acceptance of environmentalism in Christian literature, Goosen,
2000 p220, and Leal, 2004a, point out that in ecotheological works, there is a tendency for
authors to be either theologians (the majority) or (Christian) scientists, with very few bringing
these paradigms together effectively. I also noted this strong division and the associated
difficulty that many theologians have in addressing ecology. Goosen, 2000 p220, praises
Melbourne-based ecotheologian, Wendy Chew, and Charles Birch as rare examples of an
approach that effectively combines science and theology. Chew has called for theologians to be
trained in ecology as a means of bridging this divide10 (ABC Religion and Ethics Unit, 2000).
This situation is perhaps indicative of problematic boundaries between academic
disciplines but goes beyond this to mirror the post-Enlightenment philosophical separation of
the sacred (religion) from the profane (Nature), (see for example Birch, 196511; Merchant,
1980; Midgley, 1992; Sherrard, 2003). Such academic divisions made it very difficult for me to
locate a place within a university where I could undertake my research. In my Internet-based
search, I found that religion is mainly studied in denominational theology and/or ministry
centres attached to secular universities or within the Australian Catholic University, or else in
secular rationalist philosophy departments. Ecology is mainly taught in schools of biology or
‘the environment’. There is virtually no overlap, especially when it comes to studying Western
10 There are no full-time courses and very few part-time courses in ecotheology available in Australia,
even within Christian tertiary institutions (Leal, 2004ap73). I identified only two part-time and irregularly
offered tertiary courses in Christian ecotheology. Even allowing for demographic and cultural differences,
this is a starkly different situation from that in the USA where there are some institutions that only teach
Christian ecotheology.
11 Birch, 1965 p80 states: “The purpose of nature and the nature of nature are what the concept of
‘creation’ is all about. It is to see the universe in a certain way, with a certain sort of unity. If we cut
nature up into sections, one labelled ‘science’ and another labelled ‘religion’, we should remember that it
is we who are doing the cutting up. The robe of nature is a seamless one… There is no part of the world
which is secular and another sacred.”
11
Christianity and especially so in Australia. The situation internationally is not so extreme, as the
large body of material classified as ‘Human ecology: religious aspects: Christianity’ reveals.
However, almost none of that literature addresses Australia in any way.
2.1.2 Non-religious proponents
A notable feature of authors who see a role for religio-spirituality in addressing the
ecological crisis is their increasingly diverse backgrounds. Rasmussen, 1993 p176, notes “many
who now make their religious appeal public are not religiously-observant themselves”, or at
least do not necessarily identify themselves as such, nor do they necessarily write as
theologians. Nasr, 1996 p5, comments similarly, “Even champions of secularism now speak of
how significant the role of religion can be in averting a major global environmental catastrophe
resulting in the loss of many human lives.” Some of those calling for ecology and philosophy to
engage with theology and spirituality are nominally secular scientists (in the broadest sense) for
example Rifkin, 1992 and Suzuki & McConnell, 1999, or ‘environmental philosophers’ such as
Callicott, 1994 and Oelschlaeger, 1994 (see Chidester, 1987 and Taylor, 2004 p993-995). They
argue that the ecological crisis is a moral crisis and that religions and spirituality are therefore
(or ought to be) involved, not least because “the vast majority of the human species, whether
participating directly or indirectly in the havoc wreaked upon the natural environment, still lives
within a worldview dominated by religion” (Nasr, 1996 p3).
In terms of the contribution to this movement from secular scientists, one of the most
notable is the statement by 34 internationally renowned scientists led by Carl Sagan (1990) and
Hans Bethe, entitled ‘An open letter to the religious community’12. It is an appeal to religious
leaders and devotees to “commit, in word and deed, and as boldly as required, to preserve the
environment of the Earth”. Having described the problems and the solutions to the ecocrisis, the
letter states that:
“Problems of such magnitude, and solutions demanding so broad a
perspective must be recognised from the outset as having a religious as well
as a scientific dimension…The historical record makes clear that religious
teaching, example, and leadership are powerfully able to influence personal
conduct and commitment. ....We (the scientific community) understand that
what is regarded as sacred is more likely to be treated with care and respect.
Our planetary home should be so regarded” (Sagan, 1990).
12 In addition to being published in the American Journal of Physics (Sagan, 1990), numerous websites
display the letter. One is http://earthrenewal.org/Open_letter_to_the_religious_.htm. It also lists the
religious leaders who signed the letter at the subsequent Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary
Leaders Conference. The Earth Charter is a later development along similar lines.
12
2.2 The moral dimension of the ecocrisis and of
environmentalism
The moral dimension of religious (Christian) ecological concern is a particular focus in
some earlier works such as that of Dubos, 1972. It is also a strong aspect in the writing of
former Vice President of the United States (Al Gore Jr., 1992), who with the release of his
feature film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ in 2006, became a high profile global campaigner for
action on climate change. The ‘moral turn’ of the environmental movement in general has
become particularly evident in relation to climate change. It has also seen increased
collaboration between religions and nominally secular environmentalist groups. A recent and
rare Australian example is ‘Common belief’13, a multifaith and multidenominational statement
on climate change that was facilitated by The Climate Institute. Similar collaborations occurred
earlier in the USA and the UK. The moral aspect is often anthropocentric, and for the Churches
in particular, tends to focus on the inequitable impacts of climate change on developing nations
and on future generations (of humans).
Following from an acknowledgement that the ecocrisis is a moral crisis, is an argument
that secular rationalist environmentalism14 will fail to achieve its goals unless it re-orients itself
to fully address the moral dimension. The moral dimension includes the overtly religious and
the inherently nebulous spiritual aspects:
“You’re not going to get success in the environmental struggle without
getting people to agree to cut back their level of consumption and reorder the
planet in a way that is ecologically rational. That means there’s going to
have to be a profound reorientation, challenging the notion of what progress
is, so that people don’t believe they’re standing in the way of progress if they
decide they don’t need a new version of a car every year, or newer and faster
computers every year. There has to be a change in people’s sense of what is
to be valued.... If you want an ecological movement to be successful, it must
be a spiritual movement. It must build an understanding that most people
would love to live in a world of kindness and generosity. It has to be based
on this new bottom line” (Lerner, 2006b).
13 I discuss this document in Appendix 1.
14 Environmentalism is not inherently secular or rationalist. It can be religious and/or spiritual. Some self-
interested lobby groups have dismissed nominally secular environmentalism as irrational and ‘a religion’
because it can include values such as the sanctity of wilderness, threatened species, or Nature in general –
a proposition which is outside the scope of nominally rationalist science (see for e.g. Milton, 2002).
13
I agree with Rabbi Lerner’s view. This thesis is in part a response to my acknowledgement
that the ecocrisis is a moral/spiritual crisis and that as such, it requires a response beyond the
technological, regulatory, and institutional approaches that have been commonly advocated by
the mainstream environmental movement of which I have been a part (for more see Lerner,
2006a). Then President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, and now Federal Shadow
Minister for Environment, Peter Garrett MP expressed a similar view at the inauguration of
Catholic Earthcare Australia:
“Environmental groups can provide the scientific expertise and lobby for
change, but you have a role in giving heart and spiritual meaning to the
environmental movement” (Garrett, 2002).
Accepting that the ecological crisis is in part or perhaps ultimately, a moral/spiritual crisis
does not make an incontrovertible link to the role of religion in addressing the crisis. Some
authors dismiss some or all existing major world religions as inappropriate for this task,
advocating one or more new belief systems, or an ecologically informed secular rationality.
Some writers conclude that religion (as commonly understood) has no positive role to play in
addressing the ecological crisis. I discuss this in the following section.
2.3 A contrary proposition – ‘religion’ is irrelevant
Human Ecologist and ‘biohistorian’, Stephen Boyden, includes religion and spirituality
within ‘culture’, though unlike Sagan, 1990, he does not argue for their role as effective drivers
of change in addressing the ecological crisis. In this regard, his position is similar to that of
Diamond, 1992; 1997; 2005, a high profile international scientist and author on culture and
ecology. Where religio-spirituality is mentioned at all, the work of both authors deals primarily
with the negative aspects of religion in the form of dogmas and doctrines that have worked and
continue to work against ecological concerns. In the following section, I address the views of
Boyden, noting that they are essentially the same as those of Diamond in this regard.
Consistent with his secular and arguably modernist rationality, Boyden apparently views
religio-spirituality as something redundant that will inevitably decline and fade away, being
replaced with ‘reason’. This is supported by the closing paragraph of his 2004 publication,
where he states:
“We often hear the comment that, with the decline of religion, Western
society now seems to lack a strong, shared ethical system at its core. Perhaps
biounderstanding will help to fill this void - by providing the foundation for
a new life-based ethic that can be shared by human populations all over the
world, leading to gentler and more caring treatment of the natural
environment and of each other” (Boyden, 2004 p168).
14
Boyden makes specific reference to the way that “religious doctrines have been embraced
by so many cultures, past and present, affecting people’s priorities, policies and conduct” when
he argues for a similarly powerful influence to come from what he terms ‘biounderstanding’. He
also argues that:
“The rapid and enlightened action that is necessary to protect the ecosystems
of the biosphere from further damage caused by human activities, and to
hasten their recovery from damage already done, will demand a radical
rethinking of many of the most sacrosanct assumptions of the dominant
culture of the Western world, and it will involve sweeping changes in
cultural arrangements” (Boyden, 2004 p157) – “a veritable cultural
renaissance” (Boyden, 2004 p159). (My emphasis)
Boyden clearly sees religion as influential. He also sees that at the core of the cultural
dimension of the ecological crisis, are substantive issues of belief – in his words “sacrosanct
assumptions”. He argues for the replacement of the dominant and ecologically problematic
beliefs with his notion of ‘biounderstanding’. He defines this as the profound understanding that
we are “living beings, a product of biological evolution and totally dependent on the processes
of life, both within our bodies and in the environment”, (and the resultant worldview that this
understanding supposedly generates15) (Boyden, 2004 p159). As a rationalist, he sees the basis
for ‘biounderstanding’ as a matter of definitive ecological fact that he hopes will create an
ecologically respectful set of values (morals?) and behaviours within the scope of what he terms
‘biosensitivity’.
Despite aspects of his own argument, Boyden does not contemplate the possibility that
‘biounderstanding’ based on but not limited to his narrow interpretation of these ‘facts’ can be
incorporated into religio-spirituality. Were that conceivable for him, he would not need to
invent ‘biounderstanding’ as a new form of rationalist atheist ‘religion’16. He could have
acknowledged that existing religions, were they to accommodate but not necessarily be
restricted to the ecological ‘facts’17 on which his case rests, might be more powerful and better
able to respond in time than might any new ‘religion’ of secular ecology.
15 Scharper, 1997 p189-90, raises this and concludes that although what amounts to Boyden’s
biounderstanding may generate “awe and reverence” that incline us towards an “anthro-harmonic”
approach (akin to Boyden’s biosensitivity) they “do not in and of themselves lead to sustainable
integration between humans and nonhumans.” He concludes that one needs to connect the equivalent
notions of ‘biounderstanding’ and ‘biosensitivity’ to an ethic of justice, solidarity, and societal
transformation as “they help root the human-nonhuman relationship within a specific moral universe.”
16 I use ‘religion’ in inverted commas to indicate a usage that is not in accordance with my definition.
17 As an ecologist, I do not dispute the biological facts of human existence. However, in common with
most if not all religions, I do not agree that these are the exclusive or whole truth.
15
Boyden does not explain how ‘biounderstanding’ would fill the void left by what he sees
as the apparently worldwide decline of religion, itself a highly questionable and Western-centric
assertion. He apparently assumes that the decline of institutional religion in the West will
continue its late 20th century trend to a state of oblivion and that this is or will be a global
phenomenon. In making his argument, he may also have assumed that, consistent with his
modern rationalist orientation, religion, at least in the West, is already functionally dead. In
arriving at either of those conclusions, he has apparently conflated the well-documented decline
of institutional religion in much of the West, with a decline in religion per se. The work of, for
example Bouma, 2006, and Tacey, 2003, in the Australian context, shows that such a conflation
cannot be supported.
Boyden does not consider the literature which shows that whilst conventional expressions
of institutional Christianity are declining in the West (to varying degrees), they are largely being
replaced by other religions, by personalised hybrid religions and by spirituality outside religion
(see for example Tacey, 1995; Nasr, 1996; Tacey, 2000, 2003; Bouma, 2006; ABS, 2007). Such
belief systems are increasingly linked to understandings of ecology, though sometimes muddled
with aspects of older religious belief and the highly commercialised New Age movement (see
for example, Tacey, 2000, 2003).
‘Biounderstanding’ is a commendable concept. However, by failing to understand the
multidimensional role and nature of religion and spirituality, as well as their current and likely
trajectory in the West, Boyden has created a culturally disconnected idea with no effective
vehicle for its widespread uptake or its maintenance as what amounts to a surrogate secular
rationalist ‘religion’. As a rationalist, he sees that (ecologically grounded) reason is powerful
enough – it does not need a cultural vehicle to be integrated into society.
Diamond’s position is similar: that the power of reason/rationalist science and associated
law and policy should be enough to address the ecocrisis.
Along with the many aforementioned proponents of the view that religion is at least a
major part of the solution to the ecocrisis, I believe that the depth, rapidity and extent of change
that is required to successfully address the crisis is beyond the reach of secular rationality, even
if such rationality is ecologically informed. In short, the ecological facts (‘biounderstanding’)
that are not in dispute here, do not automatically translate to the values or morality
(‘biosensitivity’), let alone the behaviours that Boyden seeks. This is where an ecologically
informed and powerfully transformative religion or religions can have a role to play.
16
2.4 The potential role of ‘green’ religion
Unlike both Diamond and Boyden, but consistent with Callicott, 1994; Oelschlaeger, 1994;
and Gardner, 2002, 2003, 2006, amongst others, I believe that the cultural power of religio-
spirituality can operate consistent with something akin to Boyden’s ‘biounderstanding’. I
believe that it can promote the radical shift needed to achieve ‘biosensitive’ societies or
‘sustainability’. Both Boyden and Diamond fail to address the growing body of literature that
demonstrates that this is indeed occurring in various ways. Most importantly from my
perspective, religio-spirituality also offers the potential for the transpersonal development
needed to address what I and numerous other authors suggest in various forms are the
underlying causes of the ecological crisis, namely:
• the misperception of humanity as separate from Nature, with humanity elevated to a
controlling position, i.e. anthropocentrism or anthropoexclusivism, e.g. Nash, 1990;
• the underlying Platonic divisions between body, mind and spirit, e.g. Birch, 1965;
• the ‘disenchantment’ or ‘desacralisation’ of the physical realm, e.g. Tacey, 2000; McGrath,
2003;
• the related historical tendency for (at least Western) religions to adopt an otherworldliness
based on a transcendent theology that sees Nature as largely or completely irrelevant, e.g.
Santmire, 1985; Palmer, 1992; Gnanakan, 1999; and
• the related rise of ego-centric, individualistic materialism/consumerism at the expense of
community and ecosystems, e.g. Metzner, 1993; Plumwood, 2002.
In adopting this view, my position is that ‘biosensitive’ religio-spirituality could contribute
significantly to the resolution of the ecological crisis, and that for it to maximise its
contribution, it would need to be diverse. Boyden, 2004, concurs on the issue of diversity in
relation to his notion of ‘biosensitive’18 societies: (it is likely) “that there will in fact be many
different biosensitive societies, with different cultures, different cultural arrangements, and
different patterns of human activity, just as there has been great diversity among hunter-
gatherer, early farming, early urban, and techno-industrial societies” (Boyden, 2004 p147).
18 Boyden finds the term ‘ecologically sustainable society’ inadequate and instead uses his term,
‘biosensitive’, arguing that what is needed is “something much more agreeable than mere sustainability”
(Boyden, 2004 p146). This is somewhat similar to debate about the appropriate use of the term ‘tolerance’
e.g., in race relations, as it can infer something less than a fundamental shift in values – a begrudging and
marginal acceptance.
17
Diversity is required because no single religio-spirituality, even if it incorporates a
common ecological understanding, will be culturally appropriate for a world with numerous
long-established faith traditions. This is consistent with the view of authors such as
Oelschlaeger, 1994; Tacey, 1995; Nasr, 1996; Tacey, 2000 p170-1; Tucker & Grim, 2000;
Wilber, 2000b; Law, 2001; Wilber, 2001; Finlay & Palmer, 2003; Tacey, 2003. For example,
despite its sometimes being proclaimed as a ‘greener’ worldview, I do not suggest that a
Buddhist eco-spirituality would be appropriate for the majority of Westerners, (see for example
Berry, 1992 p54-55; Law, 2001).
Irrespective of the quantum or other significance of its contribution to addressing the
ecological crisis, it is clearly evident from the amount and growth of related literature, that
religions are now joining the broader environmental movement, (see for example Hessel &
Ruether, 2000b; Gardner, 2002; Taylor, 2005; Geason, 2006). This is in itself worthy of study
because it represents the entry of a new ‘player’ into the movement and, using the metaphor
developed by Rasmussen, 1993 p174-175, “it is as though ecocrisis consciousness and religious
consciousness are, in our time, like vast rivers, which though they arose in different terrain, now
converging with one another in common channels.”
Furthermore, in the case of Western Christianity, the phenomenon of religious
environmentalism represents a substantial policy shift in what is in one form or another, one of
the oldest institutions of Western culture. This is of additional significance at a time when the
political leaders of the USA, the UK19 and Australia are all self-proclaimed Christians, and
there is much discussion in Australia and the USA about the political influence of the ‘Religious
Right’, (see for example in the Australian context: ABC Religion and Ethics Unit, 2005a, b;
Maddox, 2005a, b; Lohrey, 2006). There is also more recent evidence of a countermovement
that could be called the ‘Religious Left’ or what Lerner, 2006a, terms ‘the Left Hand of God’
(see also ABC Religion and Ethics Unit, 2005b).
19 During most of the period in which this thesis was researched and written, Britain’s Prime Minister was
Tony Blair, a self-proclaimed Christian. In June 2007, Blair was replaced by Gordon Brown, another self-
proclaimed Christian (see http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/06/jim-wallis-someone-you-
should.html).
18
2.5 Summary
There are a substantial and growing number of authors from a variety of backgrounds who
argue that religions have a significant role to play in addressing the ecological crisis. Not all
such authors are themselves religious – some simply see that most of the world’s population
identifies as religious, and that religion can be a powerful vehicle for instilling and changing
people’s values, attitudes and behaviours. Whilst religions have been at least implicated in the
values, attitudes and behaviours that have caused the ecocrisis (after White Jr., 1967, 1973 and
the subsequent body of literature), the global ‘greening’ of religion suggests that they could
equally be involved in enacting solutions to the ecocrisis.
19
Chapter 3: Critical Human Ecology
This chapter addresses the research methodology, with methods addressed in a separate
chapter. Many authors use the terms ‘methodology’ and ‘method’ interchangeably, with
‘methodology’ being used simply as a more formal term for ‘method’ (Midgley, 2000). This
tends to mean that “the theoretical and political assumptions made in the constructions of
methods is placed beyond critique” (Midgley, 2000), a view shared by Connole et al., 1993. In
this thesis, ‘methodology’ is understood to mean “the set of theoretical ideas that justifies the
use of a particular method or methods”, and ‘method’ is “a set of techniques operated in a
sequence (or sometimes iteratively) to achieve a given purpose”, (after Midgley, 2000). In this
context, my methodology could also be termed a framework or paradigm.
My methodology is founded on an ontological stance of critical realism, with an
epistemological stance of interpretivism as defined by Ritchie & Lewis, 2004 p16-17. I do not
specifically explore these stances in my research, though some aspects of them are discussed in
the development of particular components of the methodology.
I adopt a methodology termed Critical Human Ecology. This takes the field of Human
Ecology20 as a base, adopts ‘extended transdisciplinarity’ which includes but moves beyond
conventional natural and social science, adds criticality inclusive of reflexivity, and uses a
transpersonal research context in which the focus is on the researcher as well as the research
participants and the research. I develop this latter aspect by employing a semi-autobiographical
style: a technique chosen in part because, in the interpretivist tradition, I recognise that as the
researcher, I affect and am affected by the research. This aspect is also a factor in my use of a
form of ‘grounded theory’ after Glaser & Strauss, 1967, through which the ‘theory’ manifesting
as the methodology and methods are informed and developed by critical reflection.
3.1 Criticality and transpersonal research
In undertaking this thesis, and in particular, developing the methodology, I do not pretend
to be an objective commentator, nor do I purport to be able to reveal a monolithic truth by
means of notional objectivity, (after Flyvbjerg, 2001 p139). In accordance with Minichiello et
al., 1995, I believe that, “Objectivity is an aim or goal which is not really an achievable one”,
and more importantly that, as per Wadsworth, 1984 & Fay, 1980, it is not necessarily desirable.
20 The term ‘Human Ecology’, is capitalised to differentiate reference to the field of study with this name,
from reference to the ecology of humans in general.
20
This does not mean that I completely reject the concept of objectivity or its methodological
value. I discuss this later in this section.
I concur with Minichiello et al., 1995, that, “The researcher should be critical and espouse
particular values in an explicit fashion.” By ‘critical’, and thus ‘criticality’ or ‘critical thinking’,
I refer to an approach that entails “interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation,
and self-regulation” (after Facione, 1990). Whilst the term ‘judgement’ is sometimes used in
this context, for example by Anshen, 1971 p.xiii, consistent with Facione, 1990, I prefer to use
the term ‘discernment’ as I do not use ‘criticality’ to mean that one should be critical in the
sense of being derogatory or condemnatory.
Criticality equates to the “rigors of full disclosure” advocated by Braud & Anderson, 1998
p.xxviii, or asking ‘what’s really going on?’ – looking below the surface to the depths of an
issue. My understanding of the Critical approach is broadly consistent with how it is defined by
Connole et al., 1993 p12, namely that knowledge is subjective, problematic, capable of systemic
distortion, never value-free and always represents the interests of some group within society,
thus having the potential to be oppressive or emancipatory (though I reject the extremes of this
dichotomy). This view is also consistent with the notion of humanism advocated by Anshen,
1971 p.xiii. Connole et al., 1993 p12, adds that the Critical approach sees “social action to
improve the quality of human life as the desirable outcome of research”, a view advocated by
the ‘participatory philosophy’ of Skolimowski, 1994 p.xv-xvi. I embrace Connole et al.’s notion
of improvement but reject the anthropoexclusive aspect.
Connole et al., 1993 p12, also hold that the researcher and the researched are indivisible. I
reject this simplistic amalgam, seeing instead that researcher and researched are interconnected
but not necessarily indivisible, as per the discussion of the paradoxical nature of reality provided
by Hitchcock, 1999.
In his work on critical systemic intervention, Midgley, 2000, encourages researchers to
interrogate and document their assumptions in choosing a particular methodology. These
include their values and small ‘p’ politics. Criticality is not just something that one applies as an
external tool to use in analysing data. To be authentic, one must also apply it internally, i.e. to
both the research and to the researcher. Midgley, 2000, suggests that doing so is a necessary
response to acknowledging that we cannot achieve intellectual purity in our research. Such
bidirectional criticality includes the concept of ‘self-regulation’ (after Facione, 1990), ‘self-
reflexivity’ (after Maturana & Varela, 1992), or simply, ‘reflexivity’. Reflexivity has been
defined by Douglas & Johnson, 1977, as the mutual interdependence of observer or knower to
21
that which is seen or known. Varela, 1990, explains the concept of reflexivity as hinging on
acknowledgement that “the knower and the known are co-implicated”21. Thus, authentic
criticality or critical thinking encompasses the practice of reflexivity.
This thesis adopts the criticality advocated by Midgley, 2000, and the transpersonal
methodology of Braud & Anderson, 1998, situated in the ‘transpersonal ecology’ of Fox, 1990.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘transpersonal’ as “designating a form of psychology or
psychotherapy which seeks to combine elements from many esoteric and religious traditions
with modern ideas and techniques”. Prominent examples include the work of Abraham Maslow
(e.g. 1964) and Carl Gustav Jung (e.g. that compiled by Sabini, 2002) and more recently the
‘integral psychology’ of Ken Wilber (2000a; 2000b; 2001). The approach is also evident in the
publication entitled ‘Values for sustainability: the necessity of transcendence and sacred realms’
by Peter Cock, 1991. ‘I also use ‘transpersonal’ to mean ‘beyond the self’ or ‘ecstasis’. My
approach includes Midgely’s and Braud & Anderson’s notions of improvement of the
researcher (self-improvement/personal development); improvement in the conditions of the
research participant(s) (where relevant); and improvement of broader society.
In doing so, I am deliberately moving beyond the “assumptions and practice of
conventional approaches to research” critiqued by Braud & Anderson, 1998 p5-6, namely:
• the notion that all research is a special type of knowledge that is of superior quality to other
forms of knowing. “In reviewing the literature for relevant findings and interpretations, the
researcher goes primarily or solely to research reports that have been published in the
premier professional journals of the discipline during the past 5 to 10 years. Reports, or
observations appearing outside scientific literature are not especially valued or useful”;
• that research and the researcher are value-free and unrelated to the development of the
researcher, such that researchers can be interchanged without significantly affecting the
findings. “Purposive and teleological considerations have no place in serious research, and
the consciousness of the research personnel can have no direct influence on the phenomena
being studied”;
• that research is primarily about identifying “general principles or universal laws that
provide the possibility of explanation, prediction and control” i.e. it should be
distinguished from endeavours such as practical applications;
21 This does not infer solipsism, i.e. that reality only exists in one’s mind, nor representationism, i.e. “the
positivist view that the mind operates with representations of the external world” (after Macdonald, 1997,
p13).
22
• “the preferred empirical and theoretical research approaches should be modelled after
those of the physical sciences of the 18th and 19th centuries” (i.e. primarily quantitative
and more experimental methods using “data derived through the senses, consensually
validated by others, and extended and expressed via logically sound mathematical and
linguistic formalism”, rather than qualitative and more naturalistic methods);
• the ideal research environment is as isolated from other influences as is possible;
• “the researcher is the expert, the authority whose observations, views, hypotheses, and
interpretations are privileged over those of the research subjects”;
• “the preferred outlets for original research findings and interpretations are peer-reviewed
journal articles and professional conference presentations. The researcher communicates
primarily with professional colleagues”.
In making this choice, my previous training and professional practice as an ecologist and
environmental planner caused me considerable methodological angst in constructing this thesis.
As the thesis developed, it became increasingly evident that I was required to extend beyond the
scientific and ‘legal-rational authority’ paradigms with which I was exclusively familiar. I was
challenged to make the quantum leap from the ontology of the ‘empiricist approach’ to that of
the ‘interpretive approach’; brushing over ‘post-modern and deconstructive’ epistemologies, and
finally coming to understand, appreciate and accept the ‘critical approach’ as per the
frameworks of Connole, 1993 p12. Not only did I face rejecting or at least moving beyond
many of the fundamental assumptions associated with my earlier training and practice as
represented in the assumptions listed on the previous page, but I also found myself outside the
relatively comfortable academic confines created by ‘conventional research’. Malone, 1996
Chapter 7, reports a similar experience in her adoption of a ‘critical ethnography’ approach
entailing the researcher also being and environmental activist who both transforms and is
transformed by her research work.
I do not dismiss the contribution of the so-called ‘natural’ or ‘physical’ sciences, or that of
‘social science’ in its many forms. Instead, I believe they do not offer sufficient scope by
themselves to address the scope of this thesis. I still use accepted scientific tools such as
observation and accepted sociological tools such as policy analysis, but I do so in a broader
context than allowed by conventional scientism. Nasr, 1996 p287 advocates that one need not
abandon science, but that scientific knowledge needs to be seen as confined by the limitations
that “philosophical suppositions, epistemologies, and historical developments have imposed
upon it.” Nasr’s key point is that scientism holds that science is the only form and indeed the
ultimate form of Truth, yet it makes such a claim without acknowledging its inherent limitations
– something that is strictly against its own methodology.
23
I do not see science as having a monopoly on the truth, but as one knowledge system
amongst others. This “is not a criticism of science qua science, but an indictment of a belief
system that does not question itself” (Macdonald, 1997 p23). Thus, I have chosen to move from
the ‘orthodox science’ to the ‘complementary science’ of Lorimer, 1988; from the purely
‘positivist’ to the ‘naturalistic’ axioms of Lincoln & Guba, 1985; from the ‘separateness
science’ to the ‘wholeness science’ of Harman, 1991; from the ‘prevailing’ to the ‘alternative’
paradigms described by Global Co-operation for a Better World, 1990; and I have adopted the
‘extended science’ of Josephson & Rubik, 1992. For further information on these perspectives
see Braud & Anderson, 1998. In short, my position is a case of a conditional ‘both and’ rather
than simply ‘either or’.
An important aspect in my use of criticality is the dimension of personal reflexivity and
experience. This is particularly important given that my research methods include ‘participatory
action research’ and ‘grounded theory’, after Glaser & Strauss, 1967, and that I adopt the
‘participatory philosophy’ of Skolimowski, 1994. In mainstream, i.e. scientistic, research,
inclusion of personal experiences arising through the research process is generally thought to
contaminate a project’s objectivity and is subsequently frowned upon if not dismissed entirely,
(Reinharz, 1992 cited in Malone, 1996 p284; Milton, 2002 p3; also Dobzhansky, 1967 p222). A
different approach is possible and arguably essential to addressing the ecological crisis.
“Presenting the personal ‘self’ … is not (used) as a form of ‘confession’ to overcome issues of
bias as would be the case in positivist research, but as an explanation of the researcher’s
standpoint”, (Malone, 1996 p284); a view also advocated by Milton, 2002, and Anshen, 1971.
Such an approach is logically consistent with the basis of criticality. This is especially so when
one acknowledges the interactivity between the researcher and the researched, and the
personally as well as socially transformative potential of critical, reflexive, change-oriented
research (after Skolimowski, 1994).
An additional aspect in my adoption of criticality stems from both my dismissal of the
normative scientistic notion of ‘objective’ and ‘disinterested’ research, and from my
acknowledgement of the existence and urgency of the global ecological crisis (which I discuss
later in this chapter). Brady, 2000 p14, explains this in the context of The Earth Bible Series,
which she notes is “a scholarly work, but it speaks to us here and now with some urgency –
which is all to the good. A disinterested approach is of little use in a crisis. What is needed is
passion – though this is a passion controlled by reason and respect for what is the case.”
Anshen, 1971 p.xvii, comments similarly that “The ‘objectivity’ of science cannot help man
22 “…speculations in the realms of philosophy and religion... are often regarded, among scientists, as
regrettable foibles or even as professional misdemeanors. They are as often as not kept secret, for being
caught at them is liable to damage a scientist's professional reputation” (Dobzhansky, 1967 p2).
24
[sic] in his [sic] present human predicament, since for science in this sense, there can be no
commitment. So that in the end, we know everything but understand nothing.”
The development of my methodology revealed the extent to which I was required to
experience a metanoia (a ‘change of mind’) in relation to my ontology, epistemology, and the
research topic (as it developed through several iterations). In experiencing this sometimes very
difficult process and through exploring the breadth and depth of literature related to my field of
study, I discovered an under-current driving both my metanoia and the changes I was observing
in the relationship between religion and ecology.
This under-current is the healing of the philosophical dualities between ‘Man and Nature’,
mind and body, ‘head and heart’, body and soul, matter and spirit, science and religion, the
sacred and the profane, the Divine and Nature, and ‘rationality’ and ‘emotion’. More broadly,
the under-current is about the need to transcend dualism, itself a central tenet of Buddhism, but
also a core philosophy of authors such as Skolimowski, 1994.
Many authors trace these dualities (in various forms) back to Plato and Aristotle, later
intensified by key figures of the ironically-named Enlightenment, such as Descartes and Bacon,
(see for example Birch, 1965, 1984; Gnanakan, 1999; Hitchcock, 1999; McGrath, 2003;
Sherrard, 2003). My research topic requires that I address such deep issues to some extent, if
only in relation to the controversial views of White Jr., 1967, 1973, and others who specifically
or substantially blame Christianity (or in White’s case, a particular interpretation of it) for
Western23 society’s destructive relationship with Nature (see also Hallman, 2000).
My methodology seeks to reunite at least some of these divisions through a form of
transpersonal criticality that recognises the danger of an academia and a society that commonly
demands a researcher isolate notionally separate and purportedly ‘pure’ rationalist, intellectual
thought from ‘impure’ personal and transpersonal experiences such as emotion, intuition, and
spirituality. The scars of such divisive scientism and so-called rationalism are all too evident in
the causes and outcomes of the ecological crisis, the related social crises and in the personal
spiritual crisis that lies at their core, see for example Anshen, 1971; Milton, 2002; Nasr, 1996;
Skolimowski, 1994.
In healing such divisions, I adopt the notion of research as therapy; as learning to know
and heal myself; as a process of self-actualisation; and through this, to better understand and
23 After Milton, 2002 p6, I use the term ‘Western’ in its common but unsatisfactorily defined sense,
noting that ‘the West’ is not “a sealed container”; it has “no clear boundaries, and it is in the nature of
market capitalism and liberal democracy, which characterise the west, to break down whatever
boundaries there are.”
25
interact with the world. I see this in terms of the paraphrased view of J. Krishnamurti which
says that ‘if you want to change the world, you first need to change yourself’ (Krishnamurti &
Martin, 1997).
Much the same view is expressed by Skolimowski, 1994 p.xii: “Our world needs mending
and healing; so does our psyche… The healing of the world (and ourselves within it)…are
complementary aspects of the same process.” A similar approach is taken in the work of Joanna
Macy24 and John Seed25, and to some extent by Wilber, 2001, who writes that:
“An increase in exterior or social development can only be sustained with a
corresponding increase in interior development in consciousness and culture.
Simply trying to put a new form of governance, political system, (techno-
economic system) or social distribution network in place without a
corresponding development in the levels of the interior dimensions of
consciousness has historically guaranteed failure in societal transformation.”
Caduto, 1985, sees that only “whole, healed individuals who are willing and able to look
beyond their own lives and to work for the welfare of society and environment” can achieve the
necessary level of personal and societal change required to address the ecological crisis. I feel
this view suggests that one has to be ‘perfect’ before one can be an effective contributor. My
view is that one needs to be substantially ‘on the path’, and not necessarily at some nominal
endpoint in order to be able to contribute meaningfully.
Further to the notion of healing our psyche to heal the world, my position is also
commensurate with that of Maslow, 1964, who argues that “dichotomizing and pathologizing”
are immature states of mind. He holds that:
“The empirical fact is that self-actualizing people, our best experiencers, are
also our most compassionate, our great improvers and reformers of society,
our most effective fighters against injustice, inequality, slavery, cruelty,
exploitation (and also our best fighters for excellence, effectiveness,
competence). And it also becomes clearer and clearer that the best ‘helpers’
are the most fully human persons. What I may call the bodhisattvic26 path is
an integration of self-improvement and social zeal, i.e., the best way to
become a better ‘helper’ is to become a better person. But one necessary
aspect of becoming a better person is via helping other people. So one must
and can do both simultaneously. (The question ‘Which comes first?’ is an
atomistic question.)
24 See for e.g. http://www.joannamacy.net/html/books.html
25 See for e.g. http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/wrr2000/WRR_Oct/seedintro.htm
26 ‘Bodhisattva’ is a Sanskrit term from Buddhism and can be roughly translated as someone who is
‘enlightened’ (at least to some extent) but remained embodied or chosen to be reincarnated in order to aid
fellow beings on ‘the path’. Buddhism nominally holds that Jesus was a bodhisattva (see for e.g. Falvey,
2002).
26
In this context, I would like to refer to my demonstration in the Preface to
the revised edition (1970) of my Motivation and Personality (59) that
normative zeal is not incompatible with scientific objectivity, but can be
integrated with it, eventuating in a higher form of objectivity, i.e., the
Taoistic27.
What this all adds up to is this: small ‘r’ religion is quite compatible, at the
higher levels of personal development, with rationality, with science, with
social passion. Not only this, but it can, in principle, quite easily integrate the
healthily animal, material, and selfish with the naturalistically transcendent,
spiritual, and axiological. (See my ‘A Theory of Metamotivation: The
Biological Rooting of the Value-Life,’ Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
1967, VII, 93-127).”
3.2 Extended transdisciplinarity
The research encompassed by this thesis touches on matters that may be treated in depth in
a number of academic disciplines. The thesis is eclectic in that I draw on work from any
discipline that throws light on my subject. There are at least several recognisable fields of study
relevant to this research, and there would be considerable overlap between them. This situation
suggests the need for a transdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or metadisciplinary approach.
However, consistent with the position of Midgley, 2000, I do not pretend to use a
metadisciplinary or metaparadigmatic approach, which purport to be ‘beyond’ disciplines or
their associated paradigms. Instead, I see the project as eclectic – traversing the disciplines,
taking whatever is of value to my research from any relevant discipline.
My understanding of transdisciplinarity is, to paraphrase Berghofer, 2004 p.5, that it
involves using multiple disciplines to integrate their knowledge in addressing a complex issue
such that some new intellectual space is created and some emergent knowledge is generated,
which could not possibly have come from single disciplines working alone. In adopting a
transdisciplinary approach, I acknowledge that it needs to have regard to the partiality,
frameworks and assumptions of each of the included disciplines and that a translation
mechanism is required to bridge disciplinary divisions. This is a position adopted by Yorque et
al., 2002 p419-21 and Holling et al., 2002 p8, 18-20 in their discussions of the need for
disciplinary integration and the development of an ‘integrated theory’ to assist with the
movement towards ‘sustainable futures’.
When working with concepts and data derived from a range of sometimes-disparate
disciplines, I assess this material critically. For example, I consider the context of the
27 I interpret Maslow’s use of ‘Taoistic’ to mean ‘enlightened’ or ‘critically enlightened’ objectivity, i.e.
that which recognises the very limit of objectivity as a concept and which situates it in an inherently
inspirited and non-dualistic reality.
27
discipline’s paradigm; I consider how I interpret it, and how my orientation might ‘colour’ that
interpretation (reflexivity); and I consider it in the context of the framework of Human Ecology
inclusive of what Boyden, 2004 terms ‘biounderstanding’. I explain this approach in subsequent
sections.
By adopting what I term an ‘extended transdisciplinary’, I acknowledge that academic
disciplines and fields are not the only valid forms of knowledge. This perspective could be
challenged as semantic based on how broadly one defines the concepts of academic disciplines
and fields. Some would argue that all knowledge could be placed within an academic discipline
(relatively formal domain) or a field (less formal and arguably broader domain). Others might
argue that even the most inclusive of academic fields is still academic and therefore excludes
non-academic knowledge cultures.
Not wanting to get mired in such theoretical discussions, I have chosen to adapt or at least
clarify the transdisciplinarity of Midgley, 2000, by overtly extending it to encompass
knowledge cultures that are not necessarily within academic domains or fields. Such knowledge
cultures can include the personal, local community, organisational and holistic. This is
consistent with the approach of Brown et al., 2005, who describe working with all the
knowledge cultures as synergistic. This is also consistent with the transpersonal
/transformative/transcendental perspective advocated by Braud & Anderson, 1998, and Fox,
1990, and has been employed successfully by Malone, 1996, and Milton, 2002. In engaging in
this approach, I am still making choices that inherently ally me with some disciplines and
paradigms over others. This position reflects an acceptance of the apparent paradox that all
research sits within a paradigm, even if it is one that adopts a transparadigmatic view.
3.3 Human Ecology
“What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about
themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply
conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny – that is, by religion”
(White Jr., 1967 cited in Tucker & Grim, 2000 p.xvi).
In accordance with critical theory, I need to situate myself in a mode of thought for
selecting this research topic, formulating my methodology and applying the selected methods. I
have chosen to position my approach within the discipline of Human Ecology because it
appears able to span the range of material addressed in this research and because it includes
overt values of improvement, intervention, advocacy, and the promotion of ecological
sustainability and social justice. It does not pretend to be value-free or value-neutral.
A very broad interpretation of the discipline of environmental sociology would come close
to achieving this, but in my view, it is limited by some significant constraints of the sociological
28
paradigm. Environmental sociology struggles with attempting to legitimise itself in the
scientific paradigm and in doing so, is at best inconsistent in terms of its position on issues such
as ecological sustainability. This was evident in my investigation of environmental sociology
literature relating to this thesis. I noticed that the orientation of research ranged from being
concerned with ecological and social justice issues in the context of wanting to see positive
change, through to an attempted distant observation of ecological attitudes and behaviours with
no evidence of concern as to the results or their meaning beyond an abstracted academic
context. The latter orientation was usually associated with more quantitative methodologies and
methods.
Human Ecology encompasses the nominally social and physical sciences, and in this sense
is transdisciplinary and transparadigmatic. It is also comfortable with an overtly
environmentalist and pro-social justice teleology. The combination of the notional domains of
ecological and social justice is recognised by the term ‘ecojustice’, also spelt ‘eco-justice’.
‘Ecojustice’ is used by some Christian ecotheologians, for example Gibson, 1985; Ruether,
1993; Boff, 1997; McFague, 2001; Preston, 2002; Leal, 2004a, and is increasingly apparent in
the wider Christian ‘justice’ literature.
There are significantly different interpretations of what the academic discipline of Human
Ecology represents historically and at present, see for example Hawley, 1986. One could also
argue whether it is an academic discipline or is better described as a ‘field’ of study. The view
of Human Ecology given by Dunlap & Michelson, 2002, fails to explore the discipline in
sufficient depth and does not address substantial developments in Human Ecology since ~1970.
Instead, it places at least some of those advances within the authors’ clearly preferred realm of
environmental sociology (which is not surprising given their backgrounds in that field and the
title and nature of their book – A Handbook of Environmental Sociology). Russell, 2007,
provides a more up-to-date and detailed account of what Human Ecology represents, and how it
came to be that way. The history of Human Ecology is a research topic in itself and I do not
address it in this thesis.
In placing this research in the field of Human Ecology, I am less concerned about
academic interpretations of the term and happily apply the term literally, i.e. the ecology of
humans. In doing so, I note concerns raised by Deane-Drummond, 2004 p.ix, relating to the
disciplinary separation of human ecology from what some now refer to as ‘bioecology’ – being
the ecology of plants and non-human animals. Clearly the term ‘bioecology’ is problematic in
that it suggests humans are somehow not of the biological realm. I acknowledge this separation
and the problems it can cause as a result of it potentially maintaining the false dichotomy of
‘Man and Nature’, itself underpinned by the ontological separation of God and Nature and of
science and religion, which I reject as flawed, (see for example Birch, 1965; Hitchcock, 1999;
29
McGrath, 2003). However, I believe that one can adopt an ecological focus on humanity
without necessarily maintaining these dichotomies as is explained below. The founder of the
Human Ecology (originally Human Sciences) Program at the Australian National University,
Stephen Boyden (1987; 2004), has for some time used his term ‘biohistory’ in place of ‘Human
Ecology’. His methodology of biohistory is in part an attempt to address the problematic
distinction between ‘bioecology’ and the social sciences.
My application of the term ‘ecology’ is not confined by the conventional scientistic
paradigm from which the ‘science’ of ecology arose. This situation reflects an ontological
position in which as a panentheist, I see Nature/the Universe/Creation/Divinity as an interwoven
whole. From this perspective, one can legitimately focus on a particular aspect such as humans,
mindful of the interconnected nature of reality, and the need for reflexivity. This is a view held
by key philosophers of religion c. mid 19th century, for example Hartshorne, 1948; Birch, 1965
and is a strong theme in some of the more recent and progressive ‘web of life’ ecotheology
discussed by John, 2005.
My definition of panentheism is as per McFague, 1993: “Pantheism says that God is
embodied, necessarily and totally; traditional theism claims that God is disembodied,
necessarily and totally; panentheism suggests that God is embodied but not necessarily or
totally”. This is an example of the application of ‘both/and’ rather than ‘either/or’ and contrasts
the dichotomous view of Thomas, 1995 p105: “Pantheism is the belief that God and the
universe are identical… Panentheism does not deify Nature. God is not identical with the
universe, for the universe is dependent on God in a way that God is not dependent upon the
Universe”. Birch, 1965 credits Hartshorne, 1948 as the originator of the term ‘panentheism’.
Panentheism is the antithesis of the conventional scientific view that has been influenced
by Plato, Descartes and the dominant interpretation of Judaeo-Christian theology. In that view,
there is a hierarchical ontology of God and Man (sometimes with Woman recognised only as an
inferior form of Man), with the Universe/Creation/Nature acting as the background, stage or
mechanism in which Man28 lives out his life (see for example Merchant, 1980; Callicott &
Ames, 1989 p3-4; Nasr, 1996).
As a trained ecologist with the above-described view, it seems entirely reasonable to me to
place this research under the domain of Human Ecology. As per Merchant, 1992 p8, and
Marten, 2001, Human Ecology relates to the interaction of or interrelationships between humans
(in this case particular groups and individuals within Australia) with their environment29
28 I use the patriarchal terms here in accordance with that particular view.
29 I note the human/environment dichotomy is a convenient but potentially problematic construct.
30
(encompassing sociological, political, physical/biological and transcendent aspects). There is
also support for my perspective of Human Ecology as ‘the ecology of humans’ in the inaugural
issue of the journal Ecology, which had this to say about the term ‘ecology’:
“…ecology…covers practically the whole field of biology, and is related in
one way or another to every science which touches life… Ecology is new in
name but not in fact; it is superposed on the other sciences, not an offshoot…
Geography, in so far as it is the study of man in relation to his environment,
is human ecology” (Moore, 1920)30.
Metzner, 1993 p163 says that, “Ecology, because of its concern with the complex web of
interdependent relationships in ecosystems, including the pervasive role and impact of the
human, is the interdisciplinary ‘subversive science’ par excellence.” Such a view is consistent
with my use of the term ‘human ecology’ on the proviso that reflexivity is employed.
The ecotheologian Ken Gnanakan recognises the use of ‘ecology’ in this way in his
discussion about the terms, ‘environment’ and ‘ecology’. He states that ‘ecology’ “came to be
applied to the complete study of human beings within their different environments…”
(Gnanakan, 1999)31. However, he also distinguishes between the ‘ecological’ issues that may be
relevant to a particular ‘environment’. I apply the term, ‘ecology’ more broadly to encompass
any interaction between humans and the other aspects of Nature (inclusive of the Divine). This
means, for example, that I see anthropology as a form of ecology.
As in all disciplines and philosophies, there is variation within Human Ecology. Some
forms have a staunchly secular humanist orientation that retains aspects of post-Enlightenment
science’s antithetical relationship with matters religious or spiritual (for example the work of
Boyden, 1987, 2004 as discussed in Chapter 2). This is in contrast with other forms of Human
Ecology, such as that taught at the Centre for Human Ecology32 at the University of Strathclyde,
30 Berry, 1993 p234 also notes that “ecology and geography were brought together” in the 1923
presidential address of H.H. Burrows to the Association of American Geographers entitled ‘Geography as
Human Ecology’.
31 Gnanakan, 1999 also distinguishes between ‘environmentalist’ and ‘ecologist’. He argues that the
environmentalist is confined to advocating relatively superficial changes to the societal status quo, and on
page 32, he claims that environmentalists also advocate pantheism. He argues that in contrast, the
ecologist is “looking for fundamental solutions that take us deeper than mere survival.” His argument has
some merit but has been lost in semantics. Rather than splitting the definition of these terms as he does,
he could have simply advocated the literature that recognises there are various forms and degrees of
environmentalism ranging from very shallow approaches often based on a technocentric approach
(‘shifting deckchairs’ / ‘tweaking the cogs’), to the very deep and radical, e.g. forms of Deep Ecology,
some of which are decidedly misanthropic and deeply unpalatable to most Christians because of this, see
for e.g. Dryzek, 1997. I simply use ‘ecologist’ as a specialist term e.g. one who studies ecology sens. lat.,
and ‘environmentalist’ as the term for one who advocates and practices environmentalism. Note that
Gnanakan’s perspective is arguably not typical of Western Christianity as he is an Evangelical theologian,
apparently of Indian extraction, and working in a Christian training school in Bangalore.
32 http://www.che.ac.uk/mambo/index.php
31
Scotland; with some forms of Social Ecology, which tends to be more open to religio-
spirituality and transpersonal processes, see for example Hill, 1999; and with what Merchant,
1992, terms “Spiritual Ecology”. I have chosen to situate the research within a version of
Human Ecology that is consistent with an ecojustice agenda – one that recognises that the
ecological crisis is at base a moral33 and/or spiritual crisis. There is thus a logical connection
with the role of religion and spirituality – more specifically, the role that these may play in
addressing the ecosocial crisis, (see for example Finlay & Palmer, 2003; Gardner, 2002, 2003,
2006). This combination of religio-spirituality with ecology means that the version of Human
Ecology that I adopt can include the Transpersonal Ecology described by Fox, 1990. His
reworking of the philosophy of ‘deep ecology’ removes what some argue to be its misanthropic
aspects, and is in accord with the transpersonal research methods of Braud & Anderson, 1998.
3.3.1 Critical Human Ecology
“In the newly emerging worldview, with ecology as the model discipline,
education and the pursuit of knowledge will of necessity be multi-
disciplinary and integrative. Unconscious values and hidden agendas will
need to be brought into the light of critical review” (Metzner, 1993 p168).
In addition to situating the research in the discipline of Human Ecology, I have chosen to
include the practice of critical thinking. This addition, I argue, is essential for the full
development of Human Ecology and in particular, for it moving beyond the limitations imposed
by the normative paradigms of the physical and social sciences. I see criticality and related
systems thinking as the evolutionary progression needed for Human Ecology to maximise its
contribution to knowledge, and to maximise its effectiveness in achieving personal and societal
‘improvement’.
The concept of criticality (inclusive of reflexivity), can be regarded as a step towards
Western (re)discovery of what Buddhism calls (in English) ‘mindfulness’ (a concept used and
advocated by Braud & Anderson, 1998 p242); what other Vedic belief systems call (in Sanskrit)
‘svadhyaya’ (or self-study); what transpersonal psychology calls ‘self-awareness’; what Naess,
1988, terms ‘Self-Realisation!’34; and what Maslow, 1943, calls ‘self-actualisation’. The
concept has even been brought into current popular culture through a Latin phrase meaning
‘know thyself’35 (Et Nosce), which is used as a central tenet of the film trilogy, The Matrix, and
33 In his World Day of Peace Message in 1990, Pope John Paul II said that “The ecological crisis is a
moral issue…”. This was reiterated by Gore Jr., 1992.
34 Sessions, 1993 notes that Naess’ “ultimate norm” of “Self-Realization!” is “a blending of the systems
of Spinoza [17thC Spanish philosopher] and [Mohandas K. ‘Mahatma’] Gandhi.”
35 ‘Know thyself’ (gnothi seauton Gk.) is attributed to ancient Greece, where the phrase was said to be
inscribed at the entrance to the temple of Apollo in Delphi. There are numerous views as to the origins of
the phrase - see for e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself
32
in related philosophical works36. However, after Macdonald, 1997 p68, reflexive criticality
(phenomenological understanding) is not the same as self-realisation (metaphysical
understanding). To equate these terms would be a “category error” as per Wilber, 1990 p7.
A notable aspect of my interpretation of critical and systems thinking is that I view
reflexivity as a prerequisite for their effective implementation. This is consistent with the views
of Braud & Anderson, 1998; Fox, 1990; Macdonald, 1997; Midgley, 2000; Wilber, 2000a,
2001. The application of reflexivity/reflectivity in research is discussed by Brown et al., 2005:
“In The reflective practitioner Schön, 1983 argues that it is necessary for all
practitioners to reflect on their work, for both ethical and practical reasons,
that is, from professional responsibility for their actions, and the desire to
improve their performance. More recently, other scholars have also made a
plea for more critical and subjective reflection on our professional practices,
and on the contexts affecting these practices e.g. Flyvbjerg, 2001 & Wenger,
1998. Inheriting the scientific model of objectivity can make this particularly
difficult for academically trained theorists and researchers in general.”
Criticality and reflexivity are, in effect, the means by which Human Ecology seeks to
improve itself and (in its more enlightened forms) its practitioners. This is a view consistent
with a growing body of literature that can be loosely described as advocating the evolution of
consciousness. It includes work by Carl Gustav Jung and is relatively succinctly captured by
Berghofer, 2004 p10 who cites a pivotal explanatory statement by Wojceichowski, 2001. He
writes in the light of the ecological crisis and the general failure of the scientific and materialist
paradigm to resolve this: “It now becomes evident that, in order to survive, humans have to
know and understand themselves more and more and much better than ever before.” The
sentiment is also captured by Wilber, 2001: “Simply trying to put a new form of governance,
political system, (techno-economic system) or social distribution network in place without a
corresponding development in the levels of the interior dimensions of consciousness has
historically guaranteed failure in societal transformation.” Again, this view is consistent with
the work of Maslow 1964, and that of Skolimowski, 1994, and Naess, 1988. It is also within the
scope of what Berry, 1988, means by his reference to inappropriately and ineffectively
propounding microphase solutions to macrophase problems in the context of the ecological
crisis.
Russell, 2007, also combines Human Ecology with critical theory and critical
systems/intervention (after Midgley, 2000), in what she and others (for example, Bapat, 1988;
and Wilson, 1996) have termed ‘Critical Human Ecology’. Bapat and Wilson provide
36 Aiello, 2001; Irwin, 2002; Yeffeth, 2003; Grau, 2005
33
foundational works for the development of Critical Human Ecology as does the work of J.
Habermas, W. Ulrich, A. Naess and G. Midgley (Russell, 2007).
If Human Ecology were not critical and therefore in my terms, reflexive, it would risk
being simply ‘the ecology of humans’, with all the limitations that any form of non-reflexive
practice of ecology has as just another branch of ‘objective’ science (see for example,
Macdonald, 1997 p26-9).
The interventionist nature of this research is overtly intended to facilitate systemic
improvement as per the work of Malone, 1996; Milton, 2002 & Midgley, 2000 p128-133. This
is consistent with the Aristotelian idea of phronesis and the concept of phronetic research
underpinned by values rationality which asks, after Flyvbjerg, 2001 p60: “Where are we
going?”, “Is this desirable?”, “What should be done?”, and which takes priority over
instrumental rationality. In accordance with the methodology of Critical Human Ecology, I have
to identify, as much as possible, my values and what I bring to the research. In doing so, I am
also attempting to answer the above three pivotal questions asked by Flyvbjerg, 2001 p60.
3.4 Boundary judgements
A related aspect of Critical Human Ecology is the use of boundary judgements or
boundary critique, after Midgley, 2000. This involves clearly defining the scope of the research
in terms of what is in, what is out, and why. Some definitional and scope issues have already
been addressed in the Chapters 1 and 2. I discuss others below.
3.4.1 Forum on Religion and Ecology
A substantial aspect of the methodology, particularly in relation to boundary judgements
and orienting principles is consistent with that used by the Forum on Religion and Ecology
(FORE). FORE is a venture of The Harvard University Centre for the Environment, the
Harvard-Yenching Institute, Bucknell University, and the Centre for Respect of Life and
Environment of the Humane Society of the United States. The FORE website describes the
project as “the largest international multireligious project of its kind. With its conferences,
publications, and website it is engaged in exploring religious worldviews, texts, and ethics in
order to broaden understanding of the complex nature of current environmental concerns.” It
states that “The Forum recognizes that religions need to be in dialogue with other disciplines
(e.g., science, ethics, economics, education, public policy, gender) in seeking comprehensive
solutions to both global and local environmental problems.”
34
FORE’s work is broadly within the scope of what Taylor, 2004 p992, terms the field of
“religion and ecology”. He describes this field as:
“…focusing first on identifying the obstacles that the world’s mainstream
religions may pose to environmental sustainability, and secondly the
resources such religions may have available for promoting environmentally
beneficent behaviours. A third, normative agenda often accompanied these
two more descriptive ones, to promulgate the religious beliefs and practices
that produce environmentally responsible behaviours, reappraising and
reconfiguring the traditions as needed so they can provide the needed
conceptual, spiritual, and practical resources for environmentally beneficent
behaviour” Taylor, 2004 p992.
FORE has published numerous texts in its series, Religions of the World and Ecology. Of
these, the key text used in this thesis is ‘Christianity and Ecology: seeking the well-being of
Earth and humans’ (Hessel & Ruether, 2000b). That publication includes a section on the
methodology of the project (Tucker & Grim, 2000) in which some orienting principles and
boundary judgements are raised.
These include:
• accepting the existence of “the environmental crisis” and that it is a real and imminent
threat to ecological integrity in which rapid growth in the human population, levels and
inequities of consumption, and use of technology are contributing factors;
• accepting the need to “rethink worldviews and ethics” in light of the crisis and its nature –
that scientific and political solutions to the crisis have proven inadequate to address the
underlying causes of the problem;
• agreeing that in this context, religion offers both “problems and promise” in addressing the
crisis. Religion has both progressive / prophetic and conservative / constraining aspects to
it and there are diverse views within religion;
• accepting that religion has been late to address the ecological crisis (and so by inference
may be behind other aspects of society in this regard);
• agreeing that the transformative and transpersonal aspects of religion can provide powerful
motivation for personal and societal change in a way that is beyond or at least different to
that of science and secular politics - in particular, in moving “from rhetoric in print to
realism in action”. This potential is beginning to be realised now that most religions have
adopted environmentalism to varying extents; and
• supporting the statement that religions are not unique in having a policy/praxis disjuncture.
This disjuncture “should not automatically invalidate the(ir) complex worldviews and rich
cosmologies”.
35
I have adopted the methodology of FORE but situate it within the broader context of
Critical Human Ecology as discussed above. I draw on some of FORE’s methodological
boundaries that help to circumscribe their efforts with “healthy scepticism, cautious optimism,
and modest ambitions”, (Tucker & Grim, 2000 p.xxi). In discussing methodological concerns,
Tucker & Grim, 2000 p.xxi-xxii, note that the field of research into religion and ecology is an
emerging one in which “there are, inevitably, challenging methodological issues”, in particular,
“time, place, space and positionality”.
“With regard to time, it is necessary to recognise the vast historical complexity of each
religious tradition” (in this case Western Christianity as it manifests in Australia), which cannot
be easily condensed…”, (Tucker & Grim, 2000 p.xxi-xxii).
Place is an issue in this thesis as I am dealing with modern Western Christianity in
Australia, which the literature suggests is distinct from its manifestations in, for example, the
United States.
“With regard to space, we recognise the varied frameworks of institutions and traditions in
which these religions unfold”, (Tucker & Grim, 2000 p.xxi-xxii). Whilst I am dealing with
mainstream Christianity in Australia, there are significant variations between the traditions and
institutions of the Catholic, Anglican and Uniting Churches. In theological terms, there are
significant differences between the Catholic faith and that of the Protestant tradition that
includes the Anglican and Uniting Churches. There is also considerable institutional and
traditional variation between the Protestant churches. For example, the Uniting Church of
Australia is a relatively recent merger of three older denominations but operates with some
arguably modern notions such as consensus decision-making and State-based management. In
contrast, the Anglican Church of Australia has an organisational structure little different from
that of the Catholic Church. Of additional and arguably greater significance in the context of
ecotheology and related policies and praxis, is the extent of variation within each of the subject
denominations.
“Finally, with respect to positionality, we acknowledge our (my) own historical
situatedness… with distinctive contemporary concerns”, (Tucker & Grim, 2000 p.xxi-xxii).
This is particularly relevant in that way that FORE approaches ecological thought and action
within religion. The central issue is that all major religious traditions pre-date modern
ecological knowledge, though not necessarily ecological or related forms of knowledge in
general. At the time when most of these traditions arose, there was no global ecological crisis,
there were no weapons of mass destruction, no artificial fertilisers or biocides, no transgenic
species, no ozone depletion or anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Thus, when researching any
major religion and its relationship with ecology, we have to acknowledge that it originated, and
36
for most of its history has been interpreted in a world very different from the one we inhabit and
claim to understand today.
Tucker & Grim, 2000 p.xxi, note that their approach could be criticised, as has mine, for
being an instrumentalist and potentially exploitative use of religion to address ecological
concerns. This is expressed in the context of a call by environmental ethics philosopher J. Baird
Callicott, 1994, for scholars and others to “mine the conceptual resources” of religious traditions
to create a more inclusive global ecological ethic (for further commentary on this issue see
Taylor, 2004 p992). In essence, Tucker & Grim, 2000 p.xxii, argue that FORE does not seek to
draw on such resources with a one-directional notion of taking and using. Instead, they see the
process of investigating religions’ relationship with ecology as being at least a two-way
exchange in which the knowledge systems of religion and ecology interact, as do the researchers
and the religions they study.
Similar to the approach of Tucker & Grim, 2000 p.xxii, I do not simply “mine”
information from the subject denominations for the purposes of my research. I also provide
information to the Churches and my research participants as to the outcomes of my research,
and this extends to improving dialogue between and within the denominations. One
manifestation of this is my establishment of an Internet forum to which I invite participants in
my research, and others, for the purposes of their sharing information that is intended to aid the
‘greening’ of the Churches, particularly in relation to achieving practical outcomes. This was in
part motivated by several research participants asking to be kept informed of my findings and
being very pleased when I forwarded information about what their peers were achieving in other
areas and denominations. This extended to include information about what their peers were and
were not achieving and my analysis of the reasons for this.
I also reject the instrumentalist claim because it presumes that my attempts to address the
global ecological crisis through my research into the ‘greening’ of religion are based on a purely
self-serving agenda. Such a stance would also have us believe that environmentalism is
inherently instrumentalist because proponents of it are only trying to look after their own
personal, familial, communal, corporate, or national interests. I reject that view because it is not
based on critical thinking. It is a self-serving ruse and is generally proffered by those who have
a vested interest in opposing environmentalism and/or who are fundamentally cornucopian in
perspective (religious or otherwise). My research is based on a justice-oriented agenda in which
my own interests in combating the ecological crisis are concomitant with what I believe to be in
the global interest.
In adopting FORE’s methodology, there are some key elements that I develop further as
explained in the following section and in the following two chapters.
37
3.4.2 Australia and mainstream Christianity
I have also made several boundary judgements that confine the scope of this thesis in
relation to its focus on Australia, on mainstream religion, and therefore on the three largest
Christian denominations. I discuss the boundary judgements associated with those choices in
Chapters 4 and 5 due to the volume of associated text.
To summarise the associated boundary judgements, I chose to focus on Australia because
as a long-term resident, I have an interest in its human ecology, including the religio-spiritual
dimensions. Australia is also largely absent from the literature dealing with the ‘greening’ of
religion, so I perceived a need to fill some of that gap. Linked to this is widespread confusion in
academic and popular domains as to whether Australia has enough of a religious life to warrant
any scholarly attention, especially within the field of the ‘greening’ of the Church.
Recent research by Bouma, 2006, has helped to clarify this issue, confirming that
Christianity remains the dominant religion by affiliation, by membership and attendance.
However, whilst conventional expressions of Christianity, such as weekly church attendance at
one of several of the older denominations, have declined and continue to do so, religion in
Australia is by no means dead or even dying. Bouma, 2006, and others such as Tacey, 2000,
2003, make the case that Australia is witnessing a spiritual and to some extent a religious
renewal, which manifests almost entirely outside the mainstream Churches. This phenomenon
was evident at least as far back as the early 1980s (see for example Millikan, 1981). Despite the
predicted demise of most suburban churches within twenty years, particularly of the ‘rationalist’
Protestant traditions, Catholicism remains a very large and relatively strong denomination,
though it too faces generational demographic challenges (Bouma, 2006).
Thus having chosen to focus on Australia and on the ‘greening’ of its mainstream religion,
the thesis focuses on Christianity in the form of the three largest denominations as of the 2006
national census (ABS, 2007): the Catholic, Anglican and Uniting Churches37. Whilst the
fortunes of the conventional mainstream Churches look relatively dim in the medium-term, they
remain large organisations with considerable ecological and cultural influences. Even as the
mainstream Churches decline, they remain a valuable case study into the nature of the
‘greening’ of religion in Australia. They provide a meaningful lens through which to explore the
increasingly promoted view that religion is or could be an important or indeed vital vehicle via
which the necessarily radical personal and societal changes can be made and sustained in order
to address the ecological crisis.
37 Research for this thesis commenced in 2004 when the latest national census data was from 2001. The
release of the 2006 census data in mid-2007 did not change the relative ranking of the three largest
denominations.
38
3.5 Methodology as research-in-action
‘Methodology as research-in-action’ is a term derived from Malone, 1996 p113, which she
explains as supporting “the view that a critical research design is emergent, active and
responsive to the substantive issues of the study and evolves from the researcher reflecting on
the research action and is consequently praxis-oriented”. It could also be termed an iterative
approach, and is within the scope of the ‘grounded theory’ of Glaser & Strauss, 1967. It is the
natural extension of the adoption of criticality and reflexivity. As Malone, 1996 p113-4 (citing
Fien, 1992; Robottom & Hart, 1993; Wals, 1993) points out, “an applied science research
methodology emerging from a positivist epistemology and an objectivist ontology does not
value or support critical consciousness and is unable to respond to the critical and socially
transformative orientation of environmental education”. Midgley, 2000 and Harris & Robottom,
1997 p51, also advocate such an approach and contrast it with a fixed and inflexible
methodology and methods.
Whilst this thesis is not about ‘environmental education’ in the sense that Malone’s work
is, it is similar in that it addresses in part, a process of environmental education (in a broad
sense) within the mainstream Christian denominations of Australia. The Churches have adopted
internal education agendas as part of their becoming ecologically informed and active.
Furthermore, an important aspect of their conversion of policy to praxis is the effectiveness of
their educative processes within and between Church organisations, and between them and the
broader community. Equally, the research entails my becoming educated in matters related to
the ecological policies and practices of the subject denominations.
Malone, 1996 p115-6, discusses the ‘empowerment potentials’ of critical research
methodologies and divides them into ‘Empowerment as political consciousness-raising’ (critical
ethnography; critical policy and text analysis; critical phenomenology) and ‘Empowerment as
collective action/struggle’ (participatory research; action research; research as praxis). My
methodology and methods encompass aspects from both of these groups: critical policy and text
analysis; participatory/action research; and research as praxis. I discuss these further in
Chapter 6.
39
Figure 3.1 at the end of this chapter is a schematic representation of my methodology. The
triangle, whilst it represents the triptych of interactions between the primary components of the
methodology, is also a scientific symbol for change, and is widely used in Green politics.
Change is placed at the top of the diagram to indicate that it is the primary driver of my research
methodology.
In discussions and in several interuniversity workshops involving fellow research students,
I found that the majority could not answer ‘deep’ questions about why they were undertaking
their research project. They could provide ‘shallow’ answers in terms of simple instrumental
values or general interests, but very few could identify what it was that really drove them in
their research – a passion, a purpose, or what Catholics in particular term a ‘vocation’. I note
that in perhaps an increasing number of cases, students are constrained by the agenda of their
supervisor and/or corporate or government funding conditions. Some are not permitted to ask
deep questions about the work, and simply treat it like any other job.
When the student simply indicated that career advancement was the basis of their
motivation, I would ask why that was important; if financial gain and security were the answer,
I would ask why they were important. I would continue to probe to try to discover what the
student’s ultimate motivation was in order to illuminate something of their worldview, their
philosophy, perhaps even their religion or spirituality. I was largely doing this because I had
earlier found the process useful for clarifying my own motivations. Not surprisingly, few of the
students were comfortable with this approach, though others welcomed it. In the latter case I
helped them to uncover something of their deep intention – what they were trying to achieve
and why, which in turn helped them with their methodological deliberations and their
motivation. The very small number of students who stayed with me in this exploratory process
emerged the better for it, in my view, and some thanked me for perhaps helping them to uncover
what it was that brought them to their research project and what it was that would sustain them
throughout it. I found my journey through this process to be very revealing. Some of the
discoveries assisted in crystallising my methodological framework as well as the methods that I
chose and how these interacted with my internal and external change/growth/development/
improvement orientation.
40
Admittedly, many research students from the physical sciences and from some of the more
traditional and conservative humanities had never been asked such probing questions, and it
seemed that some disciplines discouraged such levels of reflection. However, for those of us
who view our research as more of a journey, perhaps even as therapy, and with more of a
transformative orientation, the central question of ‘why’ is pivotal. In my case, I see the research
project as a vehicle of and for change. Initially I saw it as changing the attitudes, knowledge and
behaviour of others, primarily research participants or related groups. I came to see that the
research was at least as much about changing me, perhaps in part so that I may be better
equipped to promote the broader societal changes that I seek.
Figure 3.1 Schematic representation of the research methodology
Positive change –
for researcher, participants, non-participants,
society (or parts of), ecology, spirituality
iteration
Methodology
(philosophy, ethics,
values, politics, beliefs,
attitudes, concerns,
orientation, purpose,
agendas)
Critical
Action
Research
iteration
feedback, refinement, reflection,
reorientation, development, targeting,
tuning, (un)learning, evolution,
efficacy, efficiency, positive change
iteration
Methods
(tools, techniques,
empowerment, facilitation,
education, capacity-
building, development,
transformation)
41
Chapter 4: The Australian focus
This research focuses on the Australian context for several reasons. I live in Australia and
have always done so, which is connected to my knowledge of, and interest in Australia’s natural
and cultural environment (including religio-spirituality and politics).
4.1 A gap in the literature
Another key reason for the Australian focus is that the ‘greening’ of Western religio-
spirituality has been described internationally, but has received relatively little scholarly or
popular attention in Australia. When I began this thesis in 2004 there were apparently no
publications dealing specifically with the ‘greening’ of religion in Australia. The closest to this
was a 30 minute television program entitled ‘The Greening of God’, produced by the Australian
Broadcasting Commission (ABC Religion and Ethics Unit, 2000). That program did not address
the ecological policies and praxis of the Churches in Australia, and instead focused on
individual views and actions. There were other relevant works that predate 2004, such as
Australian Theologies (Goosen, 2000), Chapter 6 of which included some specific information
about the ‘greening’ of religion, including, to some extent, the Churches.
Earlier Australian works such as Birch, 1965; Passmore, 1974, 1975; Birch, 1976; Birch &
Cobb Jr, 1981; Birch, 1984; Edwards, 1992; Collins, 1995; Pearson, 1998; Chew, 1999; Habel,
2000, are philosophical and/or theological, rather than substantially addressing the response of
the institutional Church to environmentalism. However, Passmore, 1974 p3-40, does mention
that he sees little support for environmentalism coming from the Church because the Church has
largely supported the Western economic growth model, and environmentalism opposes or at
least threatens this.
A more recent publication by Collins, 2004, includes a chapter entitled Catholicism and
Ecology. However, it not specific to Australia and provides just a couple of unsupported
condemnatory sentences devoted to the response of the institutional Catholic Church to
ecological concerns. What little comment he makes appears to draw largely or entirely on
another author’s non-specific view of such matters in 1991. He does not mention any
developments since then, which include three official Catholic Church publications that address
ecological issues directly or indirectly.
Other relevant material includes that which deals with the sociology and demographics of
religion. In this context, environmentalism sometimes rates a brief mention, mainly in attempts
to explain the decline of mainstream denominations which are widely agreed to have been late
42
to address ecological issues (see for example, Berry, 1992; McDonagh, 1990; Scharper, 1997
p27; Van Dyke et al., 1996 p167).
There are also some primarily internal and often unpublished writings dealing with
ecotheology and related policy matters, principally within the Uniting Church, and to a lesser
extent from within Catholicism. For example, Harrison, 1986; Uniting Church of Australia,
1988; Budden, 1990; Dutney, 1991; Green, 1991; Wansbrough, 1994a, b; Gore & Garrett, 1995;
Kelly, 1995; Rue, 1996; Smith, 1996; Wansbrough, 1996; John, 1997; Wansbrough, 1997;
Gormly, 2000; Stringer, 2000; Uniting Church of Australia National Assembly, 2002; John,
2003; Leal, 2003; Menteith, 2003; Rue, 2003.
Even allowing for differences in population size, and official measures of religiosity, the
volume of work addressing the ‘greening’ of religion in Australia is very small compared with
works focussed on the USA, the UK and the West in general. The particularly low volume of
scholarly works on this topic may stem from what Bouma, 2006 (p. xv, p 5) citing Beckford,
2003, describes as an ideology of secularism – an anti-religious rationalist orientation that is
seen to be dominant in Australia’s academia. Bouma, 2006, adds that “...to many educated in
the 1960s and 1970s ‘Australian religion’ was a contradiction in terms or at best an
embarrassing legacy of the forgettable past”. Tacey, 2000, indirectly suggests that such subject
matter would not be seen as respectable by the academic mainstream, and would likely be career
limiting in Australia’s predominantly secular university sector. My experience suggests that
there is some truth to Tacey’s view.
It is unsurprising then, that Australian scholars have shown relatively little interest in the
more specific, at least multidisciplinary, and recent phenomenon of the ‘greening’ of religion in
Australia. However, the same deficit is evident in terms of international scholarly interest in the
‘greening’ of Australian religion as well.
The situation appears consistent with the view taken by Palmer, 1993, that Christianity is
seen by many as largely irrelevant and particularly so in relation to ecological concerns. The
secular self-perception (Millikan, 1981 p7) and reputation of Australia further magnifies the
tendency for Australian and international researchers and authors to avoid or simply fail to
consider the ‘greening’ of Christianity in Australia to be worthy of study or commentary.
Having encountered the international literature dealing with the ‘greening’ of religion as
both a global phenomenon, and within the context of various nations and religions, I explored
why Australia had not rated a mention in the publications of an international leader and
43
substantive author in the field of religion and ecology, Martin Palmer38. I learnt that Palmer had
visited Australia in recent years to assess the extent to which his work might extend there. He
operates the UK-based International Consultancy on Religion, Education and Culture, which
works with WWF International and The World Bank. Palmer is said to have left Australia
having concluded that it was so secular (meaning non-religious) that it did not warrant his
attention (Claire Morgan, consultant to Catholic Earthcare Australia, pers. comm. 03/05).
Palmer’s view of Australia’s religiosity (or apparent lack of it) is variously bemoaned or
proclaimed by a range of sources. Some would claim that Australia is so secular as to make any
exploration of its religion, let alone the ‘greening’ of its religion, variously trivial, unworthy of
attention, or indeed, impossible. For example, Breward, 1988 p86, cites Colin Williams of the
Aspen Institute of the USA as suggesting “that Australia is the most secular nation on earth”.
Writing on Australia’s religiosity, Millikan, 1981, says that he is sure most people would say
that Australians aren’t a religious population. In addition, renowned Australian sociologist and
social commentator, Hugh Mackay (2004b), a later-life convert to Anglicanism, claims that
Australia is now a secular nation (noting that historically it wasn’t). Much the same finding
emerged from a major report into religion and culture in Australia by Cahill et al., 2004.
More recently, Desmond O’Grady wrote an article in Melbourne’s ‘The Age’ newspaper
about “a dire warning” issued by Pope Benedict XVI in relation to the decline of Christianity in
which the Pope “singles out ‘faithless’ Australia” (O'Grady, 2005 cited in Lohrey, 2006 p 40).
O'Grady, 2005, cites the Pope as bemoaning “the state of religion in Australia, saying
mainstream Christianity is dying more quickly here than in any other country.” O’Grady writes
that:
“In remarks to priests in Italy, Pope Benedict spoke of a crisis for the main
Christian churches as people in the Western world felt self-sufficient, with
less need for Christ and Christianity. ‘Certainly this is a suffering linked to
the present historical moment in which generally one sees that the so-called
mainstream churches appear moribund,’ he (the Pope) said. ‘This is so in
Australia above all and also in Europe but not so much in the United States.’
He said the Catholic Church was not as badly off as the mainstream
Protestant churches, which were in a ‘profound crisis’ because of sects.”
Yet there are others who argue that Australia is by no means secular, for example Breward,
1988 p86, and O'Farrell, 1982. In the middle are those who claim that when attempting to
measure religiosity, we tend to think of this concept in a manner that is barely relevant today,
for example, Bouma & Lennon, 2003; Bouma, 2006 (sociologists of religion); and Tacey, 2003
(a prominent author on Australian spirituality). A related factor is the cryptic nature of
38 For example, Breuilly & Palmer, 1992; Palmer, 1992, 1993; Palmer, 1998; Finlay & Palmer, 2003.
44
religiosity in Australia as indicated by Millikan, 1981, who notes that whilst Australians don’t
regard their society as religious, and religion “is rarely a topic for popular discussion” (p8), a
large number of people still have religious affiliations and observances.
Some of those who argue that Australia is secular are not irreligious or anti-religious but
are senior clergy who, like Pope Benedict, bemoan the related decline of the Church and
‘Christian values’, (Cahill et al., 2004). The converse applies, with some overtly antireligious
writers, particularly in the commercial media, expressing alarm about how surprisingly religious
Australians (still) are; the alleged rise of overtly religious influences in politics; or at least how
much political influence religion still has, for example, Marr, 1999; O'Dwyer, 2000; Douez &
Gray, 2002; Latham, 2002 cited in Jensen, 2005 p.27.
Despite concluding that Australia is largely secular, Cahill et al., 2004, describe the debate
about the relevance of religion to Australian society as full of disagreements. There are various
claims that Australia is a deeply Christian nation; that Australian culture has historically been
strongly influenced by Christianity39 (O'Farrell, 1982; Breward, 1988); that Australian culture
remains predominantly Christian in nature (Costello, 2004); that Australia is “religiously
pluriform” (Frame, 2005); that secularism has displaced or is displacing all religions in the
dominant Australian culture (Mackay, 2004b); that Australia is a secular state40 (Maddox,
2005b); and that whilst the trend towards secularism is very real, there is a perhaps concomitant
increase in secular spirituality or spirituality outside the major religions (Tacey, 2000, 2003).
The consultations conducted by Cahill et al., 2004 indicated that even Christian leaders view
Australia as having a secular culture and see their faith as increasingly marginalised.
4.2 Is Australia secular?
So who are we to believe? Is Australia completely secular in the sense of there being no
functional religion here? Clearly not, as even the lowest measures of conventionally perceived
religiosity show ~8% of the nation attends church weekly and ~18% of Australians attend
Church at least monthly. So how secular is Australia and what does ‘secular’ really mean? What
is the secularisation argument about? I address these issues below in the context of the relevance
39 Australia used to be more overtly religious and it also experienced considerable religious sectarianism,
particularly between Catholics and Protestants. Australia’s alleged secularity or cryptic religiosity may in
part be attributable to a pragmatic decision by many Australians to avoid discussing religion to avoid the
sort of bitter sectarianism that previously divided society (Schooneveldt, pers. comm. 08/07).
40 In purely legal terms, Australia is a secular state, as is the USA, because the Constitutions of both
nations clearly separate the roles of the Church from those of the State. This contrasts with the UK, where
the monarch is also the head of the Church of England, which is effectively, at least ‘on paper’, the
religion of the State. However, even in the UK, the State has been increasingly separated from the
Church. Some who claim that Australia is a secular nation or state confound, deliberately or otherwise,
constitutional secularity with the notion of a population being anti-religious or having no religion.
45
of this debate in determining the validity and viability of my exploring the ‘greening’ of
mainstream religion in Australia.
4.2.1 What does ‘secular’ mean?
Breward, 1988 p86, notes that in relation to the “imprecise” term, ‘secular’, “there are a
cluster of meanings around the word...”. It is commonly used to mean non-religious but can be
used to mean antireligious. Australia’s Macquarie Dictionary offers several meanings, the most
relevant of which is “not pertaining to or connected with religion”. Given the on-going debate
about the meaning of ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality’, it is unsurprising that a term broadly
understood to mean ‘not religious’ and sometimes ‘not spiritual’ is also subject to different
understanding and usage.
Writing in the Australian context, Gary Bouma, citing Fenn, 2001, adopts a meaning for
‘secular’, in which it is explained that “The secularity of the twenty first century is not anti-
religious or irreligious, as it was in the twentieth century. Rather, according to Fenn,
contemporary secularity is best seen as a social condition in which the religious and spiritual
have moved out from the control of both the state and such formal organisations as the church”
(Bouma, 2006 p xiv). Using this definition, a strong case can be made that Australia is indeed a
relatively secular nation and that the process of secularisation is continuing. However, this does
not mean that Australia is irreligious, as many appear to claim.
Fellow Australian, David Tacey argues that ‘secular’ does not mean ‘a-spiritual’, but
rather, not religious (Tacey, 2000). He argues that the claim that Australia is secular does not
mean that it lacks spirituality or that religion and spirituality are necessarily mutually exclusive.
Indeed, he holds that Australian secularism masks a deep spirituality that is increasingly outside
mainstream religion, i.e. the established Christian Churches. This is a view broadly shared by
Millikan, 1981 p83, who concludes that “The churches seem to be less and less places where the
vague religious feelings of Australians find a home.”
Along similar lines, commenting on changes in religious belief and affiliation in Britain,
Davie, 1994 cited in Ross, 2005 p94, argues that much of the claimed secularisation is far more
accurately described as an increase in the number of and extent to which people are
‘unchurched’. Ross, 2005 p94, connects this with a pattern that parallels the still quite high
levels of self-nominated religious affiliation in Australian as shown in the national census
(ABS, 2007), despite far lower levels of regular church attendance as shown by Bellamy &
Castle, 2004.
Bouma & Lennon, 2003, note, “Estimating the extent of religious activity in a society has
exercised the creative talents of social scientists for over a century”. They present evidence that
46
suggests there is no easy answer to questions such as whether or to what extent a nation is
secular. They argue that there is a need to appreciate “that secularisation does not entail the
absolute decline of religion but refers to changes in the influence of religion and to shifts in
interinstitutional relationships involving religion” (Bouma & Lennon, 2003).
I acknowledge that there are two primary meanings of the term ‘secular’ in this context.
The more conventional meaning of ‘not religious’, puts ‘secular’ up as a polar opposite to a
notion of religion, or more specifically, religiosity, that is increasingly outmoded and decidedly
Protestant (in the broad sense), based as it is on weekly or at least ‘regular’ church attendance
(Fenn, 2001; Tacey, 2000; Bouma, 2006). Few authors and commentators in this field, unlike
Tacey and Bouma, are overt as to their personal orientation towards the ‘secular/religious’
debate, though much can be gleaned from the subtext of their work. Many of those who argue
that Australia is secular (meaning absolutely or substantially non-religious) are apparently
secularists (i.e. opposed to religion and/or supporters of the once heralded demise of religion
due to the foreseen rise of ‘rationalism’ – a sort of Enlightenment v.2.0). Others are religious
people (including clergy) who perceive religion in simplistic, falsely dichotomous, and
somewhat adversarial terms. For example, they see that you are either Christian and attend
church weekly or at least monthly, or else you are atheist/non-religious, or of another faith
(which for some amounts to the same thing as atheist because there is only one God – the
Christian one). The more current, and I believe meaningful concept of ‘secular’ is that which
sees secularisation as a movement of religion and religiosity away from the formal expressions
that have historically been the domain of the mainstream Churches and, to varying extents, the
state. However, I acknowledge that the common understanding of ‘secular’ as non-religious,
problematic though it is, dominates much of the literature and public discourse.
In the following section I discuss some of the empirical problems arising from differing
understandings of the term ‘secular’ and difficulties in measuring religiosity even when there is
agreement as to what ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ mean.
4.2.1.1 Measuring secularity and religiosity
4.2.1.1.1 Affiliation
Much of the data used to support the arguments about Australia’s religiosity/secularity is
itself problematic. Bouma, 2006, notes that a central problem of religious demography is the
question of what to measure. The answer clearly depends on how you conceive of religion and
which religion is being studied. Measurements tends to focus on organisational aspects of
religious involvement, clearly something of little or no relevance in addressing non-religious
spirituality nor the increasingly ‘unProtestant’ forms of religion where the norm of weekly
church attendance does not apply (Bouma, 2006 p50-1).
47
One of the most commonly used measures of Australia’s religiosity is the response to the
question about the respondent’s religion in the national census. However, Bouma, 2006,
emphasises that such data is about respondents’ ‘religious identity’ rather than their religion in
any functional sense. It does tell you about participation in religion in any form, and it
notoriously over-estimates religiosity (see for example, Armstrong, 2001; Bouma & Lennon,
2003; Brighton et al., 2004). It tells you part of the respondents’ “cultural background” and isn't
actually a measure of religiosity, just religious affiliation (Bouma, 2006). However, “Religious
identity has been shown to be related to political and social attitudes and behaviour” (Bouma &
Dixon, 1986; Bentley & Hughes, 1998; Evans & Kelley, 2004 cited in Bouma, 2006 p51).
Therefore, to that extent, the census data, which can be termed ‘religious affiliation’, remains
useful in the context of the debate about Australia’s secularity and in the context of this thesis.
However, it should not be used as a measure of religiosity in the strict sense of the term.
In addition to the above-mentioned constraints, the census asks only about religion and
thus fails to address the issue of spirituality outside religion, i.e. what might be called ‘secular
spirituality’. Tacey, 2000, notes, “Spirituality is a larger social category than formal religion,
and (therefore) the decline in formal religious practice tells us very little about the spiritual
interests and preoccupations of the Australian people, apart from the fact that these interests are
not being pursued in conventional ways.”
Bouma, 2006, points out what is likely to be an increasingly problematic limitation of the
census question in that the ABS only allows each respondent to provide one answer. You cannot
have, for example, a Buddhist Christian, or a Christian Yogi, or indeed any other such
combination of nominally separate belief systems. Bouma, 2006, notes that such responses were
received through the census but that the ABS would not tell him how it actually processes them.
He says that it rejected outright the validity of anyone giving an answer involving more than
one religion. He sees this as indicative of an increasingly out-dated view of religion as strictly
institutional and inherently exclusive, something which he and others such as Tacey, 2003,
show is increasingly not the case.
4.2.1.1.2 Attendance patterns
Another common measure of religiosity is attendance patterns, i.e. counts or derived
estimates of those who attend, for example, church or mosque. This measure suffers from a
variety of problems and is seen as of decreasing value given the trend away from conventional
notions and patterns of religious attendance (see for example, Tacey, 2000; Bouma, 2006).
Following are some of the various data and claims based on religious attendance.
As noted earlier, Mackay, 2004b, claims that Australia is secular (meaning not
substantially religious), apparently based on his unreferenced figure that 15% of the public
48
attend church once a month or more often. His figure is not too far removed from data derived
from the 2001 National Church Life Survey (Bellamy, 2005) and the Australian Community
Survey41 (Bellamy et al., 2002) which puts the figure at ~20% for monthly or more frequent
attendance. Notably Bellamy & Castle, 2004, report that “Church attendance has fallen while
the Australian population continues to grow. It is estimated that the proportion of Australians
present in Anglican, Catholic or (other) Protestant churches each week has decreased from 9.9
% in 1996 to 8.8% in 2001.” Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the 2001 data at ~20%
will have dropped by 2004, though not by as much as the 5% or so indicated by Mackay’s
figure.42
Evans & Kelley, 2000, cite their series of national surveys as finding that self-reported
church attendance in Australia has remained stable at ~18% since 1979. Yet Tacey, 2000, states
that “regular church attendance in Australia…(is) between 7 and 12% of the population”. One
of the more recent publications within the scope of this topic, ‘Voting for Jesus’ (Lohrey, 2006),
states that the figure for regular church attendance is ~9%; data she cites as being from the 2001
National Church Life Survey.
One explanation for the significant differences between church attendance figures that
range from a high of ~20% and a low of ~7% is a variation in what is being measured. Many
use the term ‘regular’ church attendance, but not all specify what ‘regular’ means. Some
attendance studies measure ‘at least monthly’ attendance, whilst others use weekly attendance
as their benchmark. This is notable given that the Christian tradition nominally requires weekly
observance of the Sabbath and associated rituals in church. The shift from a benchmark of
weekly to one of monthly attendance may indicate a change in the normative standard of
religiosity. It may also be evidence of growing conflict between modern lifestyle choices and
the historical requirements of the faith (Armstrong, 2001; Bouma & Lennon, 2003; Brighton et
al., 2004; Bouma, 2006).
The different measures of ‘regular’ church attendance may also explain why some authors
who may reasonably be perceived to have an interest in making a case that ‘regular church
attendance’ is not as dramatically low as others have claimed, tend to use monthly attendance as
their benchmark. The monthly figures are at least twice as high as for data in which weekly
attendance is used as the standard. Some who want to make the case that Australia is a
predominantly Christian nation, largely for the purposes of conservative political agendas, steer
41 Both of these surveys are produced by NCLS Research, a Christian demographic consultancy which is
sponsored by the Uniting Church Board of Mission and which appears to work primarily for church
clients. See the NCLS website at http://www.ncls.org.au/.
42 At the time of writing, there earlier statements, some of which relate to the 2001 national census, had
not been updated to reflect the data from the 2006 census.
49
away from the above figures and use the dramatically different affiliation data from the national
census. Conversely, those who want to argue that Australia is ‘secular’ in the sense of having
little or no religion, appear all too happy to use the much lower ‘regular’ attendance figures,
especially those that relate to weekly attendance, and often without any explanation of the data
or its derivation.
The relatively low figures for religious attendance in Australia are in very stark contrast to
the 2006 national census data which shows that 64% of the Australian population identify their
religion as Christianity43 (ABS, 2007). Armstrong, 2001 provides substantial detail on the
differences between affiliation figures and religious attendance patterns. Breward, 1988 notes
that this “gap between census figures and reality” was evident in Australia early in the 20th
century, with observations that in Sydney, only 10% of Anglicans worshipped regularly, a
figure also cited from the 1980s by Millikan, 1981 p80. This is perhaps indicative of a key
difference between religious attendance patterns in Australia and those of the USA as discussed
by Bouma, 2006.
4.2.1.1.3 Time-budgets
Another measure of religiosity involves so-called ‘time-budgets’ that look at how much
time a population devotes to various tasks including those deemed to be variously religious and
spiritual. Using time-budget data drawn from Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Time Use Survey
in 1997, Bouma & Lennon, 2003, calculated that 10% of Australian households engage in
religious and spiritual activities. Such activities are not restricted to Christianity, but from
census data alone, one would expect that the majority of these activities would relate to this
faith. Bouma & Lennon, 2003, argue that despite the apparently low figure of 10%, the level of
engagement in religious and spiritual activities is greater than that for sporting pursuits. They
comment that “No one argues that sport is trivial in Australian society; thus…a similar
conclusion needs to be drawn for religious activity.”
4.2.1.1.4 Religious membership
Membership of religious organisations is also sometimes used as an indicator of religiosity
(Hill & Hood, 1999), however Bouma & Lennon, 2003, citing Davie, 1994, state that
“membership itself is a very ‘Protestant’ notion and excludes many who participate in formally
organised religion but do not belong.” This is considered to be a growing weakness in the use of
membership data as a result of a trend toward individualised spirituality which often operates
outside religious organisations and because not all religious activity happens in ‘churches’ or
43 Census data also shows significant variation in the level of religious affiliation between some States
and Territories, with NSW and Victoria having substantially higher levels of affiliation with Christianity
than some other jurisdictions such as the Northern Territory (ABS, 1994).
50
other formal settings (Bouma & Lennon, 2003, citing Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001, and Fenn,
2001).
4.2.1.1.5 The halo effect
Unless the measurement method counts confirmed factors such as actual membership and
actual attendance or time allocation, all such social surveys investigating religiosity are also
considered problematic because of the ‘halo effect’. This occurs where, in response to obviously
religious questions, respondents tend to over-report their level of religious activities, beliefs and
attendances (Bouma & Lennon, 2003). Inadequate sample size is also considered a significant
constraint on all such surveys (Bouma & Lennon, 2003), with the presumably low level of
financial support for surveys of religion in Australia likely being a limiting factor.
An example of the above problems is seen in Bellamy et al., 2002, who use the 1998
Australian Community Survey (ACS) to conclude that “While only 20% of Australians attend
church frequently (meaning in this case, at least monthly), 43% believe that Jesus’ resurrection
was an actual historical event, 42% believe that Jesus was divine, and 53% believe in Heaven.
This would suggest that there are a significant number of Australians who can be said to
‘believe without belonging’ to a church.” Bellamy et al., 2002, also state that ~30% of
Australians hold “the full range” of core Christian beliefs. Such data is likely to suffer from a
significant halo effect and a bias caused by a failure to address the difference between accepting
particular religious beliefs associated with Christianity (especially the simplistic ones used in
the ACS), and deriving any spiritual meaning from them. Accepting certain or even all of the
basic Christian beliefs does not necessarily make one a Christian. This is perhaps an example of
the difference between religious dogma and spirituality, i.e. stated beliefs do not necessarily
translate into consistent values or behaviours.
4.2.2 Conclusion
There are clearly different meanings of the key terms ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ and
associated concepts such as secularisation and religiosity. There are also arguably growing
problems with measuring religiosity and this in part stems from changing understandings of the
relationship between religion and spirituality. Whilst it is inconsistent, sometimes confused, and
particularly in the less scholarly sphere frequently rather biased, I have interpreted the literature
as follows:
• Much of the debate about whether or to what extent Australia is a religious nation has
become confused by different understandings of the term ‘secular’ i.e. whether it means
outside religion, ‘unchurched’, or irreligious.;
51
• some of the confusion arises through not only conflicting usage of such terms, but
conflicting agendas between those who lean favourably towards conventional religion, and
those who want to proclaim its actual or imminent demise;
• Australia retains a high and currently relatively stable level of self-declared religious
affiliation (almost entirely to Christianity) but with low and declining mainstream church
attendance (7-18% of total population depending on the data source and methods), which
is not on its own necessarily indicative of reduced religiosity – just changing expressions
of belief;
• conventional measures of religiosity have significant limitations, and such measures are of
decreasing value due to changes in the nature of religiosity;
• Australia’s national religiosity is not so much absent as much less public and flamboyant
than in the USA, though by conventional measures of religiosity (limited though they are),
Australia is less religious, but not necessarily less spiritual, than the USA;
• that whilst the mainstream Churches are in or are facing decline, other forms of
Christianity and other faiths are on the rise, and not solely due to immigration patterns;
• whilst there has been a decline in conventional expressions of religiosity in terms of
religious affiliation, religious membership and church attendance, along with a growth in
the number of self-declared non-believers (meaning the absence of religion), there is
evidence of rapid growth in the ‘spiritual but not religious’ grouping;
• Australia is not a predominantly secular (meaning non-religious and non-spiritual) nation;
and
• modern Australia remains strongly influenced by its’ Christian cultural heritage, so the
influences of Church thought, policy and action, are potentially still very relevant.
4.3 Political dimensions
Another of my reasons for researching the ‘greening’ of mainstream religion in Australia
includes recent developments in Australian politics. Religion is now very much on the political
agenda, albeit largely focused on negative aspects of Islam, on sensational aspects of the rise of
Pentecostalism and the so-called ‘Prosperity Gospel’, and most notably within Australia, on the
‘rise of the Religious Right’. Despite the prominence of these other issues, the mainstream
Churches are speaking out and getting media attention on controversial and sometimes
politically pivotal issues such as the treatment of asylum seekers, the ‘war on terror’(ism),
industrial relations reforms, and ecological matters, most notably climate change.
52
Whilst Australian politics have featured some significant periods in which religion was an
overt influence, recent decades have seen little apparent role for religion in politics. There are
notable exceptions such as the long reign of conservative Lutheran, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen,
former Premier of Queensland and one-time Prime Ministerial candidate. Whilst never rising to
such high office, New South Wales politics has also seen substantial influence from the
conservative Reverend Fred Nile (from the Festival of Light faction within the Uniting Church),
other members of the Christian Democratic Party, and from the NSW Liberal Party’s ‘religious
right’, (see for example, Cohen, 2006; Lohrey, 2006). This has sometimes amounted to very
significant influence when one of more CDP members has held the balance of power in the
State’s Upper House of parliament. The CDP retains two members in the NSW Upper House as
of 2007. The CDP aligns itself with the recently emerged and similarly oriented Federal party,
Family First.
Family First emerged onto the Australian political landscape in the 2004 Federal election.
It originated in Adelaide, ‘the city of churches’, driven primarily by the political activism of the
prominent Pentecostal congregation known as Paradise Church - described by some as the
equivalent of Sydney’s controversial Hillsong Church, (ABC Religion and Ethics Unit, 2005a;
Bouma, 2006; Lohrey, 2006). Family First is said to be closely affiliated with the Assemblies of
God, which is the umbrella organisation for Australia’s rapidly growing Pentecostal /
Evangelical churches (Maddox, 2005a), though it officially denies any formal affiliation
(Walker, 2005b). The tendency of Pentecostal/Evangelical denominations to see religion and
politics as intertwined rather than needing to be separated (see for example Wallis, 2005), saw
their church networks operating as de facto party machines, with promotional literature and
campaign support allegedly being distributed and sponsored by them, (ABC Religion and Ethics
Unit, 2005a).
It has been suggested by some commentators, for example, Maddox, 2005b, that there was
a clear agenda on the part of the Coalition government to (re)capture the ‘religious’ (i.e.
conservative Christian) vote. Maddox, 2005b, argues that the Coalition strategy involved
attempting to distance itself from the more extreme elements of Family First without distancing
itself from that party’s overall agenda. The tactic is said to operate such that the comparatively
liberal Coalition could exploit Family First’s radicalism in order to draw sympathetic voters to
the Coalition by saying in effect, ‘we agree, but we’re more reasonable than them’. Similarly, it
allowed voters with more extreme inclinations to back Family First whilst effectively still
backing the Coalition because of preference flows. Ironically, it was not Coalition preferences
that got a Family First candidate elected to the Senate by a very narrow margin. Lohrey, 2006,
outlines how this was instead a perhaps unforeseen outcome of a Labor Party campaign against
The Greens in Victoria and Tasmania.
53
Family First’s campaign44 led to perhaps the first overt political delineation between a
form of anti-Green Christianity in allegiance with traditionally anti-environmentalism
conservative party politics (Liberal/National), and the environment movement allied to
(relatively) progressive party politics (The Greens/Labor). This dramatic change in the political
landscape caught the Labor Party off-side, with its then leader, Mark Latham, believing that he
could safely hold the secular (i.e. not substantially religious) ground that represents the now
dominant constituency of modern Labor. Decades earlier, Australian Labor had earlier split on
religious lines, forming the now largely defunct Democratic Labor Party, based on the once
large and influential Catholic and staunchly anti-communist component of its membership
(Walker, 2005a).
In 2004, Labor lost its ‘unlosable’ election and Mark Latham ‘crashed and burnt’, leaving
the Party and subsequently publishing a damning account of federal Labor and its handling of
the election. The Party recovered and soon formed a working group headed by moderate
Christian (then) frontbencher Kevin Rudd (Anglican) to break the public perception that
Christian views are inherently more comfortable in the domain of the Coalition. It is essentially
about reclaiming the ‘religious left’ in a manner consistent with that advocated by Lerner,
2006a, in his publication, The Left Hand of God. Rudd was joined by several colleagues
including Peter Garrett, the now ‘out of the closet’ Christian (Catholic) and long-time socio-
environmental activist who headed the Australian Conservation Foundation for several years
(ABC Religion and Ethics Unit, 2005b). Rudd, now Opposition Leader as of December 2006,
seeks to show that Labor can represent Christian views, albeit those of a more progressive
inclination than would conventionally associate with the conservative Coalition parties (ABC
Religion and Ethics Unit, 2005b; Hawley, 2005). Similar machinations have been described by
commentators discussing the Democrat party’s successful moves to reclaim the religious vote in
the landslide USA non-presidential elections in 2006.
44 Family First drew a disproportionately large amount of media attention with dramatic events such as its
members publicly and vigorously attacking The Greens (ABC Religion and Ethics Unit, 2005a). Their
targets were the somewhat traditional Evangelical concerns of abortion, narcotics liberalisation, and gay
rights – a situation very similar to US national politics (see Wallis, 2005). This included vociferous public
protests by some members who called for lesbians to be burnt at the stake (ABC Religion and Ethics Unit,
2005a). Church-based fundraising also meant that Family First was able to run a substantial TV
advertising campaign in which the slogan ‘That’s not Green Bob, that’s extreme’ was used to attack The
Greens leader Bob Brown on a range of issues but particularly in relation to narcotics policy(ABC
Religion and Ethics Unit, 2005a; Brown, 2007).
54
The rapidly growing45 Evangelical denominations that dominate a very small number of
key marginal electorates are yet to clarify their ecological position, but at least through their
affiliation with Family First, they placed themselves in fervent opposition to The Greens
(Walker, 2005b). This opposition is apparently based on nominally social rather than ecological
issues, an outcome consistent with the situation in the United States as per Wallis, 2005. This
added a new dimension to the phenomenon of the ‘greening’ of mainstream Christianity in
Australia – namely the interaction between Christian environmentalism and the nominally
secular environment movement. We are only recently seeing the emergence of political or at
least institutional alliances between the Churches and the environment movement. This has
occurred to a greater extent in North America (Gardner, 2002) and in the UK. The multi-faceted
issue of climate change and its impacts on humans and other parts of the biota is a particular
focus that draws together the social and ecological justice agendas of the mainstream Churches
and the broader environment movement (see for example, Geason, 2006).
Bringing the above factors together, it made sense to investigate the ‘greening’ of
mainstream religion, i.e. Christianity, in Australia. Of particular note is the growing common
ground between the environmentalism of the mainstream Churches and the nominally secular
environmental organisations. This is unsurprising given that the environmental movement in
some cases has or at least had religious and/or spiritual origins. For example, Greenpeace was
founded on Quaker principles; whilst the former long-serving president of the ACF, Peter
Garrett is now open about being motivated by his Catholic beliefs; along with national Greens
senator Christine Milne (who was also on the Advisory Council of Catholic Earthcare
Australia); Tasmanian Greens MP Lance Armstrong (Uniting Church Minister); and former WA
Greens senators Jo Valentine (a Quaker) and Christabel Chamarette (Anglican).
Notably, the opening chapter of ‘Memo for a Saner World,’ written by Australian Greens
leader Bob Brown (2004) draws primarily on Christian thought and defends Christianity from
what many incorrectly see as Lynn White Jr.’s (1967) criticism of it as the basis for the West’s
flawed relationship with Nature. Are we now seeing the re-emergence of ‘green’ spirituality,
perhaps colonising the once ecologically sterile ground of mainstream Christianity?
45 Lohrey, 2006, quoting Philip Almond (not cited), argues that the most controversial forms of Australian
Pentecostalism, the so-called ‘megachurches’ such as Hillsong and Paradise have received a much higher
profile than their numbers warrant, and that they are not really growing at the rapid rate alleged by many
commentators. She argues that the media finds 20,000 churchgoers at a single venue to be much more
interesting than the far greater number of mainstream church attendees dispersed amongst numerous
parishes. She suggests that whilst these high profile churches are attracting many members/attendees at a
time when almost every other denomination is in decline, the Pentecostal churches also have a high
turnover rate of members. Nonetheless, census and NCLS data shows a genuine growth in affiliation with
and attendance at Pentecostal churches, even when factors such as denominational amalgamations are
considered. Lohrey, 2006, argues that whilst the growth rate may be high, the percentage of the
Australian population involved with these churches is still very low.
55
Chapter 5: Why Christianity?
Having chosen to focus my research on Australia and on the mainstream of its religion,
there was no other option than to focus on Christianity. Quite simply, Christianity “has been by
far the major religious influence in Australia since the arrival of the Europeans, who dominate
modern Australia’s population” (Thompson, 2002). It is still the dominant religious tradition in
Australia, despite a drop in affiliation and significant on-going and increasing overall declines
in church attendance and membership; major changes in ethnic composition due to immigration,
with related growth of other religions; and despite a substantial increase in the number of people
who state that they have no religion or do not answer the national census question about
religious affiliation (ABS, 2001; Armstrong, 2001; Bellamy et al., 2002; Thompson, 2002;
Bellamy & Castle, 2004; Bellamy, 2005; Bouma, 2006; ABS, 2007).
More specifically, the thesis deals with Western Christianity as this has been and remains
the dominant form of Christianity in Australia. It is quite distinct from Orthodox (Eastern)
Christianity and especially so in relation to its historical relationship with Nature, (see for
example, Nash, 1991; Breuilly & Palmer, 1992). The subset of Western Christianity dealt with
can be divided into two primary forms: Protestant (for example the Anglican and Uniting
Churches), and Catholic.
5.1 The mainstream
In focusing on the mainstream of Australian religion, and therefore, Christianity, I confine
my scope to the three largest denominations: the Catholic, Anglican, and Uniting Churches.
These denominations are the most popular forms of Christianity in Australia based on the
number of people who affiliate with them (ABS, 2007). I note the limitations of affiliation data
as discussed in the previous chapter but reiterate the view that affiliation data equates to
religious identity and that “Religious identity has been shown to be related to political and
social attitudes and behaviour” (Bouma & Dixon, 1986; Bentley & Hughes, 1998; Evans &
Kelley, 2004, cited in Bouma, 2006 p 51).
The three largest denominations are significant because of the number of people who
identify with them and because of their institutional size. These generate the actual and potential
influence that they have within the Australian Christian community and the Australian
community in general.
56
The three largest denominations by affiliation remain the most populous manifestations of
Christian faith even when affiliation data is replaced by church attendance figures (Kaldor et al.,
1999; Bellamy et al., 2002; Bellamy & Castle, 2004; Bellamy, 2005). However, the more recent
data provided by Bellamy and colleagues at NCLS Research46 shows that the much-discussed
rise of the Pentecostal and related denominations poses a very real threat to the place of the
Uniting Church as the nation’s third most popular denomination. This is not simply due to the
rise of Pentecostalism but also due to the dramatic decline of Uniting Church affiliation and
membership. This position is supported by the recent work of Bouma, 2006 and is evident in the
results of the 2006 national census (ABS, 2007) which reveals a drop of >110,000 or ~10%
from the 2001 census for the Uniting Church, yet an increase of >25,000 or >12%for the
‘Pentecostal’ category over the same time.
Contrary to the extensive popular and academic commentary about the death of religion in
Australia, in the 2006 census, ~64% of Australians still identified themselves as Christian, with
more than a quarter of the total population associating with Catholicism (ABS, 2007). Not only
are the Catholic, Anglican and Uniting Churches mainstream religion in Australia, but
Christianity, or at least affiliation with it, is mainstream as well.
The three largest denominations also retain a significant historical influence, particularly in
the case of the Catholic and Anglican traditions, with the more recently formed Uniting Church
having a longer history through the three smaller denominations of which it is an amalgam
(namely the Methodist, Congregationalist and 75% of the Presbyterian Churches). The largest
denominations are also economically significant as major holders of land and other assets
(Cummins, 2005), the management of which has significant ecological implications. Their
relative longevity and more centralised organisation also mean that they provide more reliable
research material in terms of their official policy positions. Some of the rapidly growing and
emergent denominations are still relatively fragmented and can have diverse policy positions at
a national scale. They generally lack an easy means of accessing cumulative policy and praxis
material.
46 NCLS Research is a church-affiliated demographic research group whose name stems from their
original and major research project, the National Church Life Survey, which is a regular ‘census’ of one
or more denominations.
57
5.2 Diversity within the denominations
I wish to emphasise again the issue of diversity within Christianity and within the
denominations that are the focus of this thesis. Despite popular perceptions of the Churches as
strongly hierarchical, top-down theocracies or “tiered monarchies” (after Murray, 2006) within
monolithic institutions, even within the oldest and most hierarchical denomination, Catholicism,
there remains considerable diversity in theology and praxis. As a brief example, one can
contrast the very conservative and covert Opus Dei movement47, with the broadly progressive
Catalyst for Renewal48 organisation and its’ Spirituality in the Pub49 project. All are parts of the
Catholic Church, yet they are very different entities.
Such diversity is also present within Anglicanism, where the conservative and evangelical
Sydney Archdiocese is in theological and indeed demographic contrast to many other Anglican
dioceses. The ‘Sydney Anglicans’ are seen as so different to the rest of the denomination,
including by other Anglicans, that there has been seemingly serious talk of a formal division in
the denominational ranks. This parallels international developments in Anglicanism which is
beginning to rift over different approaches to several contentious issues, most notably
homosexuality and particularly in the context of the clergy.
The Uniting Church is perhaps even more diverse. It has been losing members at the rate
of several thousand per year due in part to internal disagreements arising from this diversity50. It
too has deeply conservative organisations within its structure, such as the Evangelical
Movement of the Uniting Church (EMU)51, The Reforming Alliance52 and The Festival of
Light. The latter spawned an associated political movement in New South Wales, the Christian
Democratic Party, spearheaded by the archconservative Reverend Fred Nile, who along with his
wife Elaine, went on to become a member of the NSW Legislative Council for several terms,
remaining there as of 2007.
This thesis acknowledges that diversity of views and praxis extends through all layers of
Christianity. Whilst I focus on the three largest denominations, I concentrate on the official
institutional positions of these organisations, rather than attempting to cover the extensive
breadth of views within each denomination.
47 Opus Dei is Latin for ‘the work of God’. Its orientation and alleged involvement in sponsoring
conservative politics in Australia, especially in New South Wales, is discussed by Maddox, 2005b and to
some extent by Cohen, 2006.
48 http://www.catalyst-for-renewal.com.au
49 http://www.catalyst-for-renewal.com.au/prod01.htm
50 http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1515081.htm. Other losses are mainly due to aging.
51 http://www.emu.asn.au
52 http://www.reformingalliance.org.au/About/
58
5.3 The Church and Christendom
In dealing with ‘Christianity’, I acknowledge the difference between the institutions of the
Church and individual Christians. King, 2002 p.13, covers the important distinction between
“the personal faith of individual believers, and the official structures (both the material
buildings and the intellectual doctrines) of their particular religious tradition.” This thesis
focuses primarily on the institution of the Church, in this case in the form of the three largest
denominations in Australia. Each is covered in separate chapters that amount to denominational
case studies.
In most instances, it will be clear when I am referring to the institution rather than the
individual. References to the institution will generally be capitalised, for example ‘Church’,
whereas references to non-institutional views will be identified by the person or group of people
who hold them. Sometimes there will be overlap, for example, when a group of people sharing a
particular view form an Order or other structure within the institution but have a view that is not
representative of the position of the institution as a whole. References to both institutions and
individuals will usually use the term ‘Christendom’, whereas I tend to use ‘Christianity’ with
more of an institutional meaning.
The distinction between what some refer to as ‘capital R’ religion and ‘small r’ religion is
significant in the context of the relationship between religion, as it is commonly understood, and
spirituality. ‘Capital R’ religion is a way of identifying institutionalised belief from personal
belief, with the latter commonly seen as close to or the same as spirituality. In this way, whilst
spirituality can be at least broadly said to be the basis for the formation of religion, religions can
go on to lose, abuse or misplace that spirituality to varying extents. As previously pointed out,
one can have Religion without spirituality just as readily as spirituality without Religion.
My focus on the Churches (‘capital R’ religion), rather than on individual Christians, is
both a matter of expediency, and a considered choice. The former relates to the relative ease of
access to the official institutional views of the Churches. The latter relates to my desire to
address the institutional ecological policies and praxis of the Churches because this is very
rarely dealt with in the ‘greening’ of religion literature. Most of that literature is theological and
theoretical. My interest is not primarily in the theology but in the policies and the praxis that
arise from it. I also focus on the institutions because of their cultural and ecological impact.
I note that whilst I focus on institutional policies and praxis, both are often the work of one
or a small number of individual change agents rather than originating from a broadly based
movement of the membership. This is particularly evident in the context of ecological policy,
though it is also seen in the more traditional area of social justice policy.
59
5.4 The ecological reformation
With my focus on Australia and its mainstream religion, Western Christianity, a significant
question remains for many people as to whether there is anything worth exploring in the way of
Christianity and its response to environmentalism. Some might argue that even if Christianity is
responding positively, there is little point pursuing this because the faith is in terminal decline,
at least within the West. Some such concerns are addressed by Palmer, 1993, when in his
opening chapter, and writing as a British Christian, he asks “Why bother with Christianity?” He
points out the view that “The faith doesn’t seem to speak to our world, or if it does, it speaks of
a world now largely gone” (Palmer, 1993 p3) – hence its appeal being increasingly restricted to
the elderly, at least amongst the more traditional denominations. He mentions that many people
have rejected Christianity, having heard only unappealing versions of it such as that of US
televangelists or “the confused voices of the Anglican Church wondering about the status of
women” (Palmer, 1993 p3). “In the light of contemporary social concerns, the past influence of
the Church is seen to have fed the growth of capitalism and the rise of sexism, and to have
indoctrinated us with a view of human superiority which has led us to abuse the planet. Its
current attempts to be relevant are often seen as jumping on the (environmentalism) bandwagon
as it passes by” (Palmer, 1993 p3). He sees the Churches’ poor ecological record and on-going
struggles with ecological realities and broader social issues as a factor in the decline of the
mainstream denominations.
My reply to the views raised (not propounded) by Palmer, 1993, is to agree that: the
mainstream Churches are in decline (especially Protestantism); they do struggle for social
relevance; some forms of the faith are predicted to all-but-disappear in Australia (see Bouma,
2006); and that Christianity, or more specifically many of the Churches, have been responsible
or at least partly responsible for various social ills, but that changes, at least in its ecological
stance are increasingly evident, albeit belatedly53.
However, not all forms of Christianity or even mainstream Christianity are in decline. In
Australia, whilst being very vulnerable to the ageing of its affiliates, having problems recruiting
clergy, and being affected by large drops in regular church attendance, Catholicism is so large
that it cannot be sensibly considered an ‘endangered species’54. Indeed, the number of Catholic
53 “Christians have been slow to wake up to the reality” (of the ecological crisis) (Gnanakan, 1999).
54 The International Union for the Conservation of Nature uses a hierarchy of terms to classify the level of
threat faced by particular biota. ‘Endangered’ means ‘at risk of becoming extinct in the next 20 years’ – a
situation that Bouma, 2006, predicts for most suburban churches of the Anglican and Uniting Churches in
Australia. Catholicism in Australia would be better classified as ‘vulnerable’, meaning that it is at risk of
becoming ‘endangered’ within the next 20 years. Such predictions are based on demographic models and
cannot take into account all manner of potential social changes that may occur over those timeframes, in
particular, changes to immigration policy.
60
affiliates grew by ~125,000 between the 2001 and 2006 census (ABS, 2007) – more than the
number of affiliates by which each of the Anglican and Uniting Churches declined. Much of the
historical and recent growth in Australian Catholicism is attributable to immigration but also to
the relatively high birth rate amongst Catholics – no doubt due in part at least to the tradition’s
official opposition to contraception and abortion and to its strong ‘Pro (human) Life’ stance.
There is also no guarantee that the decline in some forms of Christianity will persist. Were the
Churches to undergo dramatic changes, they may be able to win back at least some of their lost
numbers. Indeed, some churches specifically target the interests of environmentalists as part of
their recruitment strategy (Bellamy & Castle, 2003).
As Palmer, 1993, and others have suggested, the Churches’ generally poor ecological
record has been a factor in its overall decline in the West. With the emergence of an
increasingly mainstream Christian ecotheology and evidence of an ‘ecological conversion’55 or
reformation underway in the Church, this factor in the Churches’ decline has the potential to be
at least ameliorated56.
Along with the growing view that despite their problems, religions (including Christianity)
are an essential part of any effective response to the ecological crisis, we have a situation where
some fresh questions need to be asked. For example, if those outside the Church see it as vital to
addressing the ecological crisis, and if the Churches are in the process of a genuine and
comprehensive ecological reformation, then surely there is merit in exploring the progress and
nature of this reformation, and the capacity of the faith and its institutions to be a substantial
part of the solution.
However, despite the emergence of modern Christian environmentalism and an extensive
literature dealing with related ecotheology, there remain strongly held views about
Christianity’s involvement in causing and furthering the ecological crisis. There is abundant
literature that condemns Christianity as the driver of Western society’s disastrous treatment of
the biosphere, or at least a significant contributor to this (Peterson, 2001 p6). However, there is
also a growing literature that sees Christianity as a victim of one or more older and more
insidious philosophical flaws (primarily but not exclusively of Western society) that underpin
the causes of the ecological crisis, (see for example. Nasr, 1996; Gnanakan, 1999). I agree that
broader societal changes have progressively compromised Christianity, but I also see aspects of
it as a driver or at least a vehicle of ecologically problematic views.
55 Pope John Paul II called for an “ecological conversion” of Catholicism and the phrase is now widely
used within that Church’s writings on ecotheology and ecological policy.
56 “Westerners are looking for a religious vision that is able to again make sacred the physical world and
the natural environment, as our need to direct positive attention to the environmental emergency becomes
more apparent” (Tacey, 2000).
61
Clearly, it is not sensible to analyse Christianity outside the context of Western society, nor
can Western society be understood without regard to Christianity. I do not see Christianity as
inherently antithetical to the cause of addressing the ecological crisis. Instead, after Santmire,
1985, I recognise that it is “ambiguous” in its relationship with Nature, offering both negative
and positive possibilities, a view shared by writers including Nash, 1991, Gnanakan, 1999 and
Guess, 2005. Christianity’s diverse history includes traditions and views that are very different
to the instrumental ‘dominion’ theology that has been prevalent in Western Christianity for at
least several hundred years. I particularly acknowledge the significance of the recent
reformation or ‘ecological conversion’ seen as a theme within Western Christian theology.
My focus on Christianity is substantially influenced by my interest in the view that the
‘greening’ of the mainstream Christian Churches represents a significant cultural shift that may
lead to ecological and social justice benefits, including through greater collaboration between
the Churches, Christians, and the nominally secular environmental movement. This is a view
propounded by a range of authors, both secular and Christian, for example Oelschlaeger, 1994;
Gardner, 2002; Gottlieb, 2006; Hamilton, 2006a, b; Lerner, 2006a; Gottlieb, 2007; Hamilton,
2007b. It is also a view that I test through my exploration of the Churches’ responses to the
ecocrisis.
5.5 Why not non-Christian religions?
A further consideration in my focus on mainstream Australian Christianity is that as the
dominant religion of Australia, I believe it is more effective to look at Christianity’s changing
relationship with Nature than it is to look to other religions or belief systems as a vehicle for
ecosocial change.
Like many environmentalist authors of the late 1960s onwards, and like the popular
misreading of Lynn White’s controversial 1967 publication, for much of my life I viewed
Christianity as substantially to blame for the West’s devastatingly unsustainable relationship
with Nature. I believed that it needed to be routed entirely, perhaps to be replaced by a ‘greener’
religion such as Buddhism – a view consistent with secular environmentalism as discussed by
Nash, 1991 p88-91; W. Berry, 1992 p54-55; Law, 2001. Law, 2001 writes about this in the
context of environmentalists’ attempts to replace the dominant Christian tradition with
nominally ‘greener’ Buddhism in the conflict over forestry in Montana USA. She argues that
rather than seeking to impose some notionally ideal or even preferred ecological religio-
spirituality, it is far more appropriate to work with the belief system or systems that are most
relevant to the particular group or area. In essence, she advocates trying to change people’s
understanding or interpretation of their religion or belief system to include environmentalism,
rather than trying to remove or replace their religion or belief system with one that is ‘greener’.
62
Finlay & Palmer, 2003, effectively reach the same view in their documentation of the power of
various religions to achieve and sustain positive ecological (and related social) outcomes.
Wilber, 2000b; 2001, takes the proposition to the personal scale and argues that different
approaches are needed because people are, in additional to cultural variances, at different stages
on the transpersonal journey.
My view is that Australia is still at a stage where Western Christianity remains the most
significant religious influence on Australian culture. This makes a focus on Western Christianity
arguably more relevant than abandoning it entirely and searching for preferable ecological
perspectives in other traditions, indigenous or imported. The approach of Passmore, 1974 p117,
is similar in that he seeks “seeds” from “Western thought” in his quest to “construct a case for
(ecological) preservation… (in the West) without having to fall back on… non-Western
principles….”57
However, I am not suggesting that one should only work with Western and/or Christian
worldviews. I believe that there is scope, if not a need, for cross-fertilisation of
Western/Christian views with those from the East.
Writing from an apparently secular, pragmatic perspective, Midgley, 2000, condenses the
proposition further to: “start where you’re at”. These words are echoed by Australian author and
former Catholic, David Tacey (2000 p170-1), who, writing in a specifically Australian context,
elaborates on this view, stating that:
“We cannot simply invent a new religion or myth to suit this (ecological)
situation, nor can we appropriate an ‘ecologically sound’ religion from
indigenous peoples, although the so-called New Age popular movement
appears to condone such cultural theft….Clearly we must engage in a
legitimate soul-search, rediscovering our own historical roots and
reanimating some of the religious attitudes and values we thought we had
outgrown. But above all, we must start from where we are. We cannot ‘graft
on’ new ideas or steal from exotic cultures. We have to build upon our own
cultural heritage, and develop in ways that are directly linked to our history,
lest our ‘solutions’ leave us more psychologically rootless and confused than
ever before. We need to understand the cultural forces that have led to our
disenchantment (of Nature), then work towards reversing these forces, if
enchantment or binding58 is to be found again.”
57 Passmore concludes this sentence “as that ‘nature is sacred’” suggesting he rejects as Eastern or at least
other than Western, any notion such as pantheism or panentheism. Numerous later works in
ecophilosophy and Christian ecotheology argue that there are traditions, even historical Western Christian
traditions, in which Nature was seen as sacred.
58 Tacey’s use of the term ‘binding’ is a reference to the etiology of the word ‘religion’, which originally
meant ‘to bind back’, meaning to restrain excesses and to reconnect with deeper truths.
63
It is important to note that Tacey is by no means excluding Aboriginal spirituality from his
focus, indeed the opposite is true because he sees it as central to his vision of an Australian
spirituality. It is also significant that many Aboriginal people are Christian or Christianised. In
many cases, traditional spirituality has merged with Christian influences such that they are
effectively inextricable, and for their adherents, completely compatible.
However, this thesis does not examine traditional Aboriginal ecotheology, or that which
has been Christianised to various extents. Nonetheless, the three largest Christian denominations
in Australia all advocate the inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives in
their ecological policy-making. They also recognise, at least to some extent, that the Christian
tradition has much to learn from the ecological spirituality and practice of Australia’s
indigenous peoples, (see for example, Goosen, 2000; Leal, 2004a).
The relevance of indigenous cultures in the quest to resolve the ecological crisis is
addressed in the global context by Nash, 1991. Moncrief, 1970, Derr, 1975, 1995 , Nash, 1991
(citing Farb, 1974), Scharper, 1997, and others, conclude that neither Christianity nor Western
society is unique in their negative association with ecological degradation. Nash writes:
“It appears to be a characteristic of the human [evolutionary] line – perhaps
the one that accounts for its domination of the earth – that from the very
beginning Homo [sapiens] has exploited the environment up to his
technological limits to do so. But until recently the harm this exploitation
could cause was limited, for ancient man’s populations were low and his
technology primitive” (Farb, 1974). (Nash’s additions in square brackets)
Such a perspective is reiterated in numerous more recent works including that of Diamond,
2005. On the basis of this view, Nash, 1991 states:
“Though we have much to learn from the ecological knowledge and moral
attitudes of indigenous communities, advocating their practices for
technological societies seems largely irrelevant. If these communities grow
in population and develop further technological skills, they too are likely to
be tempted to follow the path to ecological disaster, for the problem appears
to be dormant59 in the human condition.”
I believe that there is ample evidence of this amongst Australia’s indigenous population,
though I note that there are complex reasons for such changes, not merely technology and
associated population growth. Indeed, there is a contrary case to be made that were indigenous
cultures able to adopt external technology fully cognisant of the cultural and ecological
implications of doing so, and without being subject to the multitude of damaging impacts
59 My understanding of Nash’s comment is that by “dormant” he means ‘inherent but remaining dormant
until particular thresholds are exceeded’.
64
associated with most exchanges between indigenous and technological cultures, the outcomes
may well be significantly different. That said, I agree with Nash and many others, that the root
cause of the ecological crisis is a product of human nature60, not of any one particular culture or
religion. I also agree that harking back to often-romanticised notions of indigenous culture or
using a contemporary exploration of indigenous relationships with their habitats is of limited
use in addressing the global ecological crisis.
However, by adopting a focus on Christianity, I do not dismiss the contributions to
Australian culture derived from Aboriginal spirituality or from other religious and spiritual
traditions. I believe that other researchers have devoted attention to the ecological aspects of
Aboriginal spirituality, with a body of work also emerging in the field of non-Christian
religions’ relationship with the natural environment, for example the FORE project. In contrast,
as noted in the previous chapter61, I was unable to detect other than a very small number of
published or thesis-based research that addresses in any form the ‘greening’ of Christianity or
the Church in Australia - this despite Christianity’s historical and demographic significance. I
aim to fill some of this gap.
It is important to state that in choosing to research Christianity, I do so without being either
a member-advocate of it, or an opponent of it. The focus on Christianity in this thesis is not a
result of my having any formal affiliation with this religion now or historically62, nor is it driven
by an agenda to criticise the religion of Christianity from either a secular perspective or that of
another religion. Writing as a Christian biologist, King, 2002, argues “that it is possible to
criticise religion and doctrine – and to change them – without damaging the faith that underlies
them”. This is essentially compatible with my concept of how religion (institutions, doctrine,
and dogma) differs from spirituality (faith). King holds that criticality, a central aspect of this
thesis, is compatible with faith and should not be interpreted as secular rationality attacking
religious belief.
60 Unlike its common usage in Western Philosophy, I do not use ‘human nature’ to mean something that
is both inherent and fixed. I see ‘human nature’ or ‘the ecology of the human’ as something that, like the
rest of Nature, is subject to evolution or at least to change.
61 See the section: Section 4.1 ‘A gap in the literature’ p46.
62 I address this issue further in the Methods chapter section entitled ‘Insider or outsider?’
65
5.6 Why not Pentecostal or Evangelical forms of
Christianity?
5.6.1 Pentecostal/Evangelical Christianity
My decision not to include the Pentecostal/Evangelical churches such as The Assemblies
of God, and The Churches of Christ in the scope of this thesis could be seen as unsound because
of their growth worldwide (McGrath, 2004) including within Australia (for example Maddox,
2005b63). It is claimed that there are now more members of Pentecostal and related
denominations in regular church attendance than there are regular attendees of the Uniting
Church, (Maddox, 2005b). Depending on the information source being used and its method of
assessment, some claim that there are now more Pentecostalists regularly attending Church than
there are regular Anglican Church attendees in Australia (Philip Hughes, Christian Research
Association, cited by Croucher, 2002). However, the weighting of a particular denomination or
grouping’s significance based on regular church attendance assumes that regular attendance is a
sound measure of religiosity – a view that I contest along with authors including Davie, 1994;
Fenn, 2001; Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001; Bouma & Lennon, 2003; Ross, 2005.
In choosing not to include these forms of Christianity, I do not deny their demographic,
political or theological significance. Maddox, 2005b, writing in an Australian context, and
Wallis, 2005, writing in a USA context, see the Pentecostal/Evangelicals as a particular concern
because these denominations have tended to be the bastion of ‘old’ Christian views of
humanity’s relationship with the rest of Nature. Conventionally, this takes the form of the so-
called ‘dominion’ theology in which ‘Man’ is seen as having been given control of Nature (a
separate part of Creation) by God for the purposes of human utility. Such a view unsurprisingly
sees many Christians and Churches of this persuasion allied with conservative politics and thus
with its problematic position on ecological matters. This is particularly evident in the USA
where party politics and religion are more overtly intertwined than in Australia and where key
Evangelical figures can be publicly linked to ultraconservative factions and individuals in the
Republican Party, (see for example Wallis, 200564).
Pentecostalism and associated forms of Christianity have certainly tended to be at the most
anthropocentric end of the theological spectrum in relation to ecological matters, (see for
example, Leal, 2004a). Some authors, including prominent Christians, see this as an area that
63 As noted earlier, this is disputed by Lohrey, 2006.
64 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/09/evangelicals/index.html - addresses a split in USA
Evangelicals on the issue of climate change, with the peak Evangelical organisation being persuaded by
conservative politics not to endorse the concerns expressed by 86 Evangelical leaders as part of the
Evangelical Climate Initiative.
66
demands attention to highlight and often to debunk such theology because it is seen as
incompatible with ecological and related social reality. Of particular concern is the so-called
‘Prosperity Gospel’ promoted by some forms of Pentecostalism. Lohrey, 2006 explains this as
“a Calvinist-derived doctrine in which one of the visible outward signs of God’s favour is the
affluence of the faithful.”65 The direct impact of this is consumerism, with resultant impacts of
rampant resource depletion, waste generation, habitat loss, pollution, and issues of social
inequality.
Whilst I appreciate such concerns, this thesis is not primarily about Christian theology or
ecotheology and it certainly is not about comparative Christian ecotheologies and attempting to
settle the associated differences. I also note that Wallis, 2005, writing as a leading authority on
and a member of Evangelical/Pentecostal Christianity in the USA, claims that this form of
Christianity has begun its own ecological conversion, similar to that undertaken by mainstream
Christian denominations. This is a view evident in the World Evangelical Forum’s 1992 report
on ecological issues by the Theological Commission Study Unit on Ethics and Society (see
Appendix 2 of Gnanakan, 1999). Gnanakan’s own work builds on this and develops a well-
argued Evangelical ecotheology with a strong emphasis on praxis. More recently, a 2005 BBC
World News article66 and the 2006 Statement of the Evangelical Climate Initiative67 reveal the
rise of Evangelical environmentalism. Wallis, 2005, argues that Evangelical Christianity in the
USA is moving to adopt ecological concern as ‘core business’. He certainly sees it as such, and
as editor of a major Christian newspaper and magazine, his views are presumably influential.
An often-touted example of emergent Evangelical environmentalism in the USA is the ‘What
Would Jesus Drive’ website.68 This is a derivative of an earlier and apparently widespread
‘What Would Jesus Do?’ (WWJD) movement that aimed to have believers ask themselves this
question in dealing with a wide range of moral and ethical dilemmas.
In his 2004 publication, Australian ecotheologian, Barry Leal, states that “Evangelical
theologians have also begun to show interest in the links between their conservative faith and
ecological matters” (Leal, 2004a). He lists several key Evangelical writers: Calvin DeWitt,
James Nash, Chris Sugden, David Hawkin and Lawrence Osborn, giving particular praise to the
work of Osborn’s ‘Guardians of Creation: Nature in theology and Christian life’. This issue is
also addressed in the Compass TV program ‘The Greening of God’ through an interview with
65 Calvinism is a theology within Christianity based on the 16thC work of John Calvin. It is also known as
The Reformed Tradition and is a second stage derivative of the Protestant Reformation. In the context of
ecotheology, it is particularly problematic for its doctrine of ‘predestination’, which holds that God
determined who would be wealthy and powerful, and, by default, who would not. This is what connects it
with so-called Neo-Calvinism or the ‘Prosperity Gospel’ of George W. Bush and Hillsong Church.
66 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4642241.stm
67 http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement
68 http://www.whatwouldjesusdrive.org/
67
an Australian Evangelical Christian (Philip Johnson) who also holds environmentalist views
(ABC Religion and Ethics Unit, 2000).
Pentecostal/Evangelical forms of Christianity are yet to substantially engage in such a shift
within Australia (Maddox, 2005b; Walker, 2005b), though it is hard to determine their precise
position because they lack a singular and consistent voice69. However, if the changes evident in
North American and British Evangelical ecotheology are an indication, Australian Evangelicals
are likely to adopt their own version of a pro-ecological stance in the near future, (Walker,
2005b). Indeed, I was informed of some ecological works being undertaken by a Pentecostal-
style church group in Dubbo, Western NSW a region not known for its progressive religion or
politics. Similarly, in mid-2006, the Anglican Diocese of Sydney released a publication entitled
‘Environment: a Christian response’ (Cameron, 2005). This diocese is dominated by a form of
Anglicanism that is widely recognised as Evangelical and very conservative70, even by other
Australian Anglican clergy. Nonetheless, its first published document dealing with ecological
concerns is not anti-environmentalist and clearly promotes the legitimacy of Christian concern
for and action to protect ecological values.
A further consideration in my choice not to include Pentecostalism is that, other than for
minor exceptions, this form of Christianity lacks the large on-line presence that the Catholic,
Anglican and Uniting Churches have. This makes it much more difficult for me to determine a
representative institution Pentecostal ecological policy, let alone the extent to which and ways
in which this is or is not implemented.
5.6.2 Hillsong Church
Because of its high profile71; its feature role in the 2004 Federal election (see Maddox,
2005b; Lohrey, 2006); its allegiance with Adelaide’s Paradise Church, which spawned the
Family First Party; and its potential value as a test case in exploring the accessibility of the
Pentecostal denominations, I did research the controversial Hillsong Church. Whilst it has a
significant on-line presence, this did not present any material related to ecological issues as of
69 Pentecostalism, Evangelicalism (not the same as evangelism) and similar forms of Christianity in
Australia comprise numerous ‘sub-denominations’ and individual congregations, some with only a single
church or otherwise highly localised influence. In 2000, many of the Pentecostal-style churches in
Australia formed an entity called Australian Christian Churches, however this body does not appear to
function as a centralised or authoritative policy hub and there is likely to be significant variation on policy
and praxis between the member churches. The Assemblies of God is the largest of the Pentecostal
Churches and is allegedly the key backer of the Family First Party (Maddox, 2005b; Walker, 2005b;
Lohrey, 2006).
70 “The Sydney churches have traditionally been more conservative than their Melbourne counterparts.
This is true for both Catholic and Protestant…” (Millikan, 1981 p80).
71 See for example http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1406778.htm and
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1406779.htm
68
early 2005 and had not changed by mid-2007. The only ‘justice’ material on Hillsong’s website
is within the scope of conventional social justice, i.e. it is entirely anthropocentric and
disconnected from ecological reality.
I sent an email via the Hillsong Church website72, identifying myself as a research student,
and flagging my interest in obtaining any “environment-related” material. I did not receive a
reply. The Australian Conservation Foundation’s Graham Tupper, formerly of the National
Council of Churches of Australia, reported a similar difficulty in engaging with Hillsong
Church on ecological issues (Tupper, pers. comm. 06/05). Friends of the Earth (Australia) also
invited Hillsong to contribute to the ‘Faith & ecology’ edition of its national newsletter, but also
received a null response (Walker, 2005a). Lohrey, 2006, also notes a similar situation in her
interviews with some young members of the Hillsong congregation. My experience in
attempting to research Hillsong’s ecological stance contrasts with the relative ease of
researching and communicating with various organisations and individuals within the three
largest mainstream denominations.
The situation in relation to Hillsong Church is not entirely surprising given studies of
Pentecostalism and other Evangelical denominations from the USA (see for example Wallis,
2005), which indicate that ecological concern has until very recently, been seen as deeply
antithetical to their theology, or perhaps more specifically, their associated conservative politics.
5.6.3 Exclusive Brethren
Again, despite its high profile in the media and much controversy, particularly after the
2004 federal election, this thesis does not investigate the ecological orientation of another
controversial Christian group, the Exclusive Brethren. The Exclusive Brethren are particularly
controversial in the context of ecological issues because of their overt and covert opposition to
The Greens in Australia and overseas, and to anything resembling social liberalism.
In late 2006, the Exclusive Brethren received international media coverage because of their
being allegedly involved in smear campaigns against the Labor Prime Minister of New Zealand,
her husband, and several government figures. This is consistent with the alleged involvement of
the Exclusive Brethren in funding and directing campaigns against left wing candidates.
During the 2004 Australian election, The Exclusive Brethren and agents operating on their
behalf are alleged to have run smear campaigns against The Greens and individual Greens
candidates, particularly in Tasmania. In August 2006, Australian Greens Senator, Bob Brown,
72 http://www2.hillsong.com/
69
tabled a “motion for a Senate inquiry into this sect, its members who are political activists, any
connections with the Howard government and family excommunications” (Brown, 2006). In
September 2006, the ABC TV’s Four Corners program ran an investigative documentary about
some of the Exclusive Brethren’s practices, including their involvement in elections, despite the
fact that their religion prohibits members from voting. A similar program was produced by SBS
TV’s Dateline program and screened in November 2006. During the unofficial 2007 Australian
election campaign, Labor leader and overt Christian, Kevin Rudd, publicly denounced the
Exclusive Brethren as a “cult” and warned his colleagues to be on the lookout for covert smear
campaigns against the Labor Party and its members.
Despite the above-described controversy surrounding the Exclusive Brethren, this thesis
does not address their views or actions in relation to Christian environmentalism. This is
because the Exclusive Brethren is, arguably by their very nature, anything but mainstream.
5.7 Why not forms of Christianity long known as
ecologically progressive?
5.7.1 Lutheran
My focus on the three largest denominations does not mean that I consider the smaller
Churches irrelevant in the context of ecotheology and interaction with the environment
movement. Some, such as the Lutherans, have a strong stewardship policy grounded in their
very agrarian73 theology. Whilst it has conventionally been a productivist stewardship, it has
broadened to become more ecologically grounded and less anthropocentric. Australia-based
Lutheran theologian, Norman Habel, is a world leader in Christian ecotheology and heads the
international Earth Bible project (see Habel, 2000). Mainstream Christian ecotheology often
cites his work, and there was strong evidence of this and his high esteem at an ecumenical and
multifaith conference about faith and the environment that I attended in Adelaide in January
2004. I certainly do not view the mainstream denominations as so parochial as to not exchange
views or otherwise interact with the smaller denominations. There is also formal interaction
between smaller groups such as the Lutherans, with the larger groups via the National Council
of Churches of Australia.
73 ‘Agrarianism’ has several recognised meanings. It is used here to mean ‘pro-farmer’, ‘pro-farming’ and
‘pro-agricultural productivism’ inclusive of the notion that farming brings people closer to God through
their contact with Nature. See for example http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/agrarian.html and for a
more substantial explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarianism. Agrarianism in Catholic Church
policies is criticised by McDonagh, 1990 p181.
70
5.7.2 Jehovah’s Witnesses
Similarly, I note that the Jehovah’s Witness denomination has a strong ecotheology linked
to an opposition to consumerism and a belief that it is a Christian’s duty to prepare the Earth to
be remade as the second Garden of Eden by undertaking ecological restoration and protection
works. Such a theology is far more proactive than many, and in strong contrast to
dispensationalists and others who believe that Earth or at least its surface will inevitably be
destroyed and remade by God after the return of Christ.
5.7.3 The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
The Religious Society of Friends (commonly termed ‘Quakers’) is also notable as a form
of Christianity with strong ecojustice values and a connection with the modern
environmentalism movement unmatched by mainstream Christendom, (see for example Brindle,
2000). The international environmentalist organisation, Greenpeace, was founded with Quaker
support and is based on Quaker principles, in particular the concept of bearing witness (V.A.
Brown, Australian Chair of Greenpeace, 1988-1991, pers. comm., 09/05; Weyler, undated).
Weyler, undated, also mentions a founding connection between Greenpeace, the Unitarian
Church and the United Church of Canada. Unitarianism is another small denomination within
Christianity that has potentially influenced mainstream Christian ecotheology through its far
more holistic perspective.
5.8 Back to the mainstream
I acknowledge that there is considerable scope for exploring Christian environmentalism
well beyond the mainstream denominations but I have made the boundary judgement to exclude
other than mainstream Christianity from the focus of this thesis.
I base my focus on the mainstream forms of Christianity because of their size (using
various measures) and their social, political, and ecological impact. More specifically, I focus
on what I view as the positive changes within the mainstream Churches that are leading to the
rise of Christian environmentalism. I do not focus on the countervailing movement that is in
opposition to environmentalism. In this regard, my approach is consistent with an application of
the ‘trim tab’ methodology described by Buckminster Fuller, i.e. that rather than trying to
change the course of the ‘ship’ (society; the Church; Christianity) by forcing a realignment of
the ‘rudder’ (the whole culture), it can be far more strategic and effective to seek out situations
where relatively little effort can be exerted yet produce a relatively substantial change in course.
The ‘trim tab’ is a steering device used on large ships to make minor but ultimately potentially
significant changes in direction.
71
Chapter 6: An iterative approach
In accordance with the emergent and responsive nature of my methodology, the thesis uses
a variety of methods– an approach promoted by Harris & Robottom, 1997; Midgley, 2000. The
methods emerged from the research rather than being predetermined – being in part an
application of the ‘grounded theory’ of Glaser & Strauss, 1967. The research iteratively
informed both methodology and methods. This was a useful approach for several reasons that I
discuss further below.
When I commenced this thesis, my experience in research outside the field of natural
science consisted of an undergraduate research project in which I undertook a comparative
study of the understanding of ecological issues amongst Catholic and public high school
students. My approach to that research was still primarily empirical (quantitative analysis of
questionnaires, and class interviews). In formulating a methodology for this thesis, I had to fill
in the large gap in my understanding of methodologies that extend beyond the quantitative.
In addition, the thesis topic varied several times during the first two years of research, with
further refinements in focus occurring throughout the process. This meant that my methodology
and methods had to change, at least to some extent, to match these shifts. Discovering bodies of
literature that I had previously been unaware of drove some of the earlier changes. Later, finer-
scale changes in focus were largely due to my growing insight into the topic arising from my
research findings and through further reading. To some extent, the thesis emerged through a
form of ‘gap analyses’.
The original and inherently transdisciplinary nature of my research field further
compounded the situation, as there was no easy route when it came to adopting a methodology
and methods that were well established as appropriate tools for the thesis topic.
When I commenced my research, I had very little knowledge of my subject material, and
much of what I thought I knew I subsequently found to be wrong, a partial truth, and too often
based on prejudices generated by my personal and professional background. I also had little
knowledge of the philosophy of research.
Finally, the phenomenon of the ‘greening’ of mainstream religion in Australia is an
emergent one, about which very little has been written. What little specific literature was
available was primarily theological or was non-scholarly and prone to making unsubstantiated
claims based on international experience or sweeping and simplistic observations. The paucity
of academic material available on this specific topic may be due in part to the phenomenon’s
currency but also because it tends to cross the entrenched division between ‘science’ and
‘religion’ – something with which academic institutions continue to struggle.
72
The emergent dimension of the phenomenon means that at least some aspects are changing
or can change very quickly. Hence, there is a need to be flexible and responsive in methodology
and methods if a researcher is to keep pace with developments in both the phenomenon and the
research into it. This is also a consideration because some key aspects of the phenomenon are
cryptic (completely outside the literature) and once uncovered through, for example dialogue,
can rapidly change my research direction or at least hone my focus. A fixed ‘off the shelf’
methodology and methods, especially if dictated by an initial literature review alone, would
have been unlikely to suit such a dynamic, emergent and transdisciplinary research field.
What follows is a brief outline of the methods that I employed. Whilst they are organised
as discrete components of the research, the reality is that they all interacted, informing each
other and feeding back into the development of methodology and methods as the research
progressed.
6.1 The ‘greening’ of mainstream religion in Australia –
a case study
The overarching method employed in this thesis is that of case study. Subsidiary methods
such as critical policy analysis should be understood in this context. I do not analyse the
ecological policies of the subject denominations simply to document and critique them. Instead,
they are analysed as part of the broader investigation of how the Churches are responding to the
ecological crisis, and beyond this, how they respond as institutions inclusive of their component
groups and individuals. I extend this with my research into the Churches’ ecological praxis
where the focus is still primarily on their response as institutions, but where the actions of
groups and individuals are also considered. I discuss the specific methods employed in the
thesis later in this chapter.
6.2 Action Research
Within the case study, the primary research tool used in this thesis is a form of critical
policy analysis (discussed in section 6.4). The analysis was not restricted to formal institutional
policies, instead, in addition to the use of the Internet as my initial source of policy material, I
engaged with research participants through a variety of other media and processes. This was
undertaken in the tradition of so-called ‘action research’ or ‘participatory action research’74.
74 These terms are somewhat contested. I use them here in their broadest sense and do not discuss the
academic debate about their meanings and appropriate application.
73
This aspect of my research was the subject of a Human Research Ethics Committee protocol
(permit) number 2005/151.
Consistent with my methodology, I chose to engage with participants as an interested and
active researcher who was also supportive of the process of ‘ecological conversion’ within the
Churches. A similar approach, though in a different context, was employed by Malone, 1996. In
most cases, I believe this approach, which was sincere, resulted in me gaining more information
of a higher quality than I might otherwise have been able to obtain. In a minority of cases, my
overt enthusiasm for or at least interest in the ‘greening’ of the Churches appeared to reduce my
access to information, though this outcome was itself useful as it revealed some of the sources
and nature of resistance to the process of ecological reform.
My ‘activist’ or ‘advocatory’ approach does not inherently prejudice my research to the
extent that it is invalid. In accordance with my methodology, I simply need to disclose the
nature of my orientation and approach, and to assess my findings in that context.
6.3 Insider or outsider?
This section addresses the so-called ‘insider/outsider controversy’ of research, for
example, Minichiello et al., 1995; Midgley, 2000. Some scholars of religion or sociology would
argue that my not being overtly Christian75 and my being ‘unchurched’ makes me an outsider to
the extent that I cannot properly understand the Church or Christianity in the context of my
thesis. Were this definitively the case, only a Christian and perhaps only a Christian of a
particular denomination could provide the necessary attributes to be an effective researcher
within the context of what this thesis attempts to research. That would mean that only an insider
view is a legitimate view, a situation that would make ethnography and much of anthropology
invalid on the basis that one cannot properly understand anything that one is not ‘inside’.
This is not a view that I can support, as at its most extreme, it is ultimately a false
dichotomy that would have everyone labelled as either an insider or an outsider irrespective of
the fact that the boundaries are rarely, if ever that simple. The ‘insider-outsider’ dichotomy fails
to acknowledge the interconnectedness between observer and observed, and the complexity of
75 I do not identify myself as specifically Christian because my perspective on the faith rejects its
normative assertion of exclusivity, i.e. one has to be a Christian to the exclusion of any other faith.
However, I do not reject Christianity, nor am I an atheist. My orientation is within the scope of the
organisation entitled the Sea of Faith (http://www.sof-in-australia.org) which arguably amounts to
Christianity in a Buddhist tradition (see for e.g. Falvey, 2002, 2003). However, I am also very much
within the group that defines itself as ‘spiritual but not religious’ (see for e.g. the work of Tacey, 2003). I
have previously identified my ‘religion’ as Buddhist, Jedi (with tongue in cheek) and Yoga (in which I
am formally trained and qualified to teach).
74
that relationship – “everything in the Universe is directly or indirectly connected to everything
else” (Midgley, 2000). This perspective is consistent with the orientation of this thesis in so-
called ‘process thought’, ‘process philosophy’, and ‘process theology’ which are “strongly
opposed to dualistic approaches to reality” (Leal, 2004a p56). It is also consistent with the
methodology of Braud & Anderson, 1998, and with my acknowledgement of the socially
constructed nature of knowledge. One is always going to be somewhere on the scale of insider
to outsider on any particular issue.
The ‘insider/outsider’ status of a researcher should not be invoked as the primary
determinant of their objectivity, validity or legitimacy. The primary determinant of objectivity
adopted here is criticality – in this context, the ability of the researcher to identify the ways in
which the matrix of relative insider and outsider positions influences their perspective and
research processes. In Midgley’s terms, the decision as to whether one is ‘in’ or ‘out’ on any
criterion, requires a value judgement about what is to be included and what is to be excluded
(Midgley, 1992; 2000 p135-158). I have addressed this in previous chapters.
There are advantages and disadvantages of being an insider or outsider when conducting
research. The central issues are being aware of the researcher’s position, how the advantages
and disadvantages operate, and what, if anything, is required to address their influence. Despite
its problems and common misapplication, the insider/outsider dichotomy can be of value when
used within its limitations, particularly when addressing methodology and methods.
As a relative outsider in the context of my research into the Churches, I have certainly
struggled to understand the ecclesiology of the subject denominations. I received some feedback
from churchmen to the effect that they thought my conception of their particular Church’s
orientation was wrong. Some of that feedback was, to my mind, more to do with my looking at
three different denominations and my seeing the functions and dysfunctions of the
denominations from outside their respective institutional cultures, a situation that is arguably
advantageous depending on one’s point of reference. I also received a larger number of
converse opinions that indicated that despite being outside the Church, I had managed to cut
through to the core of the relevant issues affecting the ‘greening’ of these institutions. Some
suggested that being outside the Churches’ cultures was a clear advantage, though not essential,
in being able to examine and detect the various processes and challenges that the Churches face.
In the earlier stages of this research I was concerned about being unable to access some of
the information that I considered necessary because of my relative ‘outsiderness’ in relation to
the Churches. However, I found that very few research participants wanted to know whether I
considered myself a Christian or whether I was of a particular denomination before they would
engage with me or before they would offer information of a more personal or insightful nature.
75
What seemed to be more important was my ability to think and speak in ‘Christianese’
(after Lohrey, 2006) when engaging with research participants. My adoption of ‘Christianese’
was in no way deceptive, as I was simply attempting to work with the ‘language’ of my research
participants to maximise mutual communication. As a simple example of this situation, I would
use the term, ‘Creation’ when communicating with Christian research participants, rather than
my preferred term of ‘Nature’ or other terms such as ‘Gaia’ or ‘the universe’. This was also a
less confrontational approach and was therefore more likely to facilitate effective engagement
on a topic that is full of sensitivities, both personal and institutional.
I also aimed to project my orientation through actions as well as words, hoping, and
sometimes finding that I did not need to declare myself a Christian in order to be accepted by
research participants as having a valid interest in and positive contribution to make to
researching and potentially aiding the development of Christian environmentalism. Had I been
pressed to declare and explain my religio-spiritual orientation to a research participant as a
condition of their involvement, I would not have claimed to have a normative Christian view
simply to gain the participant’s involvement.
There is no doubt that my relative ‘outsiderness’ in relation to the Churches posed some
difficulties in terms of my gaining adequate knowledge of the religion, its theology and
ecotheology, the Churches as institutions, and the social and economic context in which their
ecological reformation has occurred and is occurring. In some instances, my not being an
ordained and suitably influential member of particular denominations or parts thereof excluded
me from access to particular processes and information. The other side of this is that being
outside the Churches gave me a different (potentially but not necessarily better) perspective on
the process of and limitations to their ‘greening’. Coming from a professional ecological
background and from the environmental movement sometimes appeared to work in my favour
but in other situations it seemed to work against me. The key point is that I was aware, as much
as possible, of how my situatedness affected what I was able to observe and how I interpreted it.
6.4 Critical policy analysis
6.4.1 Overview
Policy analysis is a substantial body of literature in itself and an exploration of this field
was beyond the scope of this thesis. Then fellow PhD student and former Commonwealth
departmental policy officer, Brenda Foran (University of Western Sydney) provided me with
expert advice on policy analysis, a succinct summary of the literature, and a recommended text
(Hogwood & Gunn, 1984). Fortunately, that text is a critical review of the literature relating to
policy-making and policy analysis. It provided me with sufficient knowledge to adopt a method
76
suitable for my purpose. I describe the particular approach that I employ in the following
sections.
I apply critical policy analysis to the ecological policies of the three subject denominations
representing mainstream Christianity in Australia. The analysis commences in c.1977, a date
determined primarily by it being the year in which the Uniting Church formed. The analysis
draws on a detailed Internet content search as the initial and primary data collection method. All
of the subject denominations have large Internet profiles.
The analysis extends beyond a review of the on-line and related material. To the extent that
it was possible in terms of the availability of information and other constraints imposed by the
nature of this thesis, the analysis includes aspects of policy development and the relationship
between policy and praxis. The latter is particularly directed towards the ‘policy/praxis
disjuncture’ raised by writers including Dutney, 1991; Mische, 2000; Conradie, 2003; Collins,
2004 p121; Leal, 2006; Conradie & Martin, 2007 p441.76 Though most do not use this term,
they comment on the fact that whilst the Churches have produced ecotheologies and ecological
policies, few manage to implement them or at least with any degree of depth and consistency.
Goosen, 2000 p206, claims “the official statements from church leaders…often go no further
than repeating pious platitudes.” More recently, his fellow Australian author, Collins, 2004,
observed that “The institutional (Catholic) Church’s response to ecological theology is window-
dressing and the engagement with environmental issues lacks substance and commitment”.
Ruether, 2000 p613, expresses this view particularly clearly:
“Only by embodying the vision of ecology and justice in its own teaching,
worship and praxis (my emphasis) can the Church make itself a base for an
environmentally responsible ministry to the larger community in which it
stands. Eco-justice becomes central to the Church's mission only when it is
understood as central to the Church's life. Anything less will lack
credibility.”
The problem of the policy/praxis disjuncture is also addressed in a general institutional
sense by Dovers, 2005, and in relation to the Uniting Church in Australia’s relationship to
people with disabilities by Wansbrough & Cooper, 2004. I do not suggest that the problem is
unique to the Churches, nor to their implementation of ecological policies.
My view is that policy analysis is not complete or necessarily meaningful unless it entails
an assessment of the extent to which the policy can be, has been, and is being implemented.
This means that in some cases, my consideration of what amounts to policy, and what is praxis
76 The listed authors include writers from Australia, South Africa, and the USA. I believe their views are
representative of the Churches’ problems with ecological praxis throughout the West.
77
tends to blur. For example, when a diocese decides to require its parishes to prepare their own
ecological policy, is the diocese’s decision an example of policy, or if it is enacted by the
parishes, is it then praxis? A more useful distinction in this example is between symbolic policy
and operational policy. I do not concern myself with the semantics, instead simply focusing on
who is saying and doing what.
Whilst my emphasis is more towards policy outcomes, this does not exclude the
contribution of purely symbolic policy (see for example Hamilton, 2007a). I also note that in
some cases, there is little or no data available on the extent to which some policies have
generated outcomes, for example, the effect of ecological education on the related attitudes and
behaviours of students in the Churches’ education systems. Because of the lack of such data or
at least their ready availability to me, and because of the limited size of the thesis, the Churches’
specific ecological educational policies are outside the scope of this research.
Because my emphasis extends beyond policy-development to policy implementation, I
consider issues relating to the nature and effectiveness of operationalisation. This can entail the
Churches’ use of methods including education, incentives, coercion, and regulatory
enforcement.
The policy analysis serves a dual role in that it also effectively forms a component of the
conventional Literature Review section of a thesis. It was also important in informing other
aspects of the research including issues of methodology and method.
The critical policy analysis method employed is an adaptation of a conventional policy
analysis technique described by Hogwood & Gunn, 1984. Changes include adding an overt
aspect of criticality, and adapting, to a minor extent, the use of this technique in relation to
religious institutions.
6.4.2 Secular policy analysis meets the Church
The field of policy analysis and policy-making is an almost entirely secular domain in
which the foci include government or public and corporate or commercial policy (after Torry,
2005). There are subsets of each, such as social, economic, and more recently, ecological issues.
Many of these aspects of policy apply to both the public and commercial realms. Many could
also apply to Church policy, and the Churches certainly have a long history of policy
development in social welfare and related aspects of economics and governance, with recent
ventures into ecological policy. However, it was unclear to me whether the field of policy
analysis could be applied without modification to the domain of the Church, as it is neither a
public nor a commercial entity. Whilst it clearly has aspects of both, it also has features that are
arguably quite different to those generally encountered in either public or commercial domains.
78
In ‘Managing God’s business’, Torry, 2005, agrees that religious organisations are different to
public and commercial organisations. He concludes that they are best categorised as “voluntary”
organisations. These are also known as the ‘third sector’ (with government being the ‘first
sector’ and the commercial domain being the ‘second sector’).
I also note that the small subset of policy analysis literature that I have dealt with is
exclusively Western and tends to be divided into ‘schools’ that can be distinguished as British
or American, see for example Hogwood & Gunn, 1984. As such, it does not deal with non-
Western situations such as non-Christian theocratic states in which models of secular
government and corporate policy development and analysis would need to incorporate overtly
religious considerations. Perhaps the main exception would be the specialised literature that
deals with policy-making and analysis in the context of the Vatican, an area that I have not
chosen to explore.
I asked myself, “What is it about the Churches that make them different to either public or
commercial sectors in the context of applying ‘off the shelf’ models of policy analysis that
derive from a secular context?” Some of the features of the Churches that appear to distinguish
them from conventional Western forms of government or commercial policy-making might be
viewed as simply superficial variations. For example, the Church in all its varied forms and
manifestations is ultimately a charitable and not-for-profit organisation77. This makes it
different to most commercial corporations, which are profit driven, even if they have other
motivations for operating. However, there are also corporations unrelated to the Church that
also operate on a specifically not-for-profit basis. Does this mean that the nominally charitable
nature and status of the Church makes it so different from commercial corporations that a
different approach to policy analysis is required?
The modern mainstream Churches include business entities such as insurance firms, banks,
retirement facilities, hospitals, investment companies, education institutions, employment
agencies, welfare providers, conference centres and retreats (see for example Torry, 2005). The
Churches are also significant owners and sellers of real estate78. In her article about the sale of
land by Church groups Cummins, 2005, reports that “Property experts have estimated the big
77 This is not necessarily the case for some modern US-style Pentecostal Churches.
78 There is a lot of speculation about the economic position of the Churches and about their real estate
assets and transactions. None of them makes this information readily available, a situation that fuels
suspicion and even conspiracy theories in this context. The Churches are very sensitive about their real
estate dealings and this sometimes causes considerable concern within Church membership. I encountered
Uniting Church members who readily expressed concern about the NSW Synod’s ownership of an office
complex in Pitt Street Sydney valued in the tens of millions of dollars when the same organisation
promotes notions of social justice and Christian charity. Similarly, I encountered concerns within Catholic
ranks about land sell-offs that would result in the destruction of bushland, loss of significant visual
amenity, and the privatisation of areas previously accessible to the public (as Church land).
79
five churches had revenue of more than $21.7 billion last year” (i.e. 2004). Citing an undated
article in Business Review Weekly, she states, “The Catholic Church alone is thought to have
more than $100 billion in property and other assets in Australia”. She adds, “The Uniting
Church has been involved in a number of deals, the most recent being last November when it
outlaid about $16.5 million for 100 Mount Street, North Sydney.”
Some would argue that whilst, in Australia, the Churches are legally recognised for
taxation79 purposes as not-for-profit organisations, they are functionally no different to
commercial corporations other than in the way that ‘profits’ are used. Rather than returning
profits to shareholders and/or directors as dividends, salaries and performance bonuses, the
Churches put their profits back into their organisations and associated enterprises. Despite their
at least notionally charitable ultimate nature, the Churches still have to consider their financial
viability and some, particularly the emergent Pentecostal and the more evangelical traditional
Churches, have a strong expansionist agenda that relies on substantial capital generation. For the
largely declining mainstream Churches, the challenge is less about expansion and more about
consolidation and moving into more profitable or at least more economically viable activities
such as private education and retirement facilities.
The profit motive may operate differently in that personal financial gain is nominally not
such a factor in the Church as it is in the business world. The fact that clergy have no equity in
the Church and are avowed to poverty is a key difference, though this is not so clear when it
comes to the fact that bishops receive a higher standard of accommodation than priests,
extending to the point of relative opulence in the form of the traditional bishop’s mansion or
palace. However, the advancement or at least survival of the Church as an institution would
appear to operate no differently to the goals of advancement or survival of commercial entities.
Indeed, some argue that the Church is little or no different in function to business corporations,
with the oldest, the Roman Catholic Church, seen as the first multinational corporation (Rifkin,
1992; Boyden, 2004 p102-3).
Indeed, the Uniting Church’s NSW Synod uses the term ‘profit centres’ for component
bodies that operate on a ‘for profit’ basis inclusive of charging churches and individual church
members for their services.80 Howe, 2002, discusses the shift towards more corporate,
79 Cummins, 2005, points out, “Unlike in most countries, they (Churches in Australia) do not pay tax on
commercial businesses or capital gains tax on the sale of assets.”
80 http://pru.nsw.uca.org.au/aboutus.htm demonstrates the use of the term ‘profit centre’, as well as
showing how some parts of the Church operate in fields no different to ‘for-profit’ businesses, e.g. the
notoriously ecologically problematic field of so-called ‘property development’. The website of the
Property Resources Unit is also notable for the complete absence of any content relating to ecological
considerations and management, and for its clear focus on maximising financial returns from real estate
http://pru.nsw.uca.org.au/faqs.htm.
80
economically oriented business models in certain fields of Church activity such as welfare
provision. He notes:
“Whereas in the past the motives of churches and church agencies seem to
have been primarily driven by religious or charitable motivations, this seems
less true in recent times – not just in welfare but across the spectrum of
church-based services and institutions. Many of the wealthiest private
schools are owned and managed on behalf of the churches and religious
societies. Similarly, the changing role of hospitals and private health
insurance means that many hospitals established by churches and religious
societies now serve higher income groups… For some agencies the original
church base or religious base may no longer exist and agencies may become
increasingly distant from their religious roots” (Howe, 2002 p6-7).
This leads to what is a very controversial topic, namely the question of whether the Church
should be permitted to retain its tax exempt status as a registered charity (or group of charities)
when it operates corporate entities that generate profits for the institution, and which in some
cases compete directly with non-charitable businesses that are taxed. I do not explore this issue
but raise it in addressing the question of whether the charitable taxation status and nominally
charitable orientation of the Church warrants a variation to conventional policy analysis
methods and if so, what are they and why are they needed?
My view is that the Churches are insufficiently different from for-profit corporations to
warrant significant variation to conventional forms of policy analysis that are applied to the
corporate domain. Whilst some of the differences between the corporate world and the Church
may be seen as significant, they are not substantially different in terms of organisational
function in relation to policy-making and thus to analysis. Furthermore, whilst the Church has,
at least in theory, a religio-spiritual agenda at its core, its denominations, particularly the larger
ones that are the focus of this research, have a multitude of business agendas in which profit
generation has become the focus, even if such funds are intended for and used in a religious
context. Though as Howe, 2002, points out, many church entities may now be at least
functionally removed from their original religious orientation.
I note that Torry, 2005, examines religious and faith-based organisations, concluding that
they are very different in structure to secular organisations. He sees religions as the most
complex, followed by faith-based organisations, and then secular entities (see especially pages
176-177). Torry’s perspective is credible and goes a long way to explaining some of the often
confounding organisational structures and processes that I encountered during my research into
the ecological policies, policy-making, and praxis in the three subject denominations. However,
for the purposes of selecting and fine-tuning a policy analysis method, such differences, whilst
important to understanding policy-making, do not appear to warrant a significantly different
approach.
81
Having concluded that Churches are not radically functionally different to business
corporations, I next ask, “To what extent are corporations different from government?” One
similarity between the Church and government is that its most senior policy-makers are elected.
However, in the Catholic and Anglican Church, they are not elected by ‘the people’ in the way
that democratic governments are (at least in theory). The situation is somewhat different in the
Uniting Church, which operates in a more democratic fashion81.
The older and larger Churches are largely autocratic (or theocratic, in theory) and whilst
they include democratic principles such as voting, and they certainly have their factions which
function similarly to political parties, their leaders are not directly accountable to or elected by
the full body of Church members. A comparison can be made with the process by which a
Prime Minister is not directed elected by the people, but by Cabinet i.e. the senior ministers and
would-be ministers within the elected party or coalition. This comparison is valid for the
Anglican and Catholic Churches with their heads, the Primate and the Pope respectively. In
contrast, the Uniting Church of Australia regularly and frequently elects a President through its
National Assembly, which has members drawn from the State Synods (led by Moderators) and
Presbyteries (regional groupings of congregations) and which are not restricted to clergy.
The Church is a complex and multilayered group of organisations and it has a clear
division between its senior policy-makers – the autocratically appointed clergy, and its lay
bureaucracy. The latter arguably functions just like governmental bureaucracy and could be
termed the ‘administrative’ arm of the Church, being distinguished from the policy-making arm
which in most cases is controlled by senior clergy or bodies that they effectively control.
Despite a nexus of power, the administrative arm can function with little or no functional
accountability and oversight from the policy-making arm, especially in terms of theological
matters. This issue is given particular attention in the ecological context by authorities such as
Uniting Theological College Lecturer Rev. Dr Clive Pearson82, and Rev. Emeritus Prof. Barry
Leal (pers. comm. 06/06), both of the Uniting Church.
The Church also has a religio-spiritual agenda that could arguably make it different to
secular Western governments for the purposes of policy analysis. However, this largely depends
on one’s definition of religion and spirituality because some definitions would at least loosely
extend to include political ideologies as ‘religious’ or at least ‘quasi-religious’. Even with the
81 The Uniting Church of Australia uses consensus decision-making as its default position, only using
majority voting under exceptional circumstances. The Catholic and Anglican Churches of Australia are
more traditionally theocratic and hierarchical, being far older institutions, and where voting occurs, it is
by majority decision, not consensus. The Uniting Church uses its less hierarchical, consensus-based
approach to distinguish itself from the older Churches (see for e.g. http://nsw.uca.org.au/whatis.htm -
Structure and Administration).
82 http://www.utc.uca.org.au/clive
82
separation of Church and State that is intended to exist in most Western democracies, there is an
assumption in this dichotomy that the State, being separate from the Church, is inherently
secular in the sense of non-religious and non-spiritual. This is clearly not the case because
individuals within government and indeed some parties and factions thereof, can and do have
sometimes strong religious orientations that have significant influence on government policy
and its implementation, (see for example Maddox, 2005b).
Without wanting to be mired in semantics and a potentially substantial philosophical
debate on this issue, I believe that the religio-spiritual aspect of the Church does not make it so
different from the public or commercial sectors to warrant a different approach to analysis of its
ecological policies. However, I acknowledge the important structural differences of the
Churches and their consequences for policy-making (as per Torry, 2005). Governments and
corporations can be significantly driven by what are directly or indirectly religious and spiritual
motivations. Some are so influenced by these factors as to arguably be little different from the
Church. Equally, the Church can be greatly influenced by internal and external politics and
economics.
I have concluded that whilst the Church has features that differentiate it from government
and corporate organisations, it is not so functionally different as to warrant a unique or
substantially modified method of policy analysis. The differences and complexities that exist
can be addressed through any sound policy analysis method, i.e. one that is able to acknowledge
the specific circumstances of the policy-generating organisation under scrutiny. I have chosen to
apply a standard policy analysis model that I believe is suited to Church ecological policy but in
doing so, I am mindful of special issues related to the Church’s nature. Similar to my
methodology, my approach to policy analysis allows me to be flexible and adaptive,
acknowledging that I am new to this field of research, and that I do not profess to have ‘the
answer’ (if there is one) or to know the optimal technique to apply in this circumstance.
6.4.3 Composite (descriptive/prescriptive) analysis
Discussing approaches to policy analysis, Hogwood & Gunn, 1984 p62, state:
“A policy analyst must be aware of the existence and importance of models
in everyday life as well as in the literature of policy studies. He [sic] should
be explicit and self-critical about the models he [sic] himself uses. As
Allison, 1971 says, ‘the fact that alternative frames of reference… produce
quite different explanations should encourage the analyst’s self-
consciousness about the nets he [sic] employs’. The ‘policy frame’ he [sic]
adopts in defining a problem will certainly influence his [sic] solution to the
problem.”
This is an argument for criticality – an approach adopted in the methodology of this thesis.
In choosing my approach to policy analysis, I frequently reflected on the influence that my
83
orientation brings to this choice, the manner in which I implement it, and the consequences for
the outcomes. This was an on-going process throughout the analysis and it allowed progressive
outcomes from the analysis to feed back into the method and to some extent the methodology.
After Hogwood & Gunn, 1984 (esp. Ch.4), I employ a composite policy analysis model to
analyse Church ecological policy. I first employ a descriptive approach, i.e. addressing ‘what is’
inclusive of ‘what has been’. I follow this with a prescriptive approach to examine the extent to
which historical and current (at the time of analysis) policy is able to meet its apparent goals. In
adopting this approach, I note that the descriptive component is restricted to a listing of the
policies that came to my attention through research. I do not attempt to create a descriptive
model, ideal or symbolic, to explain the historical development of Church ecological policy. It
is in the prescriptive component, i.e. ‘what ought to be’, that I include the development of a
model, or more accurately a framework, against which I analyse the policies. The framework is
simple and is based on the idea that to be substantive and effective (in my terms), Church
ecological policy should:
• be ecologically literate/grounded or ‘biosensitive’ (after Boyden, 2004), having an
“ecological model of reality” (Goosen, 2000 p205, citing Birch & Cobb Jr, 1981);
• be developed beyond so-called ‘motherhood statements’ or rhetoric, i.e. it must be
relatively detailed and specific in terms of its purpose and intent; and
• employ a ‘whole of Church’ approach that includes and values both top-down and bottom-
up policy development and implementation, combined with a clear and viable method of
implementation. It must provide “a positive example of…the ecological axiom that the
truth of theology is in the doing” (Goosen, 2000 p207/8).
I have not termed my approach an ‘ideal-type’ model after Hogwood & Gunn, 1984 (Ch.4)
because I do not view it as offering an unachievable state, for example the frictionless engine.
Instead, I see the prescriptive component as offering an achievable state but one that is not
necessarily intended to be reached immediately.
I have established the framework purely to examine the extent to which a policy or policy
development process is able to achieve what I perceive the underlying goal of such policy to be.
I see this goal as what is variously termed ‘ecological sustainability’ or more appropriately in
this context, ‘ecojustice’. I take this position based on a belief that the Churches are trying to
formulate and implement policy that will move society or at least the parts that the Church
influences, towards a state of social and ecological justice. For the Churches, this is an
ecotheological concept with a range of complexities that I do not expand on here.
84
My approach is positive (not positivistic) in that I do not see the Churches as producing
and implementing ecological policy for what might be termed inauthentic or cynical reasons.
Some authors have suggested that the ‘greening’ of Church policy is simply a desperate move
by the Church to better align itself with broader society (so-called ‘social relevance’) and to
potentially retain or even recruit members. Based on my reading of the policies, the ecotheology
underpinning them, and discussions with some key Australian figures in Church policy
development, I do not believe this to be the case. However, I acknowledge that there are
certainly elements within at least some of the Churches, particularly those of an evangelical
orientation, who see ecological policy-making and a modicum of simplistic praxis as a
necessary but minor tweaking of the ‘business as usual’ agenda that is warranted primarily, if
not exclusively for the political and membership gains it might bring.
In describing this approach, I am not suggesting that it should be considered a standard for
all such policy, instead that it should be viewed as an end-point or destination. It would be
unreasonable to expect Church ecological policy to emerge in immediate compliance with this
model as policy-making is an incremental process – it has to be developed and as such, will not
be ‘perfect’ in its first form, or necessarily after several iterations.
Hogwood & Gunn, 1984 Ch.4, describe the differences between views of policy-making
and related analysis as incremental or rational. I reject the ‘rational’ view because it is an ideal-
type that assumes policy makers and policy-making can be perfectly ‘rational’ and it does not
consider who or what defines rationality in this context. It also fails to take account of the
influence of values in affecting ‘rationality’ (Hogwood & Gunn, 1984 p48). For example, a
political regime may view its policy on ecological matters as ‘rational’ in that it produces rapid
income for the regime and its select beneficiaries, promoting employment growth on a time
scale and in locations that favour the regime’s political prospects. Yet the same policy when
viewed from an ecological perspective or from that of the traditional owners, whose lands are
being exploited by the regime, would appear anything but rational due to its short-sightedness,
racism, and interspecies and intergenerational inequities.
This raises an aspect of my consideration of a policy’s context. For example, it is an
important part of policy analysis to examine contextual issues such as the ‘political’ setting in
which policy emerges and develops, including its relationship with other policies, and events
within and outside the policy-making organisation. This is a similar notion to that employed in
contextual theology83 and to some extent in process philosophy, with the central tenet being that
83 Contextual theology “may be said to be that way of doing theology which seeks to explore and exhibit
the dialectical relation between the content and the setting of theology” Lehmann, 1972. A more
extensive explanation is available at http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1972/v29-1-editorial2.htm.
85
the subject material cannot be properly understood if removed from its context. This also
equates to an aspect of criticality. The opposite approach might be literalism, which in a
theological sense entails taking scripture/policy and interpreting it without any reference to
historical context including translation and editing issues. My approach is thus hermeneutic,
being based on the concept that the parts and the whole must be interpreted from each other
whilst acknowledging the subjectivity of knowledge, (see for example Wiseman, 1993 p.115).
6.5 Internet-based policy research
6.5.1 Why the Internet?
Despite extensive literature searches, I was unable to detect publications that specifically
address mainstream Christian environmental thought and action in Australia. Goosen, 2000
devotes some comment to Christian environmentalism in Australia as part of a broader view of
Australian Christian theology. Leal, 2004a, deals with Christian environmentalism in general,
and comments briefly on the Australian context. I became aware of three PhD theses that dealt
to some extent with particular aspects of Australian mainstream Christian environmentalism.
However, two of these were incomplete and unavailable, and the third (John, 2005), relates
mainly to the ecotheology underpinning policies, and is specific to the Uniting Church.
An unconventional research method had to be used to fill the gap in the literature. I chose
to undertake extensive Internet-based research as the primary data gathering method used to
determine the ‘state of play’ in regards to the ecological policies and praxis of the subject
denominations. Internet searches were supported by following-up any significant leads or
literature revealed through this approach via email, telephone or face-to-face interviews with
individuals and/or organisations identified on-line or otherwise known to be potential sources
for data, particularly that which is not accessible on-line.
A consideration in my choice of an Internet-based search was that I did not have any of the
‘insider’ contacts and information that a researcher who was also a Christian environmentalist
might have. I had to learn afresh about the structures and specialised terminology associated
with the three subject denominations. The Internet proved to be an effective way of obtaining
much of this information and using it to gain more specific data about Christian
environmentalism.
The Internet is now a significant source of information for people seeking information in
general and particularly for those looking for religio-spiritual information. In October 2004, the
monitoring firm Nielson//NetRatings, stated that 66% of the Australian population made use of
the Internet. The Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne quotes unverified data that “more people
use the Internet to find information on religion and spirituality than have gambled on-line,
86
traded stocks on-line, or banked on-line”84 in stating his belief that the Anglican Church should
have a strong Internet presence.
The Reverend Michael Raiter, Lecturer at Moore Theological College in Sydney
introduced a lecture85 by stating:
“If you conduct a net search on the Web - which is increasingly the place to
start when researching a topic - and look up the websites about religion then
you enter into a vast universe of information. If you narrow down your
search to a topic such as ‘Spirituality’ you come across a myriad of sites,
such as one called simply GOD.com. GOD.com proudly announces that
spirituality is the biggest thing on the World Wide Web. In a world hungry
for experience and satisfaction, religion is more popular than sex. It boasts
that if one asks the Internet search engine Alta Vista to locate sites related to
‘Sex’ it will return 683,643 documents. However, request ‘God’ and it lists
nearly three times as many: 1,772,945. So, the Internet which is often
portrayed as the domain of sin and sleaze is even more the home of the
supernatural and the spiritual.”
The National Church Life Survey of 2001 revealed, “31% of Australian churches use the
internet or email to communicate with attendees. The highest users of email and the internet
were Baptist (53%), Pentecostal (54%) and small Protestant denominations (55%). Usage at
mainstream denominations such as Anglican, Catholic and Uniting ranged between 20% and
30% of churches” (Bellamy, 2005). Given that Australia has a very high rate of increase in
Internet usage (Lloyd & Bill, 2001), it is expected that these figures will have grown
significantly by 2005-6 when most of the Internet research for this thesis was undertaken. NCLS
researcher, Ruth Powell is quoted86 as believing that the rate of Internet use is “much higher”
than in 2001. The 2006 NCLS will provide data about the rate of Internet and email usage in
this context but this information was not available in mid-2007. The gathering of such
information has been a part of the US equivalent of the NCLS, the National Congregation Study
since at least 1998 (Scheitle, 2005).
Sam Sterland, (NCLS Research, pers. comm., 09/05) noted that the Uniting Church (NSW
Synod) was then in the process of appointing a minister to develop on-line content, indicating
the extent to which it values the Internet as a ministry tool.
The Internet is also increasingly used as a research tool, including in the field of religion.
In the late 1990’s, Spuler, 2000, made significant use of the Internet and group newsletters
when investigating the characteristics of Buddhism in Australia, and reported that she found it
useful. The three Christian denominations that are investigated in this thesis are much larger and
84 http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/intro/welcome.html accessed 05/05.
85 viewable at http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/383a/
86 http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=3536
87
more established than Buddhism in Australia (Spuler, 2000), and Spuler’s work was conducted
several years ago, when Internet use was far lower than at present.
Scheitle, 2005, used external website hyperlinks as an indication of the social (functional)
and symbolic (notional) boundaries of a subset of congregations in the USA during 2004. I
adopt a version of his method in this thesis. I examine interconnecting hyperlinks on Church
websites to indicate the extent of connectivity between the ecological policies, policy-making
bodies, and points of praxis within the various parts of the Churches. External hyperlinks on
Church websites can also signal interaction or endorsement of Christian and secular
environmental organisations where the Church website links to, for example, the website of the
Australian Conservation Foundation.
In an article entitled, ‘Religion and science’, (Bainbridge, 2004), used a “massive”
Internet-based questionnaire to address attitudes towards the future of religion, science and any
relationship between them.
In mid 2005, the following comment on the move of the Church into the Internet appeared
on the ABC’s Religion Report website: “It’s been reported in Britain this week that thousands
of worshippers are listening to sermons on their iPods and other MP3 players. One Anglican
vicar posted some of his homilies on the online music store iTunes, and he was astonished when
two and a half thousand people downloaded them. He said it was wonderful to see technology
enabling the church to remain in contact with people who were ‘believers rather than
belongers’87. It’s called podcasting - or ‘Godcasting’, if you will” (Rutledge, 2005).
All of the three of the Christian denominations that are the subject of this thesis have a
substantive Internet presence, with some having extensive links within and between their
organisations, sometimes extending from the national administrative level through to regional
bodies and down to an individual church. Thus, in researching mainstream Christianity’s
ecological policy and praxis, I considered the primary use of the Internet to be sound.
However, at scales below the national level, subsidiary organisations such as the regional
administrative and semi-autonomous units known as a diocese (Anglican and Catholic
Churches), did not always have substantive websites and few had internal search engines that
could be used to search for key terms such as ‘ecological’ and ‘environmental’. In such cases,
manual searches were necessary.
87 The phenomenon of Christians who remain believers (i.e. affiliate as Christian) but who do not attend
church or do not attend frequently and may not associate with a denomination is discussed by authors
such as Millikan, 1981; Tacey, 2000, 2003; and Bouma, 2006. This is a growing phenomenon described
as the deinstitutionalisation of religion.
88
This situation was much more restrictive at the parish level, (which represents a local
grouping of churches), and at the individual church level, with very few parishes or churches
having their own substantive websites. An exception was found in the diocese of Adelaide,
where numerous parish websites were listed, though several of the links failed, possibly because
these sites had been moved or closed. In some situations, content relating to local and regional
environmental policy and praxis was available via the website of the next highest administration
level.
Whilst the relatively poor availability of on-line information at the finer scale of Church
organisation is a constraint, I initially considered this to be of little consequence because the
hierarchical structure of the Churches indicated that matters such as ecological policy would be
primarily a top-down process. I also believed that information about organisationally endorsed
praxis would also be likely to be evident on the websites of the higher levels of Church
organisation, i.e. national and regional bodies. It was only much later into the research process
that I found evidence to suggest that my assumptions were only partially valid.
6.5.2 Data collection – the ‘web’
My Internet research commenced in late 2004, with most conducted in 2005 and 2006. I
revisited some key websites in 2007. The use of at least two searches for most of the websites
that were initially found to have some ecological content proved to be useful in revealing the
rate and nature of ‘greening’ in these parts of the Churches.
Data collection entailed visiting each of the three subject denominations’ official websites,
following any links that seemed relevant to ecological policy and action, and where available,
using internal search features to look for pages containing keywords such as ‘ecology’,
‘environment’, ‘ecojustice’ and variants thereof. As my focus was on the official Internet
presence of the denominations, the data was not subject to the problems of credibility that
would be associated with a general search of the Internet for any relevant material. Where I
followed links from official websites to off-site locations, I was careful to evaluate the extent to
which any of the information was representative of the official position of the Churches or parts
thereof88.
The kinds of policy material that I searched for included official statements (for example
encyclicals, pastoral letters, and synod decisions), religious teachings (liturgy), open letters,
issue-specific publications, and media releases. The boundaries as to what is and what is not
88 I obtained training in the skilled evaluation of Internet-based information as part of my completion of a
Graduate Certificate in Information Literacy at the ANU.
89
policy in this context are often unclear. This is partly because the Churches do not necessarily
produce formal policy statements in the same way that governments or business corporations
do. Whilst all three Churches have bodies that deal with ecological policy, they have
significantly different forms, with substantial implications for the nature, development,
availability and implementation of ecological policy. Some of these differences are connected
with long-established administrative and power structures in each denomination. Information
about the different structures and their implications for policy and praxis are contained in
subsequent chapters.
I made extensive use of hyperlinks in compiling the results of the research, particularly
where the link is to a relatively large document. Whilst these were active when researched,
some will have changed by the time this thesis is published. Indeed, during the research phase
of this thesis, several of the relevant sites were redesigned, sometimes extensively, indicating
that the denominations that operate them are expanding or at least updating their on-line
presence. Others were several years out of date and did not change during the course of
research.
Manual searches of websites did not consistently extend to checking all documents, such
as archived newsletters, for ecological policy content. In most instances, I checked recent
newsletters, event calendars and any similar links for relevant content. Checks included manual
scanning or software-based searches of the text where the documents were in the PDF format.
Unless specific information was detected or otherwise received, investigations did not extend to
the parish level.
I also used the Internet in the form of email communication between myself and research
participants, as well as other interested parties. Some of this communication was through
existing email lists relating to Christian and multifaith ecological policy and praxis, for example
Faith and Environment Network. I mention some of these contacts in the following section.
I also used the Internet to establish two Yahoo Groups where participants could share
information on religious and spiritually motivated environmentalism. I did not use either of
these groups in a formal manner, but they played a role in networking and building contacts.
The Christian Ecojustice Group that I established was the more academically oriented and
national of the two Groups and I used it in part to discuss and share some of my research
findings. It also revealed some of the policy and praxis challenges facing the Churches. It
included researchers, authors, ministers (including Australia’s first ‘ecominister’), Christian
ecojustice activists, and members of Church ecological policy and praxis bodies. The other
group arose from a local interfaith workshop in Canberra on ‘spirituality and the environment’.
With its broader field of interest and a small geographic range, it was less relevant to this thesis.
90
I do not specifically report the information generated by these Groups in this thesis, in part
because of the relatively small volume of material generated but also because it was not
intended to be used in a formal way. Consequently, I did not ask participants whether any
information they supplied could be used in this research. I did not perceive there to be any need
for or value in seeking such consent retrospectively. Any information used in the thesis that
derives from the Groups is used anonymously to protect participants’ identities.
6.6 Policy research beyond the ‘web’
In addition to the above techniques, I used existing hardcopy and off-line digital
documentation (for example CD-ROM publications) in the literature review and as a source of
references and links. In some cases, my initial search of Church websites provided links to
important hardcopy literature. The majority of this material was not available through
conventional academic literature searches, in part because it was intended for use exclusively
within the Churches, and they have their own distribution networks.
Other research methods that I employed included attending a meeting of Catholic
Earthcare Australia’s Council to discuss my work, and attending and taking extensive notes
from CEA’s first national conference on climate change. I also presented some findings from
my research at a series of workshops held by a local (Canberra) Uniting Church group who were
in the process of preparing what they later called their ‘Ecojustice Charter’. Because of that
presentation and my input into other workshop sessions, I became the facilitator of the plenary
session and of the process that preceded the drafting of the Charter. I did not intend that my
involvement in these workshops be used as a formal research tool, however it did provide some
insights into the processes of grassroots ecological policy formation in the Uniting Church, and
it yielded some useful information about the associated challenges.
I also employed telephone and face-to-face conversations with some key people within the
subject denominations to obtain information. I obtained some of these contacts through network
‘snowballing’; for example, they may have come to my attention through various email lists. I
used such contacts to obtain material that might not be on-line because of its currency; because
it was in draft form; and/or because of its sensitivity to public exposure. In many cases, these
contacts also provided an insight into the history of policy development, and the issues affecting
praxis. They often provided a knowledge that greatly improved my understanding of the context
in which policies had arisen.
91
Some of the key contacts included:
• Col Brown, an environmental lawyer and inaugural CEO of Catholic Earthcare Australia
(until late 2006);
• Bishop Chris Toohey, inaugural Chairman of Catholic Earthcare Australia (until 2006);
• Dr Bill Castleden, Chairman of Doctors for the Environment and a former organiser of
Anglican and broader environmentalism in southwest Western Australia;
• Cath James, Environmental Project Officer & leader of the Uniting Church’s Earth Team;
• Bishop George Browning, principal author of the Anglican Church’s national
‘environmental statement’, and Chairman of the international Anglican Communion
Environment Network;
• Reverend Professor Barry Leal, ecotheologian, author, and founder of the Earth Ministry
program within the Uniting Church (Sydney);
• Emeritus Professor Campbell Macknight an influential figure in Uniting Church ecological
policy and a long-term member of the Australian Conservation Foundation;
• Reverend Peter Walker, a local Uniting Church minister and keen advocate of ecological
reform within the Church;
• Vernon Bailey, a committed and practical environmentalist and the leader of a process of
ecological reform in his local Uniting Church congregation;
• Dr Catherine Baudains, a member of the National Anglican Working Group and an
academic at Murdoch University; and
• Deborah Guess, a PhD student in ecotheology, and a member of the Environment
Commission and the Social Responsibilities Committee of the Anglican Diocese of
Melbourne.
I also gathered information and contacts through publicising my research in a variety of
formats as described below:
• I had a letter about my research published in The Web (newsletter of the Threatened
Species Network, which had earlier run two articles about an aspect of Church
environmental action in Tasmania). The letter called for input from readers who knew of
examples of mainstream Christian environmental praxis relating to land management. I
received several responses from a diversity of interested people. It was apparently
reproduced in the newsletter of the Tasmanian Greens and it generated a particularly useful
response from that source;
92
• I had a similar letter published in Insights (newsletter and e-zine of the UCA NSW Synod);
• I had a letter about my research published in the August newsletter of Sustainable
Population Australia in reply to another letter to the editor which had called for strong
protests against the Churches (in general) based on their alleged inaction on ecological
matters;
• I had an article published in the newsletter of Friends Of Grasslands about existing and
prospective collaboration between church groups and field naturalists in the protection and
management of significant biota on Church lands;
• An article about my work was published in the newsletter of the Australian Association of
Bush Regenerators (this was apparently a ‘snowballed’ article derived from another
publication as I didn’t submit anything directly to AABR);
• I wrote an article that was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Australasian Plant
Conservation, about the prospects for ecologists and related practitioners to assist the
Churches in managing their estates to protect natural heritage values such as remnant flora
(see Douglas, 2006b);
• I had a similar article published in Environment NSW, the newsletter of the Nature
Conservation Council of NSW (special edition on the theme of collaboration) (see
Douglas, 2006a); and
• I attempted on several occasions to have an article or letter about my research published in
the Australian Conservation Foundation’s ‘Habitat’ magazine but I received no replies to
emails or faxes. An executive member of the ACF later told me that this is typical of the
magazine’s operation and not a reflection of antipathy towards my research.
6.7 Summary of constraints and boundaries
The methods used in this thesis have several constraints, some of which are the result of
deliberate boundary judgements, such as my primary focus on institutional policy, and others
are inherent in the method itself.
The dataset that I gather from the Internet is only ever a snapshot of what I encountered
during the search period. It can become dated as soon as it is gathered. The latter occurs in
situations where the website investigated is already out of date, i.e. not representative of the
current policy and praxis situation.
I have not assumed that all of the information relating to the Churches’ ecological policy
and praxis will be available on-line. Even though I employed other methods to extend my
search beyond that which was on the Internet, the information that I obtained will not be
93
comprehensive. At the higher levels of the Churches, my information will be as comprehensive
as was readily and publicly available. However, at the lower levels, and in relation to the more
peripheral parts of the Churches such as their religious orders, it will be far from
comprehensive.
International literature such as Mische, 2000; McFarland Taylor, 2002, 2007b, a, indicates
that there are good reasons to prioritise bottom-up policy and more particularly, grassroots
praxis. These and other authors have suggested that most ecological praxis occurs at the
grassroots level and that there is a large gap between this and the top-down and largely
symbolic institutional policies. However, in this thesis, I have prioritised top-down institutional
policy, though I have attempted to capture at least some of the bottom-up policy and praxis, in
part because there is inevitably a blurring of these two forces when it comes to praxis. For
example, when searching for praxis based on institutional top-down policy, one can encounter
praxis that is driven by grass-roots policy, by top-down policy or a mix. I prioritised the top-
down institutional policy and related praxis partially because very few researchers appear to
have used this approach within Australia, and I did not want to rely on inferences drawn from
North American research.
Below the level of the regional bodies such as the dioceses (Anglican and Catholic) and the
synods (UCA), the Internet search is very limited in its scope. However, this was not considered
a major constraint because of my focus on institutional policy and because of the at least
nominally hierarchical nature of the institutions. I assumed that most of the substantive
ecological policy would be top-down. However, this did not address bottom-up praxis. In
addition, when I tested the availability of Internet-based information below the diocese and
synod levels, relatively little was available.
Whilst I focus on policy and related praxis, there is another more regulatory aspect to the
Churches in the form of denominational laws. I specifically avoid any exploration of
denominational Church law or any laws made by governments that affect the operation of the
Churches. In the latter case, what little body of law exists predates any notion of the Churches
having ecological responsibilities or indeed the concept of ‘the environment’. Such laws relate
primarily to property and associated financial aspects of administration.
In the case of Church (or ‘Canon’) law, I do not address this area because despite extensive
literature and Internet searches, I am unaware of ecological issues being addressed in this way at
an institutional level. However, the Anglican notion of Canon Law is such that where a diocese
or even a parish passes a formal regulation, such as the need for all new buildings to meet
ecological criteria, such regulations are deemed to be ‘law’. For the purposes of this thesis, I
treat any such ‘law’ as policy.
94
Chapter 7: Church structures and their
relevance to ecological policies and
praxis
7.1 Introduction
This chapter provides background information about the Catholic, Anglican and Uniting
Churches of Australia that is important for understanding their ecological policies and praxis. I
first provide some international context relating to the organisational and associated policy-
formulation structures of the denominations. I then provide some policy analysis. I provide
information about the organisational structure of the Churches only to the extent that it is useful
for understanding how this influences ecological policy-making and praxis. For detailed
information about the organisational structure and demographics of the Anglican, Catholic, and
Uniting Churches in Australia, refer to the relevant chapters in Hughes, 2004b.
7.2 International context
A notable difference between the Anglican and Catholic Churches of Australia is that the
Anglican Church is wholly self-governed and not answerable to the Archbishop of Canterbury
in the UK. The only external ecclesiastical authority that could significantly direct the
ecological operations of the Anglican Church of Australia is the international Anglican
Communion. If the Australian Church made Canon Law or policy, or took action in strong
contrast to the official Anglican Doctrine as determined by its international Lambeth
Conferences, it could be removed from the Communion but is otherwise free to do as it sees fit.
This arrangement within Anglicanism contrasts with that in the Catholic Church of
Australia, which is directly answerable to the Vatican, particularly on matters of Canon Law and
theology. The Vatican has the capacity to take far stronger actions than simply disassociating
itself from its Australian branch, and it can directly instruct Australian bishops on matters of
denominational law and policy. As the Vatican appoints bishops, it can also remove them from
office.
The Uniting Church of Australia is even more independent than the Anglican Church of
Australia and it is not answerable to any international ecclesiastical body, though it is associated
with the international Reformed Churches movement.
Because the Catholic Church of Australia is not as autonomous as the Anglican and
Uniting Churches of Australia, it is particularly important to provide some international context
before considering this denomination’s ecological policy within Australia. Councils that are
95
interpreted by the Vatican, which is headed by the Pope, determine the official ecotheological
position of the Roman Catholic Church. This forms a significant part of the context in which
Australian Catholic Church policy and praxis occur.
7.2.1 The Roman Catholic Church
I intend that the following information serve as background to the policies and praxis of
the Catholic Church of Australia. Rue, 2006, provides a relatively current and more detailed
history of the Catholic Church’s attitudes towards Nature in Australia. Dixon, 2005, provides a
detailed explanation of the denomination’s organisational structure and demographics as an
update of that provided by Hughes, 2004b.
A Council of all bishops produced the 1965 Vatican II statement. It called on all Catholics
to “cooperate with people of good will to find solutions to the problems of our time”, but the
ecological crisis was not specifically mentioned. The recent history of the Catholic Church’s
involvement with environmentalism substantially began when Pope Paul VI commented
officially on the Church’s recognition of the “environmental duties” of the Church and its
members’ in 1971. This is reported to be a result of the primary Catholic aid agency, Caritas,
recognising that its social welfare cause was linked with ecological concerns89. The Pope had
earlier made an important ecotheological statement in his address to the Council of the then
World Wildlife Fund in 1969: “The image of the Creator must shine forth ever more clearly, not
only in his creature man, but in all of his creation in nature” (cited in Morris, c.2002).
Pope Paul VI then made a speech to the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment (also known as the Stockholm Conference) in which he proclaimed a strong
environmentalist message90. Whilst the Church has altered the theology in that statement
somewhat in more recent times, Pope Paul VI nonetheless uttered some significant statements
such as:
“So man is warned of the necessity of replacing the advance, often blind and
turbulent, of material progress left to its dynamism alone, with respect for
the biosphere in an overall vision of his domain, which has become ‘one
Earth’, to quote the fine motto of the Conference”.
Whilst not specifically mentioning the environment, in 1979 Pope John Paul II stated that:
“Christians will want to be in the vanguard in favouring ways of life that
decisively break with the frenzy of consumerism, exhausting and joyless.
89 Originally stated at http://www.columban.org.au/cmi/cmi_pej_lit03.htm, this link no longer exists on
the revamped Columban website.
90 http://conservation.catholic.org/pope_paul_vi.htm
96
We must find a simple way of living. For readiness to create a greater and
more equitable solidarity between peoples is the first condition for peace.”
It seems that the Pope’s next official involvement in ecological policy matters occurred at
the interfaith dialogue on religious attitudes towards Nature in 1986 and which lead to the
formation of The Alliance of Religion & Conservation.
The Catholic Catechism (which I understand to be the equivalent of a corporate
mission/belief statement or central policy document) had been gradually updated in a manner
that progressively lent support to the environmentalist cause. It was amended to “put respect for
the integrity of creation as central to faith” in 1994.
The publication, ‘Let the many coastlands be glad’, written as a pastoral letter from the
Catholic Bishops of Queensland provides some more recent background to the Church’s
ecological policy position through statements from Pope John Paul II.
In his New Year Message for 1990 (released 08/12/89) entitled ‘Peace with God the
creator – peace with all of creation’, the late Pope stated “Christians in particular, realise that
responsibility within creation and their duty towards nature and the Creator, are an essential part
of their faith.”91 In the same Message, the Pope made the significant comment that “The
ecological crisis is a moral issue…”.
In his 1999 New Year Message, Pope John Paul II warned “the danger of serious damage
to land and sea, and to the climate, flora and fauna, calls for a profound change in modern
society’s typical consumer life-style, particularly in the richer countries.”
Again in 2001 in his General Audience at the Vatican, he described disregard for the
integrity of Creation as “humiliating…the earth, that flower-bed that is our home”, and he called
Catholics to participate in “ecological conversion” to avoid planetary “catastrophe”. In 2003,
Pope John Paul II released a book of his poems, approximately one third of which are devoted
to Creation themes (Brown, 2003).
The late Pope also issued a regional document entitled ‘Ecclesia in Oceania’, in which he
describes the theological basis for requiring respect for the Creation. He declared, “It is the task
of human beings to care for, preserve, and cultivate the treasures of creation” and stressed that
“natural beauty of Oceania has not escaped the ravages of human exploitation”, calling on the
Churches of Oceania to care for features such as coral reefs and kelp forests.
91 Other quotes from that speech are shown at http://www.columban.org.au/cmi/cmi_pej_lit00.htm
97
The international Catholic Church has produced numerous documents and proclamations
relating to its stance on ecological issues in general. Some of these include:
• ‘Peace with God the Creator - peace with all of Creation: General audience address of
Pope John Paul II: Message for the celebration of the World Day of Prayer for Peace,
1990’;
• ‘Declaration on environment’: signed by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of
Constantinople, Italy, 2002; and
• ‘The human person, the heart of peace’ (see the subsection: The ecology of peace):
Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the celebration of the World Day of
Peace, January 200792.
At the time of writing, it was not yet fully apparent whether Pope Benedict XVI would
maintain the relatively ‘green’ stance of his predecessor. Indeed, in various on-line fora and in
emails, it was evident that at least some of the ecologically progressive Catholics in Australia
were very concerned that the new Pope would take a decidedly backward step in this regard.
Well before Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, Catholic author and
environmentalist Sean McDonagh expressed his concerns about the Cardinal’s views:
“Pope John Paul's (then) recent concern for the environment is not shared so
enthusiastically by other key figures in the Vatican. Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger… criticised environmentalists (and) threw cold water on the
ecumenical meeting in Assisi (dealing with ecological concerns)... For
Ratzinger, the Greens93 are a blend of ill-defined romanticism with elements
of Marxism and even stronger strains of liberalism – none of which he has
much time for. According to Ratzinger, the Greens’ synthesis is based on a:
‘somewhat antithetical, somewhat antirational concept of man as united to
nature. It is a concept that has an antihumanist element. It presents man as
having, by his thinking and action, destroyed the beauty and equilibrium that
once existed94. That would mean that man had moved backward in regard to
himself. That seems to me the position of one who no longer recognises
himself in himself, who even has a kind of hate of himself and his history’”
(McDonagh, 1990 p191).
92 World Day of Peace message
93 McDonagh is referring to environmentalists generally, not to The Greens as a national or international
political party.
94 There is no doubt that this is exactly what “Man” [sic] has done. The problem with the then Cardinal’s
position is essentially one of denial linked to anthropocentric Cornucopianism. It appears that in later
statements, he came to accept that humans have harmed and can potentially destroy or at least greatly
degrade ‘the Garden of Eden’. Some of the then Cardinal’s concerns may relate to an aspect of some
forms of Deep Ecology which even many outside Christianity would agree is ‘antihumanist’. However, it
is unreasonable to view misanthropy or even the notion of humans as morally equal to all other beings, as
broadly typical of environmentalism.
98
McDonagh’s concerns about then Cardinal Ratzinger’s views are yet to be fully allayed.
However, during 2005 and 2006, some statements emerged from the Vatican to suggest that
Pope Benedict was not inclined or perhaps able to revert to the decidedly anti-environmentalism
orientation for which he was previously known. The first such statement was contained in the
Homily of Pope Benedict 16, Sunday 24th April 2005, which in part said:
“The external deserts in the world are growing, because the internal deserts
have become so vast. Therefore, the earth’s treasures no longer serve to
build God’s garden for all to live in, but they have been made to serve the
powers of exploitation and destruction. The Church as a whole and all her
Pastors, like Christ, must set out to lead people out of the desert, towards the
place of life, towards friendship with the Son of God, towards the One who
gives us life, and life in abundance” (Homily of Pope Benedict 16, Sunday
24th April 2005).
This text was cited by Bishop Toohey (inaugural Chairman of Catholic Earthcare
Australia) as the first indication of what Pope Benedict’s ecological policy might be (DeBlas,
2005).
Perhaps the most notable ecological policy statement by the new Pope is contained in ‘The
ecology of peace’ section of his January 2007 World Day of Peace message95:
“Alongside the ecology of nature, there exists what can be called a ‘human’
ecology, which in turn demands a ‘social’ ecology. All this means that
humanity, if it truly desires peace, must be increasingly conscious of the
links between natural ecology, or respect for nature, and human ecology.
Experience shows that disregard for the environment always harms human
coexistence, and vice versa. It becomes more and more evident that there is
an inseparable link between peace with creation and peace among men. Both
of these presuppose peace with God. The poem-prayer of Saint Francis,
known as ‘the Canticle of Brother Sun’, is a wonderful and ever timely
example of this multifaceted ecology of peace.”
The next paragraph of the Pope’s message rightly raises concerns of inequitable access to
material resources and the associated conflicts that arise. Nothing is said of concerns relating to
non-human Nature other than in the most general and cursory sense. The ecologically relevant
sections of the Pope’s message are anthropocentric and instrumentalist. However, there are only
two paragraphs of the relatively short statement that focus on ecological concerns and the
primary theme of the message is peace.
95 Link to the Pope’s World Day of Peace message
99
Further evidence of deep anthropocentrism and instrumentalism is evident in Pope
Benedict’s official message to the President of the Pontifical Academy of Social Science at its
meeting on the 28th April 200796:
“Everything that the earth produces and all that man transforms and
manufactures, all his knowledge and technology, is meant to serve the
material and spiritual development and fulfilment of the human family and
all its members…. It is the duty of all peoples to implement policies to
protect the environment in order to prevent the destruction of that natural
capital whose fruits are necessary for the well-being of humanity…”
Pope Benedict also refers to “sustainable growth”, something that is by definition,
impossible. No mention is made of any regard for non-human Nature other than as something
that is to serve humans. Whilst Pope Benedict’s earlier anti-environmentalism stance has
apparently mellowed, it seems that he is intellectually weighed down by the depth and duration
of anthropocentrism in the Western Christian tradition, and arguably in Western society in
general.
This thesis examines not only Church ecological policy but also whether and to what
extent it is converted to praxis. In this regard, it is notable that in August 2007, the Vatican
launched a budget airline for Catholic pilgrims.97 The Vatican already part owned freight
airline, Mistral Air, and it will use two of its jets to fly passengers to select world pilgrimage
sites. This venture appears to be in complete conflict with notions of reducing ones’ ecological
impact. Jet air travel has notoriously substantial impacts on climate change.98
7.2.2 The Anglican Communion
As noted earlier, the Australian Anglican Church is not governed by an external
organisation such as its denominational parent, the Church of England99. Whilst it is largely
independent, the Australian Anglican position on ecological matters needs to be understood in
the international context of the Doctrine of the Anglican Communion, which is still significantly
influenced by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England.
A lecture by the Archbishop of Canterbury given at the University of Kent in March 2005
and entitled ‘Ecology & Economy’100 provides a relatively accessible perspective on his view of
environmental matters as does his letter to UK political party leaders produced prior to the
96 Link to the Pope’s Letter to the President of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences
97 http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53138
98 See for e.g. Monbiot, 2007 and Mackintosh & Downie, 2007.
99 See http://www.anglican.org/church/ChurchGovern.html for further information about the structure and
governance of the Anglican Church.
100 http://www.aco.org/acns/digest/archive.cfm?years=2005&months=3&article=335&pos=#335
100
national election101. A link to the Environment Policy on the Church of England website also
provides important context and is notable for its overt inclusion of ethical investment
considerations102.
The Church of England’s Mission & Public Affairs Council has also produced a briefing
document for the Synod in relation to environmental matters103. Whilst focused on UK-related
issues, it also has a global aspect and some important theological information that helps to
understand at least some of the broader Anglican perspective.
The Anglican Communion participated in the World Summit on Sustainable Development
held in Johannesburg during September 2002. The subsequent Anglican Consultative Council,
following the Summit's conclusion resolved to:
“support actions in the five key areas identified by the Summit, namely
water and sanitation, energy, health, agricultural productivity, and
biodiversity and ecosystem management; add its voice of concern and
support to those calling for a renewed and committed international approach
to the control of those processes which increase global warming and affect
climate change; and urge each member church of the Anglican Communion
to celebrate the Sunday nearest to 1st June, World Environment Day as
Environment Sunday in order to raise environmental awareness across the
Communion.”
Also in 2002, the Global Anglican Congress on the ‘Stewardship of Creation’ took place
and provides additional international context to the Australian Anglican response104. It reveals
that the environmentalist reformation of institutional Anglicanism significantly commenced
after the 1998 Lambeth Conference and the subsequent resolution by the bishops of the
Anglican Communion to address the ‘environmental challenge’. To quote the Commission for
the Environment of the Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn, “Lambeth saw the environment as
one of the key issues of our time, recognising it as a moral issue and not just a matter of good
housekeeping” (my emphasis). The document from the 2002 Congress suggests that despite the
outcomes of the Lambeth Conference, the author is pleading for thorough and integrated
ecological reform that goes well beyond symbolic policy-making and platitudes, right down to
the detail of how each church and parishioner operates. It is also noteworthy that until the 1998
Conference, ecological concerns were not on the official agenda of the Anglican denomination.
This explains in part the relatively undeveloped response to ecological issues seen in the
Anglican Church of Australia at a national level when compared with its Catholic counterpart.
101 http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/abcletter.html
102 http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/ethical/policystatements/environment.pdf
103 http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/gsmisc767.rtf
104 http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/31/00/acns3108.html
101
The Lambeth Conference’s recognition of the ecological crisis as a moral issue rather than
simply an anthropocentric and instrumentalist concern is significant. The environmentalist
movement is dominated by arguments that privilege a form of science, perhaps because science
is, along with a form of economics, one of the two dominant knowledge systems of Western
society. Environmentalism has increasingly pushed its case on scientific and economic grounds,
with some believing these truths to be the whole story. Others know or feel that science and
economics are only partial truths but that they are the ‘languages’ that are more acceptable to
the bulk of society, or at least its decision-makers, than are the languages of morality and ethics.
Lambeth makes the connection between the scientific data such as the rates of species
extinction, levels of pollution, changes and forecast changes to climate, etc., and the moral
dimension in which these need to be seen. This is essentially a recognition of the difference
between supposedly objective ‘facts’ and the values that can be attached to them.
Recognition of the moral dimension of the ecological crisis appears to be a significant
catalyst, along with the increasingly clear impacts of ecological harm on people, especially the
poorest, in motivating the Churches to take a relatively strong policy stance in the debate,
especially in relation to global warming. It has also given a renewed voice to at least some
environmentalist groups and individuals who can now speak more confidently of the moral
dimension, even if they have to do so vicariously through the Church, for example, ‘Changing
climate: changing creation’, a publication of some Australian Church groups and the Australian
Conservation Foundation.
The global Anglican Communion is the international policy body for the Church but as
noted earlier, its role is primarily advisory. It includes a body called the Anglican Communion
Environmental Network (ACEN), which at the time of writing was chaired by Australian
Anglican Bishop George Browning. This group held its yearly meeting in Canberra in April
2005 and produced what appears to be its first significant policy document in the form of a
“Statement to the Anglican Communion”105. The Statement was officially noted and in June
2005, the Anglican Consultative Council, a major policy-making body of the Anglican
Communion, endorsed its recommendations.
105 http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/environment/downloads/pdf/ACENstatement%20May05.pdf
102
I have reproduced the minutes of the Councils meeting106 because of their significance for
Anglican Church ecological policy:
“The Anglican Consultative Council notes the Statement to the Anglican
Communion from the ACEN, and endorses its recommendation that all
Anglicans be encouraged to:
• recognise that global climatic change is real and that we are
contributing to the despoiling of creation;
• commend initiatives that address the moral transformation needed for
environmentally sustainable economic practices such as the Contraction
and Convergence process championed by the Archbishop of
Canterbury;
• understand that, for the sake of future generations and the good of
God’s creation, those of us in the rich nations need to be ready to make
sacrifices in the level of comfort and luxury we have come to enjoy;
• expect mission, vision and value statements to contain commitment to
environmental responsibility at all levels of church activity;
• educate all church members about the Christian mandate to care for
creation;
• work on these issues ecumenically and with all faith communities and
people of good will everywhere;
• ensure that the voices of women, indigenous peoples and youth are
heard;
• press government, industry and civil society on the moral imperative of
taking practical steps towards building sustainable communities.
Asks Provinces to take the following steps urgently:
• include environmental education as an integral part of all theological
training107;
• take targeted and specific actions to assess and reduce our
environmental footprint, particularly greenhouse gas emissions. Such
actions could include energy and resource audits, land management,
just trading and purchasing, socially and ethically responsible
investment;
• promote and commit ourselves to use renewable energy wherever
possible;
• revise our liturgies and our calendar and lectionaries in ways that more
fully reflect the role and work of God as Creator;
106 http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/39/75/acns3998.cfm
107 It is unclear whether this refers specifically to the training of clergy or to theological training in
general. If it refers to the former, it remains that there are no compulsory ecotheological or
‘environmental’ courses for trainee clergy amongst any of the three largest denominations in Australia.
103
• press for urgent initiation of discussions, which should include all
nations, leading to a just and effective development beyond the Kyoto
Protocol,;
• support the work of the World Council of Churches Climate Change
Action Group;
• bring before governments the imperative to use all means, including
legislation and removal of subsidies, to reduce greenhouse gases.”
The above represents a significant advancement in the ecological policy of the
international Anglican Church and forms the framework for related policy statements in
Australia. In terms of the criteria that I have established for my analysis of Church policy, the
Anglican Consultative Council’s statement is ecologically literate and grounded; goes beyond
rhetoric and ‘motherhood statements’ whilst providing an appropriate level of detail; and it
represents a ‘whole of Church’ approach that is both top-down and potentially bottom-up in
relation to policy refinement and implementation.
7.3 The national context – organisational structure
This section addresses national denominational structures to provide important context for
the Churches’ ecological policy-making and the effect that organisational divisions have on
their ability to implement policy. In each of the following chapters dealing with the policies and
praxis of each denomination, I discuss the bodies established by the Churches to formulate and
promulgate their ecological policies.
7.3.1 The Catholic Church of Australia
As discussed earlier, the Catholic Church of Australia is the most populous Australian
denomination in terms of both affiliation and membership. It is the largest religious institution
in the nation and has a large number of component organisations with varying degrees of
autonomy. The following quote is included because it is useful for understanding the nature of
the Catholic Church as an organisation within Australia:
“The Catholic Church in Australia is not a single organisation. Instead, it
helps to think of it as a large community of more than five million people,
which, like other communities of such magnitude, is itself made up of very
many smaller groups. Like groups in the Australian community as a whole,
some of these Catholic groups belong to clearly defined structures with
definite lines of authority, while others have a much looser relationship to
the central structure. The Catholic Church operates on a principle of
devolution of authority108, so that organisations within the Church have
varying degrees of autonomy and are responsible for their own finance and
108 An aspect of the broader notion of subsidiarity.
104
governance. …The structural relationships between these groups are very
complex, and it is not a simple matter to describe them.
Church structures can be considered to be of two types: those which relate to
dioceses, and those that transcend dioceses. The Australian Catholic
Bishops’ Conference, as well as Catholic religious orders and lay
organisations, are of the latter type. The work of Catholic organisations in
education, social welfare, social justice, development, health care and so on
involves both dimensions -- the diocesan and the transdiocesan -- and also
involves organisations ranging from national commissions to local parish
groups” (Dixon, 2004).
I obtained further very useful organisational information from the website of the Catholic
Diocese of Maitland/Newcastle109:
“In Australia, there are 32 dioceses in union with the pope. The Church
defines a diocese as ‘a portion of the people of God, which is entrusted to a
bishop’ or, as ‘a community of Christ’s faithful in communion of faith and
sacraments with their bishop110.’ A diocese usually has a defined territory
and comprises all the Catholics who live there: such is the case with 28 of
the Australian dioceses. However, there are also four dioceses covering the
whole country: one each for those who belong to the Ukrainian, Maronite
and Melkite rites and one for those who are serving in the Australian
Defence Forces111. The bishop ‘governs the particular Church (diocese)
entrusted to him with legislative, executive and judicial power, in
accordance with the law.’ The last phrase is important: not only are some
matters regularly reserved to the pope, but in other matters the rights and
responsibilities of individuals or groups within the Church are legally
defined112.
In addition to his governing office, the bishop is his diocese's chief teacher
of doctrine and leader of public worship. A bishop’s involvement in the
activities and institutions in his diocese is, in some instances, no more than
consent and encouragement; in others, advice and guidance; and, in others,
full ownership and direction. Dioceses are divided into parishes, each headed
by a parish priest, appointed by and accountable to the bishop. A parish is ‘a
certain community of Christ's faithful, stably established within a particular
Church’. Like dioceses, parishes are usually territorial, but need not be.
According to Church law, a parish is a juridical person and can own and
operate property and institutions. In Australia, most parish property is owned
by a diocesan body recognised in state law. For more information visit the
website of the Catholic Bishops of Australia.”
109 http://www.mn.catholic.org.au/about/ourfaith.htm
110 Bishops of both the Catholic and Anglican traditions are empowered under the doctrine of apostolic
succession. At their consecration, they are deemed to inherit the ‘powers’ of the biblical apostles. This has
implications for the extent and nature of their ecclesiastical authority.
111 This chapter deals only with the territorial dioceses and with transdiocesan bodies that have addressed
ecological policy and praxis.
112 Such legislation is termed ‘Canon Law’.
105
Dixon, 2004, 2005, provides further organisational information, along with some history
and demographics.
Writing on the topic of the political structure of the Catholic Church, Murray, 2006, notes
that one’s conclusion as to the Church’s political nature and functional structure depends on
how you see it: If you see the Pope alone, the Church is an “absolute monarchy”. When you see
the bishops working with the Pope, “it appears as a monarchy with an active nobility or
aristocracy. When bishops are seen in their own right and with authority in their own dioceses,
it appears as a tiered monarchy. It is clearly, then, a complex entity in which tensions calling for
adjustment are likely to arise.” In Australia, a subset of those tensions can be encountered in
much of the work of former Catholic priest, Dr Paul Collins (for example, 1995; 2000; 2004;
2007), and some of the publications of the reformist Catholic group, Catalyst for Renewal,
especially its founder, Rev. Dr. Michael Whelan (for example, 2006b; 2006a).
7.3.1.1 Catholic Earthcare Australia
The Catholic Church of Australia established Catholic Earthcare Australia (CEA) in 2002
to address the call of then Pope John Paul II for an ‘ecological conversion’ of the Church. CEA
is a transdiocesan and centralised body that functions as a specialist subcommittee of the
Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (ACBC) within its Justice & Service Commission. It is
now based in Canberra, presumably at least in part to reflect its national role and perhaps so that
it can be closer to the nation’s seat of political power. I discuss in detail the origins, nature, and
activities of CEA in the following chapter.
7.3.1.2 Diocesan social and ecological justice bodies
At the diocesan level, the Catholic Church has a variety of bodies that address ecological
concerns. Because of the prior existence of variously named social justice bodies, and the latter
addition of ecological concerns to the Catholic worldview, many of the Catholic diocesan
bodies that address ecological matters do so together with conventional social justice. Some of
the Catholic diocesan bodies have names that do not immediately reveal that ecological
concerns are now within their ambit. For example, some retain names such as the Commission
for Justice, Development & Peace. Others have specifically added ‘Ecology’ to the bodies’
names, and one example is closer to the Anglican approach, having a name that reflects its focus
on ecological matters, though almost exclusively through education.
The Catholic approach at the diocesan level contrasts that of the emerging Anglican
approach. The Anglicans tend to establish bodies that solely or at least primarily address
ecological concerns, though these need not operate outside the notion of ecojustice. This may be
because Anglican dioceses do not appear to have had a structure oriented towards social justice
106
concerns. Thus, they have created new bodies to deal with emergent ecological justice matters,
rather than adding ecological justice to existing social justice structures.
7.3.2 The Anglican Church of Australia
The Anglican Church is the second most populous denomination in Australia, with ~3.7
million affiliates (ABS, 2007). The structure of the Anglican Church is similar to that of the
Catholic Church. The primary holders of institutional power are the bishops, each of whom
governs a diocese. Dioceses are divided into parishes, which are groupings of individual
churches. The term ‘congregation’ is used variously to refer to a particular organisation within
the church, for example a Religious Order, but also to a group who attend a particular church.
“Archbishops are diocesan bishops with additional responsibilities as their particular diocese
provides leadership for the province, or group of dioceses within a particular state of Australia.
They are otherwise known as the Metropolitan” (Blombery, 2004) and are usually based in a
capital city. Archbishops sometimes have ‘auxiliary’ bishops to aid them or to work in specific
fields such as the defence forces.
There is not an Anglican equivalent to the cardinal of the Catholic tradition. However,
unlike the Catholic Church of Australia, which is governed by the Australian Catholic Bishops
Council, the Anglican Church has a single national leader termed the ‘Primate’ who presides
over the National Synod. As of 2006, the Anglican Primate was Phillip Aspinall, Archbishop of
Brisbane. Due to recent changes in procedures and to ongoing debate113 about the proper role of
the Primate, this appointment now has a relatively short fixed term of office – a situation very
similar to the role of the national President of the UCA.
In strict administrative terms, the Primate is largely a ceremonial position, yet increasingly
the position involves being the national spokesman for the Church, particularly in terms of
dealing with media interest and tensions within the international Anglican Communion. The
General Synod has been asked to consider making the position of Primate a full-time role,
potentially based in Canberra, rather than the current situation where the Primate is also
required to continue serving as the head of his (arch)diocese. The Primate does not have
authority over his fellow bishops, at least not in the context of ecological policy – a field that
remains outside the scope of current Church law.
The Anglican Church, originating from the Protestant Reformation, operates in a
somewhat more democratic manner than does the Catholic Church, though it is by no means as
113 See for e.g. http://www.anglican.org.au/docs/B3A7ivAppPrimacy.pdf which described the modern
role of the Primate and various attempts to modify that role – most of which appear to have failed, largely
due to diocesan and regional rivalries and an inherent conservatism in the Church.
107
democratic as the Uniting Church and is still a hierarchical theocracy. Some environmentalist
Anglican voices indicated to me that they see this as a significant factor in the relative
ecological policy stance and actions of these denominations. I suggest that the greater autonomy
of bishops within Anglicanism is a barrier to ecological reforms at the national level and to the
presentation of a consistent public position.
The autonomy of bishops is such that each has virtually independent control over
ecological policy and praxis matters. Because of this autonomy, one could expect to see
considerable variation between the dioceses’ ecological statements and actions, as these would
largely depend on the orientation of each bishop and on other regional and local change agents
within the Church.
7.3.2.1 Environment Working Group
As of March 2007, the Anglican Church uses an Environment Working Group as its
national ecological policy body. I discuss the origins and functions of the Group in Chapter 9.
Whilst CEA’s staff and budget are small, the national Anglican Environment Working Group
has neither staff nor a substantive budget. Such a situation is even worse than the norm
described by Millikan, 1981, p104: “The church departments which deal with these (justice)
matters are typically understaffed, overworked and constrained by financial difficulties.”
Despite its self-nominated agenda being relatively broad, the Working Group has been
effectively restricted to providing very limited policy advice to the Church and it has no ability
to implement policy outside its own very limited operations.
The Working Group fits the standard bureaucratic mould of the small and marginalised,
under-resourced ‘subcommittee’ of interested individuals that allows the Church-proper to
claim that it is doing something whilst simultaneously doing little or nothing at the national
level. Nonetheless, the Working Group was responsible for the production of the only national
Anglican ecological policy document and for getting the General Assembly to call on the
Federal Government to sign the Kyoto Protocol. I discuss these achievements in Chapter 9.
7.3.2.2 Diocesan Environment Commissions
Environment Commissions or similarly named bodies are sometimes, though rarely present
at the diocesan level. These bodies only have authority at that level and only exercise that
authority with the approval of the resident (arch)bishop. There is not a formal standard for their
structure, functions or terms of reference, though most are a variation on the model pioneered in
the Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn. Environment Commissions also exist in the archdioceses
of Adelaide and Melbourne, and the dioceses of Newcastle and Grafton. The Commissions
generally formulate policy and provide advice to their bishop, other diocesan bodies, parishes,
108
and potentially to the national Environment Working Group, though there is no formal
connection between diocesan bodies and the Working Group.
Because they are closer to the level at which most operational policy is implemented,
Diocesan Environment Commissions can have a direct role in driving praxis at the diocese and
parish level, as long as they have the support of their bishop. For example, a Commission can
recommend and gain support for a policy that requires all buildings and renovations in the
diocese to meet particular standards for energy and water use efficiency. A Commission can
also make a policy recommending that all electricity purchased by the diocese be ‘green power’.
However, in contrast to new buildings and renovations which are largely funded by and require
the formal consent of a diocesan authority, the purchasing of electricity within each parish is the
responsibility of each parish council, and as a result, it appears that they cannot be required to
buy ‘green power’, they can only be encouraged to do so.
The situation is different in parts of the diocesan organisation controlled by diocesan
bodies, for example aged care facilities. In such circumstances, the diocesan authorities can
decide on issues such as energy management. Such complex structures are based on what is
ultimately a Catholic Church principle of subsidiarity: namely, that authority should be vested at
the lowest level of the structure that it sensibly can be114. Thus, parish councils control the local
churches and related structures, but the diocese controls facilities that operate beyond the parish
scale, such as aged care facilities. Subsidiarity poses a serious constraint to the ability of
Diocesan Environment Commissions to convert their policies into diocese-wide praxis.
The structure of the Anglican Church is such that a diocesan Environment Commission
can, with the support of its bishop, formulate and implement a wide range of substantive
ecological policies that may have no formal connection with other ecological policies and praxis
within the national Church. This means that where there is a progressive Commission and
bishop, policy and praxis can be far ahead of and can even lead national developments. Indeed,
as is revealed in Chapter 9, it was the work of one or two of the first Diocesan Environment
Commissions that pushed the General Synod of the Anglican Church to form its Environment
Working Group.
With very little ecological policy-making at the national level, and with the administrative
implications of the Anglican Church’s structure, it is not surprising that most ecological policy-
making and praxis is seen at the diocesan level. However, as is discussed in the chapter dealing
with Anglican policy and praxis, both such activities are very patchy in their occurrence at the
114 Subsidiarity and its implications for the Churches’ implementation of ecological policy is discussed
further in section 11.1.4.
109
national scale. This is to be expected given the extent of theological diversity and even conflict
within the Anglican Church of Australia, which is increasingly dominated by the conservative,
Evangelical, growing, and large Archdiocese of Sydney115. Virtually all other parts of the
Anglican tradition in Australia are in steep decline and face problems with an ageing
membership and clergy, deficits of clergy, closures and amalgamations of churches and
parishes, and financial difficulties, especially at the parish level (see for example, Bouma,
2006).
7.3.3 The Uniting Church of Australia
The Uniting Church in Australia (UCA) formed in 1977 through the merger of the
Congregational Union, Methodist, and ~75% of the Presbyterian denominations. It is the third
most populous denomination in Australia behind the Catholic and the Anglican Churches. As of
2001, it had ~300,000 members and 1.3 million claimed associates (people who list their
religious affiliation as ‘Uniting Church’ in the 2001 national census) (ABS, 2001; Bellamy &
Castle, 2004). By 2006 its affiliates had declined to ~1.14 million (ABS, 2007).
In terms of weekly church attendance figures from 2001, the UCA still rates as third
largest but only just ahead of the Baptist and the Assemblies of God denominations (Bellamy &
Castle, 2004). The UCA has a far smaller number of members and claimed associates than
either the Anglican or Catholic Churches but its weekly attendance figures from 2001 were
relatively close to those for the Anglican Church in absolute terms and much higher than the
Anglican Church in relative terms (ABS, 2001; Bellamy & Castle, 2004; Brighton et al., 2004;
Bellamy, 2005). Of the three largest denominations ranked by membership and claimed
associates, the UCA has experienced and is predicted to experience the most dramatic rate of
loss of members and associates (ABS, 2001; Bellamy & Castle, 2004; Brighton et al., 2004;
Bellamy, 2005; Bouma, 2006).
The Church’s Internet home page116 states that the UCA has 48 schools and >20,000
employees engaged in community service work. As such, it is a significant institution, even by
corporate standards. It further notes that the UCA “has long taken a role in the political arena,
encouraging moral, social and ethical integrity…has been at the forefront of Aboriginal rights
issues… and has taken a stand on environmental issues…” (the inference being that this was a
progressive stance).
115 For further comment on the orientation and influence of the ‘Sydney Anglicans’ see for e.g. Tacey,
2000; Brighton et al., 2004; Carnley, 2004. Some commentators regard Sydney Anglicans as wholly
uncharacteristic of the denomination in Australia and there is some talk of a potential split that would see
the Sydney Anglicans form something like an Evangelical Anglican Church, similar in some ways to
forms of Anglicanism seen in the USA and in Africa.
116 http://www.uca.org.au/ or http://www.unitingchurch.org.au/
110
The UCA’s highest decision-making structure is its National Assembly117. The National
Assembly brings together the State/Territory-based organisations termed ‘synods’. ‘Synod’ is a
term also used in the Catholic and Anglican Churches but in that context it simply means
‘meeting’ and can take place at the diocesan, State/Territory, or national level. In the UCA,
‘synod’ refers to a particular organisational structure. The UCA divides Australia into 6 synods.
Northern Synod encompasses all of the Northern Territory, a portion of northern South
Australia and the northernmost section of Western Australia. Victoria and Tasmania are now
covered under a composite synod based in Melbourne, though this amalgamation is relatively
recent. The ACT is and apparently always was within the NSW Synod. South Australia,
Western Australia and Queensland have their own synods whose boundaries are similar to or
the same as those of each state.
Below the level of the synods are presbyteries, which are regional groups of churches –
akin to a version of the Catholic and Anglican dioceses, or parishes, depending on the
presbytery’s size. For example, the Northern Synod comprises two very large presbyteries that
are at least equal in area to the largest Anglican or Catholic dioceses. Because of its orientation
towards greater autonomy for its indigenous members, one of the two Northern Synod
presbyteries covers the whole area of the Synod but relates only to indigenous congregations
and ministries118. Similarly, the Synod of South Australia only has the one presbytery that
covers the same area. Yet in highly urbanised areas such as Sydney, presbyteries are numerous
and far smaller. Presbyteries are comprised of individual churches, congregations, patrols and
missions. In some remote and sparsely settled areas, there are no churches and no
congregations, but the Church maintains a roving presence through its ‘patrol staff’ attached to a
unit called Frontier Services119.
7.3.3.1 UnitingJustice
In March 2003, the Uniting Church established UnitingJustice120 as its national body that
jointly addresses “social and ecological justice and peace”. UnitingJustice is a reworking of
earlier administrative structures that placed ecological concerns under the former Assembly
Social Responsibility & Justice Committee. UnitingJustice is a body of the Church’s National
Assembly – an arrangement that equates to the placement of CEA as a body of the Catholic
Church’s Bishops Conference. The National Assembly placed ‘ecological justice’ matters
within UnitingJustice but specifically under the domain of a subsidiary Task Group. As of
117 http://assembly.uca.org.au/home/
118 See the Congregations link at http://ns.uca.org.au/
119 See for e.g. the Presbyteries link at http://ns.uca.org.au/
120 http://nat.uca.org.au/unitingjustice
111
23/03/06, the organisation’s website does not describe the structure, specific functions or
resources of this Task Group.
UnitingJustice Australia’s official mandate is to:
• “Pursue the most effective strategies for the realisation of the mission;
• Identify critical issues of national and international significance and
develop a considered position on these;
• Participate in public debate;
• Advocate on national policy issues;
• Educate, inform and resource the church, to engage in actions for social
and ecological justice and peace;
• Act on issues of injustice within the Church; and
• Advise Assembly, ASC, the President and the General Secretary.”
The decision not to have separate bodies for ecological and social justice matters is
consistent with the theology of ‘ecojustice’, in which it is recognised that, at least at a coarse
policy level, social and ecological justice are interlinked. This organisational structure sets the
UCA’s approach apart from that of the Catholic and Anglican Churches, which maintain
separate bodies for dealing with these nominal fields. Whilst keeping social and ecological
justice concerns under the one organisation has potential benefits in terms of promoting a more
holistic approach, it also means that scarce resources such as staff are shared between these two
fields.
It also remains evident that despite combining the nominal fields of social and ecological
justice, the organisation and the Church still treat them as substantially separate matters, only
occasionally interconnecting them and then, mainly in the case of more obvious interactions
such as the clearing of rainforest and resultant water pollution in ‘developing’ nations.
However, I am not aware of any arm of government in Australia that manages to fully integrate
the bureaucratic domains of ‘environment’ and ‘welfare’ or social policy in general. Tackling
the requirements of ecojustice on its own terms requires addressing anthropocentrism and some
deep philosophical, political and administrative divisions that extend well beyond any of the
Churches.
UnitingJustice provides and implements ecological policy but only has advisory power
outside its own domain unless specifically empowered by the National Assembly to which it is
answerable. It does not have the power to direct lower administrative levels such as the state-
level Synods or parts thereof.
As of March 2006, the UnitingJustice website provided a central repository of the
denomination’s ecological policies in the form of position papers, national assembly resolutions,
112
resources for congregations, and submissions121. However, access to this material via the
denomination’s home page is not so direct and requires either knowledge of the structures and
functions within the Church, or the use of the internal search engine. There is no direct link to
UnitingJustice from the home page, despite the fact that links are provided to two other national
Church organisations.
7.3.3.2 Synod and presbytery bodies
Similar to the Anglican Church, the UCA has a small number of ecological policy and
praxis bodies at the sub-national level, with the primary example being the Earth Team that
operates in the Synod of Victoria/Tasmania and its minor derivative in the Synod of New South
Wales. Only the Victorian/Tasmanian Earth Team had any substantial on-line presence or
recognition in publicly available Synod documents during the period of this research. It has a
part-time staff member based in Melbourne and is administratively part of the Synod’s Justice
and International Mission section. Smaller scale presbytery (the equivalent of a diocese) or
individual church bodies concerned with ecological policy and praxis may exist but lack a
readily detected on-line presence.
The state-based Synod structure of the UCA may be an important structural difference to
the other denominations in relation to the formulation and implementation of ecological policy.
UCA Synods are essentially far larger versions of the diocesan administration seen in the
Catholic and Anglican Churches. The Catholic and Anglican Churches also have synods but
these are little more than state and national gatherings of the diocesan leadership. In contrast,
UCA Synods are substantive administrative units that effectively replace, at a state level, the
functions of Catholic and Anglican dioceses.
UCA Synods have more resources, including staff, and they are not answerable to a single
senior clergyman the equivalent of a bishop. Instead, the Synods are headed by an elected
Moderator backed by an extensive administrative hierarchy (at least in the eastern States).
Moderators have fixed terms rather than lifelong tenure.
In contrast to the diocesan structures of the Catholic and Anglican Churches, UCA Synods
represent a far more modern, democratic and secular structure, arguably with a lesser
theological orientation and a greater administrative focus. The managerial models of Torry,
2005 p176, would place the UCA Synods closer to the ‘utilitarian/bureaucratic’ end of the
spectrum, with the dioceses of the Catholic and Anglican Churches being at the
‘normative/traditional’ end.
121 http://nat.uca.org.au/unitingjustice/cherishingcreation/environmentaljustice/index.htm
113
The Synod structure is likely to be a significant factor in the existence and endurance of
the Earth Team – a body unlikely to exist at a diocesan level, in part due to scale. Earth Team is
also apparently unique amongst the three denominations in that it is dominated by younger (<40
years) people and an informal, action-oriented agenda. Again, it has no power to implement
ecological policies outside its own operations and can only advise other levels of the Church. Its
activities include functioning as an advisory and education body but only on an invitation basis.
I discuss the Earth Team further in Chapter 10.
7.4 Summary
Each denomination has a different structure in relation to ecological policy formulation
and implementation. None has core institutional ecological policy bodies that also have the
power to enact or enforce policy outside their own operations. This is not a problem unique to
the Church. Somewhat similar situations exist in most forms of Australian government. Even
where large and relatively powerful ‘environment departments’ exist, they are always subsumed
by more established and powerful aspects of administration and government such as finance,
and some areas of operations are effectively or completely beyond their reach, for example, the
activities of the defence force. Similar situations can be expected in the business world, with
‘environment departments’ generally being structurally marginalised – they can produce PR-
winning policy documents and can provide annual ‘state of the environment’ reports, but few if
any would have the power to significantly alter the way that the firm operates.
The situation in the Churches reflects the situation in ecological policy and praxis across
most of society’s institutions. Ecological concerns are rarely given the administrative force and
resources necessary to drive whole-of-institution reform – they are usually a negotiable and
peripheral extra.
A key structural limitation to the Churches’ ability to convert their national policies into
institution-wide praxis is the fact that most of the power to enact policy is at the diocesan or
synod level. These bodies are virtually autonomous and able to ignore national denominational
policy, even where this clearly conflicts with the official theological position of the Church and
its leadership.
114
The gap between denominational ecotheology and its related policies is not filled by the
enactment of Canon Law or its equivalent. Despite popular notions of the Churches being
strongly hierarchical and ‘top-down’, at least in the context of national ecological policy this is
not functionally the case. This is in part because the hierarchies are yet to make ecological
policies administratively enforceable. This contrasts with other more traditional areas of
theology and policy such as finance, and more recently, child protection.
Nonetheless, all three of the subject denominations have produced ecological policies, and
all three demonstrate ecological praxis to varying extents and in different ways. Even though the
vast majority of their policies are externally directed and voluntary, there are still substantial
instances of praxis responding to and perhaps even informing ecological policies. I address
these in the following denominational chapters.
115
Chapter 8: Catholic Church ecological
policy & praxis
8.1 Introduction
Because of the large volume of material generated by my research into the ecological
policies and praxis of the three subject denominations, I present this chapter and the following
chapter as summaries. My research initially generated 20-30,000 word chapters for each of the
three denominations, however in part because of space limitations and some key differences
between the denominations I chose to condense the chapters dealing with the two older
Churches. Most of the policies referred to are available on-line through the hyperlinks provided
in the text or in footnotes.
Throughout this chapter and its two companions relating to the other subject
denominations, I first summarise their national policies, followed by any related national praxis.
The latter is rare because most of the national bodies are focussed on policy-making and
because most praxis occurs at or below the diocesan (Catholic and Anglican) or Synod
(Uniting) level. I then summarise my findings relating to diocesan policy and praxis,
occasionally extending down to the parish level. In part because of the volume of research
involved and the level of difficulty in obtaining the information, this thesis has not focused on
policy and praxis at or below the parish level.
8.2 National policy and praxis
Whilst modern Catholic environmentalism and related policy dates back to the late 1970s
in terms of input from the Vatican, official Australian Catholic Church ecological policy first
emerged in 1991 but was not followed-up until 2001 when ecological concerns were again
raised but in a broader social justice context. In 2002, the Church-proper released the second
specifically ecological policy document, this time with more of an Australian focus than the
more internationally oriented publication from 1991. The timing of these two statements
appears to have been largely driven by the writings of Pope John Paul II and his call for an
“ecological conversion”. The Australian Catholic Social Justice Council (ACSJC) also produced
publications dealing directly and indirectly with ecological issues (Kelly, 1995; Gormly, 2000)
but these are not official Church policy statements and they are not addressed here.
116
8.2.1.1 ‘Christians and their duty towards Nature’
The ACSJC prepared this publication for the Bishops’ Committee for Justice,
Development & Peace in 1991. In this case, the document is official Church policy rather than
just a publication of the ACSJC. Goosen, 2000 p207, briefly reviews this document (of 15
pages) and notes that it was intended “to invite all Christians, Catholics in particular, to reflect
on the truth that their responsibility within creation and their duty towards nature and the
Creator are an essential part of their faith.” He concludes that it is “very much a Church
document” dependent on mainly papal or Vatican material with little secular input and little
ecumenical input. He comments that “The section on The Australian Scene is very brief” further
suggesting that whilst it is an Australian Catholic publication, it is essentially a work of the
Vatican rather than being an initiative of the Australian bishops. Having read the document, I
concur with Goosen’s views, noting that it appears to have been stimulated by the late Pope’s
1990 World Peace Day message ‘Peace with God the Creator, Peace with all Creation’. It makes
extensive references to and arguably relies on that publication, though it does add a small
amount of specifically Australian and other broader material.
Whilst it contains some obvious anthropocentric and instrumental orientations, overall this
ACSJC publication is a very positive response to the profound challenges raised by Pope John
Paul II’s call for ‘ecological conversion’. Earth is deemed ‘good’ but then the things that are
specified as being good are “shelter, food and clothing” – an instrumental perspective. The
“beauty” of Nature is praised but this is followed by a statement that “resources” are to be
“cared for and replenished”. The notion of beauty in this context hints at the possibility of
Nature having inherent worth but the perspective is ultimately anthropocentric as is evidenced
by numerous other related comments about the value of Nature to humans. The conventional
stewardship orientation is promoted. The approach is not anthropoexclusive as all other
creatures are afforded moral considerability, though this is always subsumed by human needs as
humans are clearly deemed to be of greater worth, being made in the image of God.
The document is essentially an endorsement of the Pope’s World Peace Day message but it
raises issues of the Church being late to respond to the ecocrisis and its’ having:
“no fund of accumulated wisdom to use in answering questions which past
generations have not asked. Nor do we claim that, in searching for an
expression of our christian [sic] duty to care for created things, the Pope has
found complete answers to all questions. Other issues need to be addressed,
such as the effects of large populations upon the earth’s resources, and an
enlightened christian [sic] response to this question” p13.
117
8.2.1.2 Social Justice Sunday Statement 2001
The next official Church document122 relating to ecological policy did not emerge until ten
years after the ACSJC’s issue-specific publication on Christian’s responsibility towards Nature.
The ACBC, via the ACSJC releases an annual statement entitled ‘Social Justice Sunday’. From
the year 2000 onwards, these can be viewed on the ACSJC website123, and at least some are
available on the ACBC’s site. 124 The 2001 Statement was entitled ‘A just and peaceful land:
rural and regional Australia in 2001’.
Whilst it is primarily about rural social welfare, the Statement contains some recognition
that ecological concerns are relevant to rural health and broader Catholic policy, though the
connection between social welfare and ecological welfare is not specifically articulated in this
document (for more on this topic refer to Coates, 2003). The document clearly positions the
Catholic Church as relating to ecological concerns through the concept of stewardship. This is a
perspective that has been criticised by ecotheologians, philosophers and ecologists as
anthropocentric and often utilitarian, and one which has been superseded to some extent by the
concept of custodianship, which is argued to be more ecologically sound (Nash, 1990; Collins,
1995; Nasr, 1996; Berry, 1999; Conradie, 2005; John, 2005). The form of stewardship used in
the Statement is clearly anthropocentric if not anthropoexclusive. It is also utilitarian, seeing
Nature as producing “goods” for human use, with no reference to any intrinsic worth that such
“goods” may have or their value for other beings and the ecosystem.
A strong agrarianism125 is evident in this Statement. John, 2005, discusses agrarianism and
the stewardship approach to Nature. He rightly criticises this approach in part because it holds
that “agriculture is a divine fiat”, with no, or at best little regard to its ecological impacts. The
agrarianism of Western Christianity is clearly related to the origins and development of the faith
in agricultural societies that predate both the modern knowledge of associated ecological
impacts, and modern technology that allows agriculture to occur in forms that were
inconceivable until relatively recently. Agrarianism is also a component of the Eurocentric
orientation in Western Christianity.
122 In 2000 the ACSJC published ‘Our quest for ecological integrity’ (Gormly, 2000) but this is not
official Church policy or even necessarily an indication of it. It is not a publication of the ACBC.
123
http://www.socialjustice.catholic.org.au/content/publications/documentation/documentation_sjs01.html
124 http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/bc/jdep/200109260.htm
125 The problem for the Church’s agrarianism is that farming, especially in ‘developed’ nations, is often
highly industrialised, specialised and corporatised, rather than being a labour-intensive occupation of the
peasantry and which was then seen to bring people closer to God through their contact with Nature
(though that contact was largely if not entirely exploitative and productivist). Agrarianism was then
contrasted with industrialism (see for example Quinn, 1940). Today, agriculture is often simply
industrialism of land and food production. McDonagh, 1990 p181 criticises the unquestioned agrarianism
of earlier Catholic statements relating to the ecocrisis.
118
The Social Justice Sunday Statement 2001 is typical of Western Christian
anthropocentrism. It adopts a position very similar to that held by various farmer lobbies and
can be explained as a ‘wise use’ approach within a utilitarian ‘natural resource management’
worldview.
8.2.1.3 Social Justice Sunday Statement 2002
This Statement is the first to deal principally with “the environmental challenge”.126 It is
relatively lengthy and detailed, and addresses the theological context in which the Church has
adopted an environmentalist stance. The Statement provides some background on the nexus
between ecological harm and social justice/human health; the valuable insight provided by
indigenous peoples’ spiritual relationship with Creation; the movement towards ‘ecological
conversion’; positive examples of action to address environmental problems at various levels,
including examples of how Catholic institutions are taking action; and suggestions for how to
put ecological policies into practice.
In contrast to the SJS 2001 Statement, the ecotheology of the 2002 Statement leans more
towards the theocentric/biocentric approach. The rapid change of orientation is perhaps
indicative of different authorship and a different intended readership. Whilst the Statement is
relatively progressive by Western Christian standards (and strongly contrasts with conservative
fundamentalist theology), there remains evidence of, or at least the suggestion of, underlying
anthropocentrism (subordinate to theocentrism) and utilitarianism in the wording “…to use
them (the gifts of creation) in accord with the will of God…”. This may be simply a result of a
lack of awareness of how such texts might be interpreted from a philosophical perspective.
However, such an approach is generally consistent with mainstream Catholic ecotheology and
indeed Western Christian ecotheology; namely that the relationship to Nature must be
principally theocentric (i.e. Creation is valued only because it is a divine product – it is not
afforded intrinsic value). The notion of stewardship is the means by which such ontology is
converted to praxis.
The Statement claims to be part of a process whereby the Church is not just directing
others to reduce their ecological impact but is also looking at its own actions. To back this
claim, the Church notes that it established a new high-level body called Catholic Earthcare
Australia and that it is conducting “environmental audits” of Church facilities (discussed later in
this chapter). Various examples are given of parts of the Church undertaking ecologically driven
praxis. Many of the examples are school-based and there is little evidence of systemic
reorganisation to address the deeper demands of the ecological crisis.
126 http://www.catholicearthcareoz.net/socialjustice.html
119
The discussion about personal impacts and choices relating to the ecocrisis includes the
conclusion that whilst individual efforts are essential, systemic structural change is needed and
should be facilitated. The following strong statements of an overtly political and interventionist
nature are made:
“Politicians and public servants can do much to protect and rejuvenate our
ecosystems and natural resources. Stronger environmental protection
legislation, accelerated research into safe and renewable energy sources,
further education in ecological responsibility, programs to address pressing
environmental issues such as global warming, land clearing, salination (sic)
and the sustainable management of natural resources are all needed.
Retraining and new employment opportunities are needed for workers
displaced by such changes. When we vote in local, state or federal elections,
individuals and community groups can encourage, support and challenge
governments by assessing the environmental policies of the different
candidates.
Consumers and traders can promote environmentally healthy practices by
exercising their right of choice and advising a business of the reason for their
decision. Shareholders, too, should use their votes responsibly on corporate
resolutions and the election of board members. Those in leadership and
managerial roles, from family firms to transnational corporations, are
encouraged to demonstrate ethical business practices and good corporate
governance.”
Such language is remarkably strong for a mainstream Western Christian Church,
particularly in an ecological context. The above two paragraphs could readily be encountered in
the policy platform of most secular environmental groups. Indeed, a later section of the
Statement reads, “Our country owes a great debt to those who have for decades campaigned to
protect our unique woodlands, rangelands and forests, and to the men, women and children who
quietly go about preserving our biodiversity and protecting our heritage.” This amounts to a
Church endorsement of at least a part of the secular environmental movement, a situation which
reflects the extent to which the Church, or at least substantial and authoritative components of it,
has come to appreciate the environmentalist cause.
8.2.1.4 Social Justice Statement 2005
This Statement is entitled ‘Jesus, Light for the World: Living the Gospel Today’ and
includes minor aspects that address ecojustice. The main content relevant to this thesis is the
Statement’s tackling of consumerism; waste generation and recycling; resource use inequities;
reliance on finite resources; energy consumption; and the personal and societal effects of
materialism. Later in that section, it asks, “If all of creation is God’s gift, then where in our
homes, parishes, schools, workplaces and communities can we shine a light on the way we
build, buy, use and discard things?” Whilst this is clearly indicative of a positive intention, the
question does not place the institutional Church in the spotlight in terms of its own ecological
responsibilities. “Parishes” are mentioned but not the higher levels of the Church such as
120
dioceses, or any of its corporate arms. Emphasis is instead somewhat externalised, for example,
it essentially asks ‘what are you going to do?’ whilst neglecting the issue of ‘what we (the
Church) are going to do?’ This is a situation typical of most Church ecological policies and
proclamations.
8.2.2 Catholic Earthcare Australia (CEA)
In December 2000, the ACBC responded to Pope John Paul II’s call for ecological reform
of the Church by adding responsibility for ecology to the mandate of the Bishops’ Committee
for Justice, Development and Peace, adding Ecology to its title127.
In 2002, the ACBC established Catholic Earthcare Australia (CEA) as its ‘environment
department’ in response to the call by Pope John Paul II for an ‘ecological conversion’ of the
Church. CEA has an Advisory Council inclusive of religious and secular environmental
expertise, and which was under the jurisdiction of the Bishops’ Committee for Justice,
Development, Ecology and Peace128. That Committee was later renamed and reorganised as the
Commission for Justice and Service. CEA was mandated to “safeguard creation, promote the
importance of living more sustainably, and provide a voice for the victims of environmental
degradation.” Dixon, 2005 p 37, describes the operation of CEA: “Through research, education
and networking, CEA assists people to respond to Pope John Paul II’s call for an ‘ecological
conversion’.”
Because its focus is exclusively on ecological policy and praxis (including education), and
it has its own staff, office and budget (that has been used to employ project-based staff), CEA
has been able to produce a body of policy that is substantial, clearly defined and readily
accessible in various forms. It is also notable that it has achieved this in a relatively short time
when compared to the achievements of the Uniting Church, which began its ecological policy
formulation in 1977 and yet still lacks most of the issue specific national policies that have been
produced by CEA.
8.2.2.1 Internet connectivity
CEA has its own website129 that it keeps up-to-date and that it apparently sees as a major
portal for disseminating its message, though it is poorly linked to the Church’s denominational
Internet home page. It also operates an extensive email list for promoting its events and
products.
127 http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/bc/jdep/index.asp accessed 28/01/05
128 The associated media release can be viewed at
http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/bc/jdep/200205147.htm
129 see www.catholicearthcareoz.net
121
When I first conducted research for this aspect of the thesis, it was not possible to go to
each denominational home page and find a direct link to each of the Church’s ecological
policies. Finding any ecological policies was often a convoluted process that required some
prior knowledge of Church administrative structures. For example, even with the relatively
large on-line presence of CEA, ecological content was not readily obtainable from the Catholic
Church home page130 in 2004 and 2005. One had to link to the ACBC website to find ecological
policies and to find CEA’s home page. This was pointed out to CEA in 2005 and yet when the
Catholic website was revised, as of March 2006, the only search term that when used on the
home page, would reveal the link to CEA, was ‘ecological’. No other relevant search terms,
such as ‘ecology’ or ‘environment’ or ‘environmental’, revealed that link. This is despite CEA
being a body of the ACBC as noted on the Council’s website and which has a link from the
denominational home page. In contrast, the international home page of the Orthodox Church has
a direct link to ‘Ecological Activities’131.
8.2.2.2 Organisational constraints
Whilst CEA can produce substantive policy, it has no institutional power to implement it
other than in how it operates its own affairs. For example, whilst it might produce a policy
strongly favouring the institutional adoption of recycled paper for office use, it has no directive
authority in terms of purchasing decisions made at the diocesan (regional) or other institutional
levels. Most of the institutional power rests with the semi-autonomous bishops, who are in
effect regional managers with powers within the Church that are perhaps equivalent to those of
a State Premier or Territory Chief Minister.
In terms of Church politics, CEA is in a relatively strong position in that forty out of the
forty-three Australian Catholic bishops are on its governing council, a situation seen as
indicative of majority support for its existence and activities (Bishop Toohey. pers. comm.,
2005). However, even if all forty of the member bishops agree to a particular policy, each is
responsible for implementing it in his own diocese, particularly where it relates to land and
infrastructure management. There is no apparent mechanism that would require the three non-
member bishops to abide by a policy decision made by CEA. Only if CEA policy were adopted
as Canon Law, would there be a mechanism for enforcing it. Actual enforcement is another
matter again.
The full collective of forty-three bishops meeting as the ACBC has persuasive power over
its member bishops but still cannot require them to implement ecological policy. A majority
130 http://www.catholic.org.au
131 http://www.ec-patr.gr/ecology.php?lang=en
122
decision can only formulate and state what the Australian Catholic Church policy is on an issue.
Implementation remains primarily at the discretion of each bishop. However, cross-diocesan
institutions such as the Catholic Education Office or Caritas Australia (the Church’s
international aid agency) can be directed by the Bishops Conference (or the relevant
Committee) as they are not within the control of an individual bishop. CEA cannot direct the
actions of a Church organisation. Only the Bishops Conference has this power.
8.2.2.3 Emphasis on education
CEA’s approach to ecological policy is heavily weighted towards education. This is
unsurprising given that there is no mechanism for institutional compliance, and the overarching
paradigm is one of offering resources for voluntary action. Furthermore, the educational focus is
substantially, but not exclusively, on younger people via the Catholic education system, which
exists mainly in the form of primary and high schools. This is an approach consistent with that
outside the Churches and is arguably a form of generational ‘buck-passing’.
When secular ‘environmental education’ arose in the 1970s, it operated from a belief that
training children would lead to them becoming ecologically literate and ecologically responsible
adults: in effect - ‘change the minds of the children and you’ll change the world’ (for example,
Stapp, 1970). Teaching children to be ecologically literate is an important goal but it becomes
problematic when it is prioritised over other methods of ecojustice related reforms. It is
arguably seen as far easier to create ecological literacy in school children than it is to undertake
the more challenging task of educating adults and reforming their institutions. This is much the
same philosophy that underpins mainstream religious education in general, yet Tacey, 2000,
claims that >90% of Catholic secondary school students cease identifying as Catholics within a
year of leaving school, a view broadly supported by Dixon, 2005. This suggests that placing so
much hope and emphasis on the ecological education of school children is not an example of so-
called ‘evidence-based policy’132.
The so-called Generation X133 and to a greater extent, Generation Y134, were both subject
to official ‘environmental education’ programs in their schooling yet most of the officially
recognised ‘environmental indicators’ used in local, State and Federal ‘State of the
Environment’ reports over several years show that the majority of parameters have worsened
and continue to do so. Clearly, ecological literacy (knowledge) does not necessarily lead to
ecologically sound behaviours (Harris & Dearn, 1994 p188), nor to institutional and systemic
social change.
132 As opposed to policy that is based on ideology or false assumptions.
133 Generally understood to be people born in the 1960s and 1970s.
134 Generally understood to be people born in the 1980s and 1990s.
123
Rote learning of ‘environmental facts’ and regurgitating politically correct and supposedly
normative ‘environmental values’ to pass exams is about as useful for achieving genuine
ecosocial change as it is for ensuring that students at Catholic high schools become devout and
lifelong adherents of that faith. As psychologist, Abraham Maslow,135 is often quoted as saying:
“To the man who only has a hammer, everything he encounters begins to look like a nail.”
Thus, to the Catholic Church, education (in the institutional sense) is always their answer136.
This is clearly not a phenomenon restricted to Catholicism or to Christianity.
Knowing the ‘facts’ and the jargon relating to ecological issues does not guarantee that
students will attach appropriate moral value to the issues (Harris & Dearn, 1994 p188) – values
that sustain attitudes and behaviours that run contrary to the dominant paradigm of our
consumerist culture. Students still want the latest mobile phones even when this means the old
phone gets thrown away (or perhaps partially recycled) and the new one involves mining rare
elements from the Congo under situations that cause severe ecological and social harm (see
Hayes, 2002 re the impacts of tantalum mining in the DRC. It is also briefly mentioned by
McGuigan, 2005).
8.2.2.4 The future of CEA
CEA was headed by a Chief Executive Officer, Col Brown, a former environmental
lawyer. Bishop Toohey of the Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes initially chaired it. Bishop Toohey
resigned from that role in 2006 but was still listed as the Chair on the ACBC website in early
2007. The former deputy chairman, Archbishop Bathersby, appears to be acting in his place, at
least in an interim manner as the CEA website did not name the chairman as of February 2007.
As of February 2007, CEA had been relocated for at least the fourth time in its brief
history. It is now located in Canberra within the diocesan offices. The relocation was apparently
responsible for the departure of the CEO Col Brown, leaving one part-time, home-based staff
member to deal with administrative matters on an interim basis. CEA only ever had two
permanent staff, but did engage a number of contract workers to assist with projects such as
organising conferences and maintaining its website.
The business manager of the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference confirmed to me
that CEA’s organisational and staffing future would be revised in early 2007. CEA’s website
did not indicate a resolution of that process as of mid-2007.
135 Abraham Harold Maslow (1908-1970).
136 In an email to me in relation to my research, Kate Mannix, a Catholic commentator and facilitator of
the 2006 ecumenical statement ‘Common belief: Australia’s faith communities on climate change’
(Appendix 1, s11.6.1), commented that “The Church is very wedded to the notion of itself as ‘Teacher’
and the world is the thing which exists to be ‘'taught’” (Mannix, pers. comm., 16/09/06).
124
A member of CEA’s Advisory Council informed me that CEA “barely keeps its head
above water”. Bishop Toohey confirmed that the organisation’s resources were severely limited
due to a low level of funding. However, he believed this to be a wider issue well beyond CEA,
citing the oft-heard view that the Church is ‘asset rich but cash poor’. Given the strength of the
ecotheology used to justify CEA’s existence and actions and the Church’s associated rhetoric, it
seems inconsistent to find that CEA was never adequately funded or staffed. This apparent
shortage of funds is in stark contrast to the large sums of money that the Catholic Church is able
to find for major capital works programs such as the construction of aged care facilities and
schools, even allowing for the substantial government subsidies that are associated with such
projects.
Despite its low level of resources and some considerable organisational constraints, in its
first five years, CEA has produced the vast bulk of Catholic ecological policy and has driven a
considerable amount of praxis, directly and indirectly. I discuss a subset of its policy
publications below.
8.2.2.5 ‘The garden planet’ (video)
‘The Garden Planet’ is a VHS videocassette production that whilst undated, appears to be
contemporaneous with the launch of CEA, i.e. 2002. A theme of the video, which has an
education and awareness orientation, is the biblical notion of Earth as The Garden of Eden.
There are ecological problems associated with using this concept because gardens are inherently
anthropogenic and utilitarian, even if aesthetic pleasure, not food production is the core
objective. The concept of an ecosystem or the planet as a garden or ‘metagarden’ is deeply
flawed and is critiqued by some ecotheologians, though it does not attract a lot of attention as
few scholars would see it as other than a constrained metaphor, rather than as a valid literal
understanding of Earth. The Church’s use of ‘the garden’ metaphor in this video is related to the
earlier-mentioned problem of the agrarian orientation of Western Christianity and this is not
unique to Catholicism.
The video is not a formal policy and is best seen as an education resource, though the
decision to produce it, and the ‘policies’ within the production are still relevant here. CEA
distributed the video to all Catholic schools and parishes. I do not review it in detail.
The first edition of the CEA Newsletter noted, “a follow-up video called Cool Schools is
planned”. Presumably, this links into the Churches’ involvement in the Cool Communities
Project run by secular Conservation Councils, particularly in Brisbane where the Church was far
more involved in this national scheme than it was elsewhere. Cool Communities was about
reducing individual and collective greenhouse gas emissions. Cool Schools will likely link with
the ‘environmental audits’ promoted by CEA (these are discussed later in this section).
125
8.2.2.6 ‘The grains of life’
This is an earlier CEA publication on CD that again is not a policy statement but is
primarily a school-oriented education and liturgical resource. Its focus appears to be on matters
relating to the ecological and social costs of food production. It was a response to the
International Year of Rice. I do not review it here.
8.2.2.7 ‘Freshwater is sacred water’
This publication is another school-focused education resource produced on CD to coincide
with the annual Earth Day festivities. As a primarily educational rather than policy resource, it
is not reviewed here.
8.2.2.8 ‘Let the many coastlands be glad’
This is a ‘Pastoral Letter’ from the bishops of Queensland that they signed on World
Oceans Day 2004. It was released in August 2004 along with a media statement137 and it calls
“for a renewed effort to safeguard the wonder of creation that is The Great Barrier Reef.” It is
the first issue-specific public ecological policy statement of the Church. Whilst it is restricted in
scope to Queensland, it was produced by CEA, and was distributed nationally and so is treated
as national policy.
As an ecologist, I found it most interesting that in listing the bishops that endorsed this
document and the later publication, ‘The Gift of Water’, their dioceses are described by
officially recognised bioregions and, in the case of ‘The Gift of Water’, also by water
catchments. ‘Let the many coastlands be glad’ is a phrase of Biblical origin.
The document takes the form of a 28 page, glossy A4 booklet with numerous photographs
and is also available on-line138. The associated media release contains the following statement,
with quotes taken from the Pastoral Letter:
“Care for the environment and a keener ecological awareness have become
key moral issues for the Christian conscience. Not only is the Reef a
precious ecosystem in itself, but also an integral part of the one web of
planetary life that connects us all – the human species and all species of the
land and sea, rainforest and reef, mountains, plains and inland desert.”…
137 http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/bc/jdep/2004050815.htm
138 http://www.catholicearthcareoz.net/pdf/ReefFullBooklet.pdf
126
The letter pointed to several significant issues that must be addressed to
ensure the survival, the diversity, the beauty and the integrity of the Reef.
These issues included the threats of sediment run-off from the land, sewage
outflow, deteriorating water quality and over-fishing as well as problems
associated with climate change, in particular coral bleaching and rising sea
levels.
“Protection of the Reef is a common cause for the common good. It is
promoted most effectively through active co-operation, up to date
information, and healthy debate on unresolved issues. “The Church desires
to contribute to the public dialogue by explaining how its ecological and
social justice teachings serve to safeguard the integrity of creation, promote
the common good and protect the health and well being of both human and
non-human communities.” (My emphasis)
Clearly, this document moves away from the anthropocentrism and anthropoexclusivism of
the SJS Statement 2001, demonstrating an awareness of the connectedness of human and non-
human ecology, and even recognising that the Reef has intrinsic worth. Like the SJS Statement
2002, it raises scientific concerns and links these with social issues consistent with the
ecojustice approach. Here, the “common good” is not just a matter of human instrumental
concerns – “human and non-human communities” are considered.
This shift in the underlying theology may simply be a result of different authorship but
could also have been influenced by the growing number of publications that point out the
problems with anthropocentric theology. The document lists the contributors, showing that the
principal drafter was a member of the CEA Advisory Council but that others include academics,
government environment officers, a theologian, and an “environmentalist”. This more inclusive
approach to policy-making is a feature of CEA and contrasts with the earlier statements that are
essentially the work of bishops or committees thereof.
The Acknowledgements section does not state that the document’s creation was prompted
by the intervention of WWF Australia and the Queensland Conservation Council (Col Brown,
pers. comm. 01/05). It wrongly gives the impression that it was an initiative of the Church or at
least of CEA and/or some of the bishops of Queensland.
‘Let the many coastlands be glad’ also contains the following strong quote: “It is the task
of the State to provide for the defence and preservation of common goods such as the natural
and human environment, which cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces” (Pope John
Paul II, Centesimus Annus). Such a view is clearly in stark contrast to the dominant economic
paradigm of Western society, in which The Market has been elevated to a semi-divine force
seen by economic rationalists as inherently benign or even benevolent and which is considered
virtually sacrosanct (see for example Nurnberger, 1996; Cox, 1999; Frank, 2000). For such
devotees of The Market, the concept of State intervention or ‘regulation’ is heretical because it
interferes with the notionally ‘pure’ workings of The Market. In this regard, the Church is
127
pitting itself against a central tenet of present-day Western society and against much of its party
politics. This is not a new orientation for the Catholic Church, which normally expresses similar
views in the context of social justice.
In commenting on the threat of global climate change, the document notes that in
September 2002, the Australian Catholic Bishops and the 14 member Churches of the National
Council of Churches, issued a statement urging the Federal Government to ratify the Kyoto
Protocol. It follows this with a call for reduced consumerism, noting that “no matter what
technological breakthroughs or redistributions (of resources) occur”, a Western level of resource
consumption cannot be provided to the current global population:
“We are living beyond our environmental capacity and we have to face the
hard issues of radically changing our habits, reducing our consumption of
everything that is not renewable, and reusing and recycling what we have.
We are, in conscience, required to ask where our consumer goods have come
from, where our food is grown or where its water is taken from or goes to, or
indeed how much is used. Our investments should support enterprises that
make ecologically sound decisions and not those whose activities damage
our ecosystems.”
The document encourages readers to take individual and collective action and provides
contacts to Catholic organisations able to provide advice on issues such as “recycling, waste
management and prudent energy and water use” as well as how to undertake ecological audits.
It concludes with a theological discussion aimed at re-emphasising the relevance, indeed the
necessity for Catholics to support the ecological cause. It provides a useful list of references.
The document notes the many contributions to reef conservation that have been made by
various industry sectors, government agencies and programs, school groups, environmental
groups and individuals. It also described the instrumental value of the Reef in terms of income
from tourism and its potential to yield new compounds with ‘therapeutic properties’.
8.2.2.9 ‘The gift of water’
‘The gift of water’ is an 18 page, glossy A4 publication aimed at a general Christian
audience but with a distinct rural focus which is appropriate given the nature of land use and
ecological problems in the Murray-Darling Basin. It was officially launched on the Murray
River at Echuca in October 2004. The launch was publicised in a media release.139 The
document was endorsed by bishops with dioceses in the Murray-Darling Basin and is a national
policy with national backing through CEA and its overseeing bishops. I was told that the
139 http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/bc/jdep/2004111014.htm
128
document was not readily endorsed by all of the bishops of the Basin (Bishop Toohey, pers.
comm., 2005).
Authorship is again a collective process, with Fr Denis Edwards (a renown Lutheran
ecotheologian) listed as the principal author. Others credited with acting as “consultants” in the
preparation of the Statement include members of the Murray-Darling Association, the CEO of
Earthcare, a monk, a nun, and a NSW departmental officer.
Most of the document contains a mix of background information and theological
contextualisation of the ecological problems that the document seeks to address. It advocates a
series of practical responses to the problems. However, the suggestions are very broad and lack
any detail or quantum. They are essentially just commitments to proposals such as re-
establishing ‘environmental flows’ in the catchment; curtailing “unsustainable” use of water,
particularly further increases in irrigation; the reduction of salinity and nutrient loads; and the
removal of invasive exotic species. The document does not purport to be an expert publication
so one would not expect to see it making particularly detailed technical recommendations. ‘The
gift of water’ is primarily symbolic policy as the Church has little practical influence on the
management of the Murray-Darling Basin.
The short section of the document entitled, ‘Rural communities’ acknowledges some of the
roles and significance of farming communities in the Basin. In a similar vein to the SJS 2001
Statement, ‘The gift of water’ contains the platitudinous, unsupported and highly contentious
statement that, “We recognise that many of them (i.e. farmers) have long led the way in care for
the land and for the health of the rivers”. The statement is naïve or more likely motivated by a
concern not to offend rural Catholics who might sense in the document, an element of ‘farmer
bashing’ within the guise of Church-backed environmentalism. It may also be a relic of Catholic
agrarianism.
The document includes statements related to water use efficiency and water trading
schemes. It expresses strong concern about the social equity implications that trading schemes
might have, namely the risk that smaller family farms might be outbid for water allocations by
urban centres that are able to pay more. There is also commentary about the obligations facing
urban water users in the context of concern about rural/urban equity.
The theological orientation of the document is not specifically anthropocentric. However, a
strong productivism140 runs through the text. This is not surprising given the nature of land use
(extensive agriculture) that dominates the Basin. A notable aspect is that the document
140 An ideology in which the goal is the maximisation of productivity – in this case, agricultural.
129
recognises the conflict between economic rationalist approaches to managing the Basin (as a
resource for profit), and broader “needs of human communities” as well as the “ecological
needs of the whole system”. However, the stewardship ethic and a degree of agrarianism are
still evident in the document’s theology. Stewardship is not emphasised in a way that reinforces
its anthropocentric aspects. Instead, the word “trustee” is also used, linked to the idea of “the
integrity of God’s creation”. Anthropocentrism or at least utilitarianism is specifically
challenged by the statement “God’s creatures represent the Trinity. They are not simply there
for human use, but have their own dignity, value and integrity.” This is backed by later biblical
references and metaphors relating to the value of water in otherwise often dry landscapes.
The theological dimensions of the document include evidence of the ‘moral turn’ seen in
environmentalism generally, particularly in relation to anthropogenic climate change. Key
aspects of this include noting, “human beings have a moral duty towards the natural world.
They do not have absolute rights over nature…(they) have God-given responsibilities towards
other creatures…the use of the gift of water… is a matter of conscience, of right or wrong action
before God.” This effectively amounts to the notion of “ecological sin” as was raised very
prominently by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Williams, 2005). Notions of interconnectedness
are addressed via statements from Pope John Paul II including “…we cannot interfere in one
area of the ecosystem without paying due attention to both the consequences of such
interference in other areas and to the wellbeing of future generations.”
‘The gift of water’ is the second of CEA’s issue-specific ecological policy publications. It
is well written and makes its case using a mix of mainstream science and what is increasingly
mainstream institutional Catholic ecotheology. Environmentalists are acknowledged as those
who were walking the path of ‘ecological conversion’ before the Church sought to do the same.
This publication is a good example of Catholic environmentalism and the way this builds on
mainstream secular environmentalism by deepening the moral and spiritual dimension.
8.2.2.10 ‘Towards environmental futures’ (audit CD)
This publication was produced for CEA by Fr Paul Lucas, a renowned Catholic
environmentalist and educator. It is a CD-ROM-based PowerPoint presentation intended to
permit users to undertake an ‘environmental audit’. The target users are school and church
groups who want to evaluate their ecological impacts (or a subset thereof) for the purposes of
strategically reducing them. The concept of a Church-driven ‘environmental audit’ originates
from the UK-based Eco-Congregation group141, which operates as a consultancy. It licenses its
141 http://www.ecocongregation.org/
130
audit scheme to other religious organisations and describes it as an “ecumenical environmental
toolkit (which is) encouraging churches to weave creation care into their life and mission”.
In Australia, it appears that Eco-Congregation’s scheme was first adopted in a form
amended for local conditions, by the Environment Commission of the Anglican Diocese of
Canberra & Goulburn. The UCA National Assembly claims to have devised something similar
back in the 1980s, though it appears not to have been adopted or at least maintained, as there is
no equivalent product in the UCA at present. The UCA’s Earth Team uses a version of the Eco-
Congregation product.
During 2005, various draft versions and an associated questionnaire were available on the
CEA website. The final product was released at the CEA national conference on climate change
in Canberra during November 2006. The audit’s stated aims are to:
• “Identify and affirm their existing environmental practices / ministry /
spirituality;
• Develop environmental futures by prioritising what needs to be done to
live more sustainably with respect to our heritage;
• Identify supportive resources;
• Network with other churches and environmental agencies to promote
ecological conversion in our world.”
The Introduction begins with a series of orienting principles, which includes the statement:
“But we cannot speak out on environmental matters if we have not got our own house in order!
And starting to get our house in order, by our actions within each parish, each school, each
agency and as a diocese is what this audit is about.” It is notable that the audit does not purport
to be about auditing and reforming the whole Church. Instead, it is about various parts of the
Church opting to undertake the process so that they might reform their operations. The audit is
completely voluntary, is not overseen by nor is it reportable to any agency.
The body of the audit is a pro forma of check boxes under three headings: “have done”,
“consider” and “not a priority”. These are applied to an extensive range of issues ranging from
general property-based planning and management, to the use of specific technologies for
minimising ecological impact, for example energy and water efficiency devices and techniques.
It includes topics such as ethical investment and purchasing, including minimising embodied
energy by purchasing locally produced goods, waste minimisation (from reduced consumption
through to reuse and recycling), ecologically responsible landscaping, and even the management
of contaminated sites. A small Land Care section raises issues of identifying and conserving or
“developing” (meaning enhancing or making the most of) remnant flora and fauna habitat, along
with pest plant and animal control. Built heritage matters are given considerable emphasis,
131
which is unsurprising given that many Church properties are old and of at least some cultural
heritage significance.
The audit then asks about the extent of liturgical focus on ecological matters, and includes
questions such as how often the organisation involves members with worship in natural
environments through activities such as prayer walks, and the extent to which devotional songs
have an environmentalist orientation. It even mentions purchasing organic bread and wine for
ceremonial purposes. Other questions cover the accessibility of ecological education resources
and the pursuit of ecologically oriented activities for different age groups. Whilst education of
children is the focus, some attention is given to youth activities and to adult education.
Scattered through the document are ecologically related quotes. Notably, these include a
quote from the Koran, an Arabic and a Chinese proverb, as well as numerous quotes from the
Bible, Pope John Paul II, and Catholic ecotheologians.
Perhaps the author’s attempt to add a global or internationalist aspect to the product is a
factor in its use of a significant number of North American images (scenes include a black bear,
a bald eagle, several images of the Grand Canyon, snow-clad coniferous forests, etc.). Given
that Australian flora, fauna and landscape images are freely available via the Internet and
government agencies, the use of obviously non-indigenous images seems a little odd and
arguably insensitive. When the audit CD was first made public in a presentation at the CEA
climate change conference, the non-indigenous images raised considerable bewilderment in at
least some of the audience, especially given that most, if not all of the images were used in a
context where there seemed no point in using anything other than Australian imagery.
Having addressed at some length the scope for liturgical and other educational
opportunities that have an ecological orientation, the audit then focuses on personal lifestyle. It
encourages users to apply the audit outside the Church by investigating their own impacts and
how they might reduce them. This section includes a question about support for “eco-justice or
eco-action groups”. Notably it does not distinguish between secular and religious
environmentalist groups. This is consistent with other Catholic teachings that praise the
environmental lobby. Users are encouraged to interact with various ecologically oriented
organisations including the ACF, Environment Centres, The Wilderness Society and Friends of
the Earth. Other groups mentioned include Landcare, catchment management bodies, Clean-up
Australia, LETS (which is a cashless bartering movement) and ethical credit unions. The final
section deals with the international context, and it too encourages support for groups such as
WWF, A Rocha (a Catholic environmental welfare organisation), and Christian charity
organisations such as World Vision.
132
CEA’s audit resource has the potential to generate real reductions in the ecological impact
of Catholic organisations and individuals. It also has some potential for broader benefits and it
includes what amounts to an outreach agenda in that users are encouraged to engage with the
wider community and expound the benefits of the audit process and its outcomes. It is not a
tokenistic response, is relatively comprehensive in its scope, especially when one considers the
extensive resources provided in its appendices, and it contains genuinely useful and effective
advice about the reduction of ecological impacts. Unlike similar products available through
secular environmentalist groups and through some government agencies, CEA’s audit is driven
by a religious agenda linked to ecological science. I believe this makes it a more powerful tool
for reform.
However, as noted earlier, the audit process is voluntary, not reportable and whilst it is
supported by CEA, there is no notion of it having any institutional enforceability. Parts of the
Church can choose to undertake the audit or not. How they choose to respond to it is at their
discretion, subject to any external legal obligations. The audit is also not a regular event and
does not have the same function as the ‘state of the environment’ reports published regularly by
various arms of government and by some corporations. However, there is no reason that parts of
the Church could not make the audit and the reporting of its results and responses a regular and
even a public product.
It is also within the scope of a bishop to ban the audit process within his diocese or to
block implementation of any of the recommendations arising from it. This is not known to have
occurred, nor do I consider it likely, however a Catholic bishop is reported to have banned the
distribution of a published article (in Catholic media) relating to the failure of the Church in
general to engage in municipal recycling schemes (Mannix, pers. comm., 2006 citing Norden,
2004). The article pointed out that at least in the Diocese of Wollongong, parishes have total
discretion as to whether they participate in municipal recycling142. The Diocesan officer
interviewed notes that he had “no idea” what the parishes were doing in this regard. Norden, as
a member of the Wollongong Diocesan Social Justice Council, reports that in 2003 he suggested
a waste audit be done for the Diocese. He comments, “Even though environmental audits are
recommended by the Bishops’ conference, they just looked at me. The audit never happened.”
The CEO of Earthcare was also asked to comment and noted, “We have no power to instruct…
142 Because the Churches are exempt from local government taxes (‘rates’), they aren’t automatically
provided with recycling bins and related information. They have to opt-in to such schemes and
presumably have to pay the local government for bins and collection, or they can appoint a separate -
commercial provider. In discussions on this with a Uniting Church Minister, I was told that it was
apparently common practice to purchase a commercial rubbish removal service that did not involve
separation of recyclables. His church had only recently begun to consider sorting its rubbish and
participating in the municipal recycling scheme.
133
What individual parishes and schools do is a matter of conscience” (Col Brown cited in Norden,
2004). The article contrasts the situation in Wollongong with that in Cairns, where a Catholic
school was winning government awards for its waste management initiatives. CEA’s
‘environmental audit’ process remains only as useful as bishops and other powerbrokers within
the Church allow it to be.
In one of the document’s appendices, it is noted that CEA can provide a more detailed
audit process if desired, or it can undertake the audit and provide advice for a fee. This appears
to be a unique role within the subject denominations other than for the activities of the UCA’s
Earth Team (Victoria) which provides informal advice of this nature at the request of church
groups in and around Melbourne. Neither CEA nor other official bodies of the Catholic Church
have ‘environment officers’ to provide such a service. Presumably, CEA would use professional
auditors or perhaps appropriately skilled members of the Catholic community to carry out fee-
for-service audits.
8.2.2.11 ‘Climate change: our responsibility to sustain God’s
Earth’
This “position paper” was launched at the CEA national conference on climate change in
Canberra during November 2005. It is produced in a similar style to the earlier ‘Gift of Water’,
being a glossy B5-size booklet that is also available on-line (text only).143 The cover note states
that the document is printed in Australia on recycled paper. The publication is endorsed by the
then Bishops’ Committee for Justice Development Ecology and Peace.144
The principal drafter is Fr Charles Rue, a prominent Columban145 environmentalist who
started the on-line Faith & Ecology Network, and who has written particularly strongly on the
Catholic response to genetically modified organism technology. Other noted contributors
include members of the CEA Advisory Committee, one of whom is amongst two people who
are listed in the documents as academic experts on climate change.
The cover of the booklet contains a large number of links relating to “climate change and
the environment”. These are in three categories: church websites; climate change websites
(government, NGOs and media); and education websites. NGO websites include those of peak
environmentalist groups such as the ACF and WWF.
143 http://www.catholicearthcareoz.net/POSITION_PAPER.html
144 The wording of the endorsement page suggested that perhaps not all of the Committee members
endorsed the document. However, the revamped Commission that is responsible for CEA has only six
members, and the list of bishops endorsing the climate change statement also amounts to six. I have
assumed that all of the members endorsed it.
145 Columbans are a male religious order within Catholicism.
134
The Introduction to the booklet immediately asserts the existence of anthropogenic climate
change and that the phenomenon “raises serious moral and spiritual questions… and calls for a
change in our way of life.” It states that a “resolute” response by Catholics to climate change is
“an essential part of their faith commitment…” Responses recommended include addressing the
cause of the problem and addressing impacts on society. The Catholic Church in Australia had
previously adopted the view that anthropogenic climate change was a real phenomenon and one
that warranted strong action. Along with other Churches, it had called for the federal
government to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Its 2005 publication builds on this previous position and
takes an even stronger stance.
In a noticeably growing spirit of ecumenism and indeed general solidarity, the document
offers cooperation “to all spiritual and secular leaders… knowing that the Earth is our common
home.” It notes that the Church wants to learn from informed scientists and that it wants to work
with all of the community in addressing the problem and its impacts. Research undertaken for
this thesis confirms that there is growing collaboration between not only the Catholic Church
and broader environmentalism, but between other denominations and other faiths as well.146
The next section is entitled ‘Earth our home’ and is primarily theological. It expresses an
ecotheology that merges Scripture and science. The Catholic Church in Australia is consistent in
its use of science as a major source of evidence to formulate or at least bolster its ecological
policies. The interconnectedness revealed by ecology is mentioned and explained in a religious
context. A key theological statement is that “the Earth is the Lord’s”. This is then connected to
the problem of human pride and hard-heartedness, both of which are seen as factors in a societal
or perhaps human tendency to ‘meddle’ with Nature without addressing the ethics of doing so.
The notion of interconnectedness is extended to indicate that all of Creation is to be considered,
not just humans.
The third section, ‘Warnings from the scientific community’, again cites substantial
scientific evidence as to the nature of climate change and its causes. The Precautionary Principle
is advocated, noting, “Its application in science, law and politics is a minimal requirement if
wisdom and prudence are our values.” This section is followed by additional scientific
predictions of the impacts of climate change. This includes raising impacts on humans and non-
146 Members of the State and Territory Conservation Councils and official representatives of Greenpeace
were amongst the professional environmentalists I met or saw at CEA’s climate change conference. The
Uniting Church through UnitingJustice is similarly engaged with secular environmentalist organisations
though on a smaller scale. I have not encountered comparable engagement between the Anglican Church
and environmental groups other than in isolated cases at or below the diocesan level. The absence of a
national Anglican ecological organisation other than an internal committee is perhaps a factor in this
situation.
135
humans. Solutions are said to include but not be restricted to technological advances in areas
such as energy production.
The main theological section of the document is entitled ‘A moral and spiritual response to
global warming’. It notes that ecological concerns are now part of the official core set of beliefs
of the Catholic faith, citing several quotes from the Catholic Catechism147 and the later
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church to bolster this claim.
Some of the quotes include some standard and increasingly outdated anthropocentric
perspectives that CEA has since abandoned. For example, Earth is referred to as a gift to the
whole of mankind, and man’s [sic] domination of Nature is not challenged but simply seen as
not being absolute. It is said to be conditional upon the need for concern about the “quality of
life of his neighbour, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the
integrity of creation.” It is unclear from the latter example whether the concept of neighbour
extends to non-human creatures as is suggested by the reference to the integrity of Creation.
The more recent quotes from the Compendium move beyond the sexist language of the
Catechism (other than for the on-going reference to God as male) yet maintain other
problematic concepts such as humans as gardeners and cultivators of Creation’s goods, though
it does include the newer term, ‘custodians’ rather than the older ‘stewards’. Utilitarianism and
anthropocentrism remain, though again it is ameliorated or perhaps confused by references to
the “common good of the whole of creation”, though with no notion as to when perceived
human interests can justly dominate those of non-human Nature.
The following section of the publication is entitled ‘Ethical principles for the environment’
and provides additionally detailed theological guidance. It draws on the 1990 World Day of
Peace Message of Pope John Paul II. The principles are considerably better resolved than some
of the theological advice given in preceding sections of the document:
• Creation is seen as having intrinsic worth;
• Creation is seen to be suffering from human abuse and it is a Christian vocation to
ameliorate and ultimately end that suffering;
• consumerism is opposed with “restraint, penance and self imposed limitations” seen as
virtuous;
• human rights are specifically tied to and inclusive of ecological justice;
• aspects of genetic engineering are seen as of concern;
147 The Catechism is essentially the credo document of the international Catholic Church.
136
• militarism is opposed;
• politicians are obliged to address the common good including ecological dimensions;
• issues of global inequity are tied to addressing ecological problems (for example, the poor
can often least afford ecological reforms); and
• intergenerational equity is again mentioned but without any reference to generations of
beings other than humans.
The next section of the position paper is entitled ‘The Australian Government’s State of
the Environment Report’. It briefly addresses the need for government intervention in ‘the
market’ to protect ecological and social values; the need for intergovernmental collaboration;
increased legislative protection of Creation; the importance of investing ethically; and that
“ultimately, economic profit is secondary to ecologically sustainable living”.
The subsequent section, ‘Our responsibility to the early victims of climate change’,
specifically connects global inequities in lifestyle and material consumption with global
warming and the inequalities associated with its already evident impact on poor island nations.
The document concludes with a religious statement relating to the value of hope in dealing
with global ecological challenges. It adds that the ‘ecological conversion’ that is necessary to
restore harmony between human actions and the rest of Creation is essentially about a change of
heart (i.e. it is an emotional rather than simply a nominally rational shift that is needed).
Catholics are called on to lead by example in making the necessary changes to behaviours.
CEA’s ‘Climate change’ publication makes clear the Catholic Church of Australia’s
official position on this issue. It is a position much the same as that of mainstream
environmental organisations, though it lacks the technical detail of such groups’ equivalent
policy statements. It is not a technical document but draws on science to underpin its primarily
religious (moral) basis for concern and its call for action. In the latter regard, its stance is in
conflict with that of the Howard Government, though the document is in no way party political.
The theology behind the stance remains somewhat muddled, mixing older deeply
anthropocentric views with some more recent and theo/bio/ecocentric approaches.
It remains that whilst the document is official policy, it is not binding on any member or
part of the Church. It is relatively easy to produce such a document because it has no operational
function – it is entirely advisory. Even senior clergy who are known to be so-called ‘climate
change sceptics’ will be largely untroubled by such a policy as they can choose to ignore it
completely.
137
To date, the Catholic Church in Australia is yet to convert this or indeed its other
ecological policies into operational plans that are then implemented. The only substantive
national response has been to create CEA and to allow it to issue non-binding policies and
advice. However, a somewhat different situation exists at or below the diocesan level, where the
majority of operational decisions are made.
8.3 Summary of research on Catholic diocesan policy &
praxis
The amount of documentation and analysis of diocesan and related ecological policies and
praxis generated by my research is far too large to be included in the thesis in full.
Consequently, I provide only a relatively brief summary here.
Of the 28 Catholic territorial dioceses in Australia, 26 had websites during 2006, with
another having a site under construction in 2007. Of these, only seven had substantial and
original ecological content within the diocese’s site or within linked sites such as those operated
by diocesan bodies such as justice and education offices and committees. By ‘original’ content,
I mean material other than simply linking to CEA’s site or to statements by the Pope or other
extradiocesan bodies. Those seven diocesan websites are included in the following section. Four
other diocesan websites are included because they warrant discussion due to the diocese (if not
its website) containing notable examples of praxis or because the websites reveal some possible
explanations for the apparent absence of ecological policy and praxis in some regions.
Some websites were clearly years out of date. Sites ranged from the professional and
complex, to the very basic and amateur. Most did not have even basic linkages such as to CEA’s
website, whilst others included large arrays of internal and external links to ecological content.
A small number of Catholic diocesan websites revealed the existence of diocesan bodies that
did or might address ecological concerns, specifically or as part of a broader justice agenda.
8.3.1 Archdiocese of Sydney
There was not a clear correlation between the size of the population within the diocese and
it having a website with substantial ecological content or the existence of ecological policies,
structures and praxis. For example, the large Archdiocese of Sydney, whilst it had what I
considered to be substantial ecological content, did not have any policy content nor evidence of
praxis or structures to address ecological concerns. It only rated as having substantial content
because it contained several letters from the infamous and controversial Cardinal Pell (the
Archbishop of the diocese) and some articles by a Rev. Fisher that related to ecological matters.
138
Unsurprisingly, the material from Cardinal Pell was anti-environmentalist and can be
summed up by his dismissal of anthropogenic climate change as a “scary story for grown-ups”
(essentially on the theological basis that God wouldn’t do such a nasty thing to us and all
previous such ‘scares’ like the Cold War, never amounted to Armageddon). In contrast, Rev.
Fisher’s articles put ecological concerns on par with the Church’s more traditional concern for
social justice. Given the Cardinal’s views, it is unsurprising that the diocesan website does not
indicate any positive organisational response to ecological concerns. Cardinal Pell is one of
three out of forty-three bishops who oppose the existence of Catholic Earthcare Australia
(Bishop Toohey, pers. comm., 2005).
In an article published in the newsletter of the reformist Catholic organisation, Catalyst for
Renewal, Fr Peter Maher, a parish priest in the Archdiocese of Sydney makes some very
relevant observations that appear indicative of the Archdiocese’s general orientation, inclusive
of ecological issues:
“Sydney diocese comes late to a Pastoral Plan but better late than never they
say. However, is it? There is no mention anywhere in the 30 page draft
document of Aborigines, ecumenism, other faiths, climate change or gays
and lesbians just to mention a few glaring omissions in a plan for
evangelisation… The poor and marginalised are mentioned in the
platitudinous tones of social welfare, concentrating more on setting up
structures and getting the words right… than providing a practical and hard
hitting critique for justice in civil society” (Maher, 2007).
8.3.2 Archdiocese of Perth
Somewhat similar to the situation in Sydney, the website of the Archdiocese of Perth had
no apparent ecological content other than for the writing of its clearly relatively elderly and very
conservative Archbishop. His writings occasionally touched on ecological issues but never in a
positive way. His discussion of population management in Australia did not even mention
ecological constraints. The Archdiocese’s 10 Year Plan did not mention ecological
considerations.
Overall, the tone was that which I would have expected to encounter fifty years ago – a lot
of moralising (but not about ecological issues), total anthropoexclusivism, and the highest
concern given to the preservation of the Church as an institution. Despite this, I note that CEA
held a conference on climate change in Perth during 2006, so at least the Archbishop did not
block such an event, as he would have been entitled to do. An attendee of the conference
described the event to me as “a very low-key affair, only about 50 registrants and no media. I
think (this was) a ‘softly-softly’ approach by Catholic Earthcare to try to get the WA Catholic
Education Office on side. It seemed to be informative rather than a ‘call to arms’” (Castleden,
pers. comm., 10/06).
139
8.3.3 Archdiocese of Brisbane
In contrast, whilst the website of the Archdiocese of Brisbane had no ecological content
other than a media release from CEA after the 2005 climate change conference, it did link to the
diocese’s Justice & Peace Commission website, in which an abundance of substantial content
was found on its CREATE (Christians Respecting Earth And The Environment)148 page. This
included information about a major collaboration between peak environmentalist groups, the
Commission, and the former Australian Greenhouse Office (a government agency). The website
also had a calendar of global ecologically related events and festivities, numerous links to
ecological information and organisations, Christian ecotheology and spirituality, and a
publication called ‘Hot tips for cool solutions’ that addresses practical measures for minimising
contributions to climate change.
The Archdiocese of Brisbane’s Justice & Peace Commission is also notable in that it has a
full-time paid Executive Officer, though the website notes that volunteers mainly do the
Commission’s work. Whilst the Commission’s scope extends beyond environmentalism, it does
note that since 2002, it has made “climate justice” a central focus. The term refers to the concept
of ecojustice but more specifically to addressing the causes and impacts of climate change, with
particular concern given to the effects on Pacific island nations. In March 2007, the
Commission cosponsored a conference on climate change. The flyer described the event as “A
conference for Catholics and other people of faith to consider the evidence for climate change
and its impacts; explore the biblical, theological and spiritual dimensions of a Christian
response; (and) learn about practical ways to take the urgent action required in various
dimensions of our lives.”
I corresponded with a member of the Commission and he commented that insufficient
funding was a problem, particularly in relation to the Commission not having direct control of
its website, which is hosted by the University of Queensland. Despite the limitations that he
raised, the Commission’s achievements stood out amongst those of other Catholic dioceses and
are amongst the more substantial of all of the subject denominations.
8.3.3.1 Earth Link
Earth Link149 is a “collaborative ministry sponsored by the Sisters of Mercy.” It is based in
rural southeast Queensland and whilst it is within the Archdiocese of Brisbane, it does not
appear to have any formal links with it. The project operates from a property, ‘Four Winds’,
which serves as a retreat and education centre. The Sisters that operate it attempt to do so with
148 http://www.uq.net.au/cjpc/create.htm
149 http://www.earth-link.org.au/
140
minimal ecological impact. At the time of writing, they were running a fund raising campaign to
purchase and install a solar hot water heater. The group’s website describes the project:
“Earth Link provides an opportunity for people who are concerned about the
future of Earth to reflect on their concern and move towards action. Earth
Link has a particular emphasis on why we need to care for Earth, and also on
the importance of beginning with our place, and then extending our concern
outwards to regional and global concerns.” Earth Link serves “People of all
ages who are concerned about the future of Earth, including parents,
grandparents, educators, helping professionals, environmentalists. Earth
Link will be of special benefit to those who are interested in ecospirituality
and sustainable living.”
Earth Link publishes a e-newsletter, ‘Earth Linking’, which usually contains promotions
for forthcoming events such as workshops, retreats, celebrations, protest gatherings (often
operated by environmentalist groups), fieldtrips, and eco-arts festivals, to name a few.
If it was not for the occasional reference to Catholic teachings, Earth Link could easily be
mistaken for a secular ecospiritual environmentalist project. It is very progressive in its
teachings and seems to be based in the ‘Creation Spirituality’ of Matthew Fox (1983; 1984) and
Thomas Berry (1988; 1999). It represents a future form of Christianity predicted and advocated
by David Tacey (2003; 2007) and is commensurate with the ‘Green Sisters’ phenomenon
documented in North America by Sarah McFarland Taylor (2002; 2005; 2007b; 2007a).
8.3.4 Diocese of Rockhampton
The regional and predominantly rural diocese of Rockhampton, also in Queensland, was
notable as one the most apparently progressive non-metropolitan dioceses. It has a Diocesan
Commission for Environmental Awareness, which as the name suggests, has a strong educative
focus. The website of the Commission was out of date by at least a year but correspondence
with a Commissioner, a nun of the Sisters of St Joseph, revealed that a lot of work was going on
‘behind the scenes’. The Commission had organised conferences and workshops on ecological
themes and intended to do so across this large rural area. Emphasis is given to the training
aspect so that people are not only informed about the issues but given knowledge and skills
relating to practical solutions and to further disseminating the message to other community
members. A form of evangelical environmentalism was evident. Nuns seemed to play a major
role in the work of the Commission, a situation similar to those described by McFarland Taylor,
2002, 2007b, a. Women were certainly dominant in the Commission’s activities.
The Rockhampton Diocese’s newsletter, ‘The Review’, had several articles addressing
ecological matters including the power and ethics of consumer choice being linked to achieving
ecojustice outcomes. Another article was about coastal ‘development’ threats, but extended into
a critically minded discussion about the use and abuse of ‘science’ by would-be developers. A
141
very informed and presumably well-educated person evidently wrote it. The author concluded
that those wanting to protect Creation need to exercise criticality in their assessment of
‘development’ proposals, and that the ultimate solution to the ecological crisis entails personal
and societal metanoia. Such a perspective accords with my earlier described view.
8.3.5 Diocese of Townsville
A perhaps comparable regional Queensland diocese is Townsville, the diocesan website of
which contained a link to CEA’s website as well as an Environment Links page with hyperlinks
to primarily international websites. I noted an extract from an article by the bishop in the
diocese’s Catholic News in which he wrote that voters should consider ecological issues when
voting in the 2004 federal election. The same edition of Catholic News noted that >$10 million
of construction and renovation of Church infrastructure was underway that year. Ecological
dimensions of those works were not mentioned. Such expenditure stands in extreme contrast to
the often-heard argument that the Church cannot spend more money on ecological concerns
because it is ‘asset rich but cash poor’.
8.3.6 Diocese of Maitland/Newcastle
The larger regional diocese of Maitland/Newcastle in NSW has a Social Justice
Commission but the website did not reveal any ecological policies. Links were provided to CEA
and to its climate change statement from 2005. None of the listed Advisory Groups of the
bishop related to ecological matters. Despite these limitations, the diocese’s ‘Aurora’ e-zine had
a significant volume of substantial ecological content covering topics such as:
• education programs;
• the very progressive lifestyle of two nuns who were setting up a minimum impact
demonstration house and garden;
• issues relating to climate change and the connection between so-called ‘climate sceptics’
and big business;
• practical ways to reduce one’s contribution to climate change;
• some joint funding of Landcare works by the Catholic and Anglican diocese who share a
fund for such ecumenical actions; and
• a story of nuns encouraging families and communities to engage in collective tree planting.
There was no evidence of substantial institutional reforms in this diocese. Nuns, keen
volunteers, and school groups drove most of the praxis. I saw no evidence of ecological policy
142
and praxis being enacted as part of the core business of the organisation. Things were happening
but they were largely peripheral and optional, rather than being at the centre of operations.
8.3.7 Diocese of Broome
The remote rural diocese of Broome in far NW Western Australia was relatively rare as a
low population area, far from metropolitan centres and from ‘alternative lifestyle’ areas, yet it
had a modest amount of ecological content on its website. The diocese has a Justice, Ecology &
Peace Office. Its content included an article calling for independent ecological input into any
assessment of proposed large-scale intercatchment water transfers (from the tropics to Perth). It
went so far as to say that commercial interests should be excluded from the evaluation process
and that demand management was essential, rather than simply increasing water supply. It was
very uncommon to see such an orientation emerging from rural and regional areas.
8.3.8 Diocese of Sale
The above situation in Broome is in stark contrast to that in the rural diocese of Sale in
Victoria where dominant land uses and employment include coal mining and electricity
generation, forestry and agriculture. That website had no ecological content and its newsletter
was supported by advertisements for products that most environmentalists would cringe at, for
example, large fuel-inefficient 4WD passenger vehicles. Its home page featured an image of a
coal-fired power station and various rural scenes and industries typical of the region. No
comment was made about the associated ecological issues.
8.3.9 Archdiocese of Hobart
Emerging from the politically and culturally divided state of Tasmania is an outstanding
example of diocesan policy-making in the context of the very controversial issue of native and
related plantation forestry. It also revealed a substantial organisational structure dealing with
‘justice’ issues that I did not detect in other dioceses.
The Archdiocese of Hobart governs all of Tasmania. Its website revealed the existence of a
Tasmanian Catholic Justice & Peace Commission150 that has its own Internet domain151. The
Commission states that it has a policy advisory role to the Archbishop and the broader
Tasmanian Catholic community. Its formal aims and objectives are provided on a related
website152. Each parish is said to have a “justice contact” appointed by the Archbishop. The
150 http://www.hobart.catholic.org.au/commission-justice-peace.htm
151 http://www.tasjustice.org/
152 http://www.liturgyhelp.com/lithelp/pub/3/para.asp?dept=507164&id=aus_hoba_18084&type=1
143
contact receives regular literature from the Commission and is expected to promote and
disseminate it. There are also several Local Justice Networks which are grass roots groups
supported by the Commission. The Commission produces a regular newsletter and the scope of
the Commission, despite its ambiguous title, includes ecological issues.
The Commission sought to clarify and ideally to progress discourse relating to the forestry
debate and to address the associated hostility and division. Tasmania has the highest vote for
The Greens of any State or Territory (~18%), yet it also has the largest and most controversial
state-backed corporate logging operations that include on going logging and clearing of old
growth forest and temperate rainforest. Various Church groups and representatives have
previously entered the debate including via national media events where they called for greater
consideration of the ecological and related spiritual values of forests, rather than the current
situation where corporate profits and employment are seen to be the main drivers of a
notoriously corrupt, subsidised and state-protected forestry industry.
The Commission embarked on this process by researching ‘the facts’ from a variety of
sources, trying to discern The Truth based on its notionally ‘rational’ and ‘unemotional’
assessment of the cold hard scientific and economic data. Unsurprisingly, this approach failed to
produce the desired result. The Commission bemoaned the fact the government regulators
would not supply requested information or that such data was said to be unavailable or was
excessively censored. The Commission encountered similar problems with getting information
from forestry firms, and complained about some of the responses it received from peak
environmentalist groups and The Greens. The Commission concluded that it couldn’t determine
‘the facts’ because data wasn’t provided or was clearly biased (both in technical and ‘emotional’
ways), but that irrespective of this problem, it was very concerned with the situation simply
because it couldn’t get the information that it saw as necessary for anyone to make a ‘rational’
decision about the issues.
Whilst it is evidently muddled about issues of scientific objectivity, scientific certainty, the
philosophy and scope of ‘rational’ economics, and it maintains the false dichotomy of emotion
and rationality, the Commission nonetheless made a conclusion consistent with its concern for
ecojustice153. However, it did fail to substantially progress the issue, being restricted by its
methodology to concluding that one should be suspicious when regulators and authorities
withhold or claim not to have vital information, and when the regulator and the regulated parties
operate largely beyond public scrutiny.
153 http://www.liturgyhelp.com/lithelp/images/cust/aus_hoba_18084/FinalForestry.pdf
144
Criticisms aside, the Commission’s endeavour is unique in the Catholic realm, being
matched only by a related project undertaken by the UCA Synod of Victoria & Tasmania in its
attempts to formulate a response to the forestry debate in both States. I also found a paper that
addressed the issue of logging in Melbourne’s water catchments on an Anglican website, but the
paper was not a formal institutional publication. I found no other Catholic diocesan attempts to
address such a controversial issue. Most appear to leave such matters to CEA or more often
appear to have no official concern for ecological matters at all. At the time of writing, CEA had
not specifically addressed the issues of the forestry debate.
8.3.10 Diocese of Lismore
The Diocese of Lismore would not have rated a mention in my research were it not for the
particular example of praxis discussed below. A visit to the Diocese’s professional and up-to-
date website suggests that the Church, or at least this part of it, has nothing to do with ecological
concerns. The site has a search engine but none of the standard search terms revealed any
ecological content. A manual search of the site’s structure generated the same result. This is odd
given that the Lismore area of northern coastal NSW is a well-known centre for ‘alternative
lifestyles’. Notably, I did find significant ecological content in the Anglican Diocese of Grafton,
which overlaps with the Catholic Diocese of Lismore. Despite the lack of ecological content on
the Diocese’s website, the Diocese is home to a notable example of Catholic ecological praxis.
This is discussed over-page.
8.3.10.1 Marian Grove Retirement Village
This example came to my attention after I published a small article about my research in
the newsletter of the Threatened Species Network. The Village’s manager emailed me in reply
to that article and informed me that this Church-owned and operated facility is a declared
Wildlife Refuge under NSW law, and that residents engage in various ecologically-minded
projects such as monitoring the site’s fauna, and constructing habitat boxes for threatened local
species. Construction of the site was noted as having included the conservation of a wetland and
associated bushland, though there was no mention of the extent to which other habitat may have
been destroyed or compromised. The Village has its own Bushcare group (a version of the
wider Landcare movement) and has a bush regeneration program. Whilst this example is
apparently unique in the Catholic Church, my research indicated that less intensive schemes
may be operating in some other Church facilities, particularly schools.
It is unclear what the full range of motivations for the ecological aspects of management at
Marian Grove Village were and are, but the Manager stated that the approach was intended to
be consistent with the call for ‘ecological conversion’ made by Pope John Paul II and supported
by CEA. It is entirely likely that some of the activities were mandated as conditions of
145
development consent by local and/or state government authorities and/or were offered
voluntarily to offset what may have been substantial clearing or detrimental modification of
what are now known to be endangered ecological communities (coastal wetland and swamp
forest) containing endangered flora and fauna species.
To further explore the scope of the site’s ecological praxis, I asked the Village Manager
whether he and the diocese had considered protecting the remnant habitat in a more formal and
binding manner than under the largely symbolic status of a Wildlife Refuge. This would entail
the relevant areas being formally mapped, described and placed under a binding management
plan and legal covenant that can only be reversed with the consent of the Minister for
Environment. My proposal was dismissed as something that was not open to consideration,
though a clear explanation as to why was not provided.
8.3.11 Archdiocese of Canberra & Goulburn
I searched the website154 of this Archdiocese on 27/06/06. No ecological content was
apparent on the homepage or from any of the drop-down links accessed from its menu bar. No
internal search facility was available. Given the Churches’ common practice of including
ecological matters within the domain of social justice, I first searched the internal link to
‘Services we provide – Social Justice’155. The page initially reads like a conventional
anthropocentric social justice agenda but towards the end, it mentions a broader agenda
inclusive of “the sacredness of God's creation, stressing the importance of humankind's
trusteeship of the earth and its resources and urging appropriate action for their preservation.”
The two links provided at the end of that page related to standard social justice concerns. My
strong impression was that ecological concerns had been simply ‘tacked on’ to a standard
anthropocentric orientation with little or no concept of the implications of ecojustice.
The Archdiocese’s website has a large media archive extending from June 2006 to July
2003. I scanned this for ecological content by reading article titles and descriptions. A short
article headed “Paradise restored”, describes the renovations of St Clements Retreat at Galong
in rural NSW. It includes reference to the property’s role as an “environmental sanctuary” but
makes no other comment on ecological issues associated with the site. I discuss this property in
the following section. Despite a large volume of content in the media archive, I encountered no
other ecological content, with the closest to this being an article about a collective call for rain
to end the drought.
154 http://www.cangoul.catholic.org.au/
155 http://www.cangoul.catholic.org.au/services/justice.htm
146
The Archdiocese’s calendar webpage provides a list of events in and around the region. I
did not search each month for ecological content but went straight to June to see if World
Environment Day/Creation Sunday was mentioned, as this event would be the one most likely
to appear on a Catholic Church event calendar. No such event was mentioned in the calendar.
Two on-line fora were provided under the ‘Your Say’ link. These were topics set up by the
website administrator to encourage dialogue. The most relevant forum topic was entitled “The
future of the world and the Church is in our hands”. There were no postings on this forum or on
the other forum topic that related to outcomes of a Synod discussion.
The website has an archive of the Archdiocese’s newsletter, ‘Catholic Voice’ that I
searched from June 2006 back to April 2005, after which searching became slower and less
effective because of differences in archive structure. I saw no ecological content during this
search, though the descriptions of articles may not have been a good indicator as to whether any
such content was present.
The website has a link to a Synod page that I searched for ecological content. The page
seemed out-of-date and appeared to contain little content in general. No ecological content was
evident.
The site contains profile pages for its senior clergy, Archbishop Francis Carroll (then
recently retired), his replacement, Archbishop Mark Coleridge, and Bishop Patrick Power.
Bishop Power’s page states, “He is currently secretary of the Committee for Justice,
Development, Ecology and Peace and a member of the Australian Social Justice Council”. This
is a reference to the Bishops’ Committee of the ACBC prior to its restructure in mid-2006.
Archbishop Carroll’s page lists some of his Committee roles but does not note that he served as
Deputy Chair of CEA. Archbishop Coleridge’s page is of a different structure to those of his
colleagues and is primarily an introduction of himself to the Archdiocese. It does not mention
any ecological issues or give any hints of his orientation in this regard.
I was surprised to find that the Archdiocese of Canberra & Goulburn’s website contained
so little ecological content and nothing of any substance. My surprise was due to my
understanding that both Archbishop Carroll and Bishop Power were strong advocates of CEA
and the Church’s ecological reformation in general. Perhaps the website simply does not
represent their views or the policies and activities relating to ecological issues. It is possible that
as the site does provide links to CEA, the Dioceses approach is to emphasise CEA’s role as the
Church’s primary administrative vehicle for implementation ecological reforms, rather than
tackling such things at the diocesan level.
147
8.3.11.1 St Clements Retreat, Galong
As noted above, the diocese’s website described this property as an “environmental
sanctuary”. Through my discussions with CEA, and more productively through a colleague in
the ANU’s Human Ecology Forum, I was able to gain access to St Clements. The property is a
former monastery that, with the decline of its membership to only two elderly Brothers, had
started to diversify into an ecumenical and potentially multifaith retreat.
St Clements was also in the process of becoming a ‘greener’ retreat centre to the extent
that it already had a Landcare plan in place because of interest from some local
environmentalists and the support of the Rector (i.e. the religious brother in charge of the site).
The site covers 800 acres, most of which is leased for cropping and grazing, in an area suffering
the effects of over-clearing and related salinisation. The Landcare plan specified extensive
revegetation of the property and identified three small areas of remnant vegetation for
protection. However, these were not the basis of the retreat’s claimed “environmental
sanctuary” values. These were very limited, and related mostly to the parklike and largely exotic
gardens, and to a spring-fed dam and a watercourse lined with willows.
Having learnt how relatively ‘green’ the Rector was I explored the possibility of him
agreeing to my examining the remnant vegetation with a view to obtaining government-funded
protection for it. He agreed, and I organised a survey of the largest remnant with the assistance
of the regional branch of the Australian Native Plant Society, of which I was a member. That
survey identified a new record and a range extension for an endangered plant species, as well as
locating a vulnerable bird species, and confirming that the bushland, albeit badly degraded, was
a legally recognised endangered plant community. This information was enough to attract
officers of the then NSW Department of Environment to conduct another inspection of the
bushland with me. They were inspecting the area with a view to determining how best they
could protect it, to the extent that the Rector might permit this.
The second inspection located another plant species and population of significance in the
second-largest remnant of native vegetation. The Department agreed that the whole property
could be designated a Wildlife Refuge, and that two of the three identified remnant patches
could be covered by a perpetual and binding conservation covenant. Both arrangements would
provide formal management plans and some financial and other advice to assist the Rector in
conserving these habitats. The Rector agreed to these proposals and it is my understanding that
the process to formally protect these areas may be completed in late 2007.
During the process of discussing the proposed conservation measures with the Rector and
his second-in-command, a senior Brother, an interesting conversation occurred. When the
Department’s staff pointed out their intention for formal protection of the larger of the two areas
148
of remnant vegetation would mean the exclusion of livestock and other farming activities, the
Brother objected vehemently. He made it very clear that he viewed land as only of value if it
was able to be ‘used’, i.e. exploited for economic gain – as this was clearly God’s intention.
This view may be linked to the fact that the former monastery had long used its large rural
holding to be relatively self-sufficient and more recently, income from leasing the land to
neighbouring farmers was the former monastery’s major source of revenue. However, as noted
earlier in this chapter, such agrarianism is strongly evident in Catholicism.
The Rector overruled his colleague’s objections, accepting very readily the advice of the
Department’s ecologist in relation to the exclusion of grazing. In earlier discussions with the
Rector, I learnt that he had undergone something of an ‘ecological conversion’, and he cited the
teachings of the late Pope John Paul II as highly influential in this regard. He was committed to
enacting such a ‘conversion’ in the management of the retreat centre and its grounds. This
extended to a phased conversion of the agricultural lands to ‘organic’ production, along with
carrying out the extensive revegetation recommended in the Landcare plan. Renovations of the
buildings within the retreat centre were also occurring with some regard to minimising their
energy and water requirements. The retreat also operated a minibus that could transport visitors
to and from the local railway station, though it was clear that most patrons drove to this
relatively remote location, making any claims of ‘sustainability’ dubious at best. Nonetheless,
the Rector’s commitments and achievements are substantial, especially given their scale and the
very considerable cost of some of the works.
St Clements represents a rare but valuable insight into how the ecological policies of the
Church can be and are being applied at the fringes of the organisation. It is also an example of
where institutional Church policy tends to occur after the actual ‘ecological conversion’ at the
grass-roots level. The Rector, having undergone his ‘ecological conversion’, was able to pursue
all manner of ‘greening’ projects because he is largely autonomous and not constrained by the
bureaucracy of the diocese. He chose to seek the bishop’s approval for the formal protection of
the remnant vegetation areas, but it was clear that this was done more out of courtesy rather than
strict administrative necessary. I doubt that any objections from the bishop would have stood in
the Rector’s way. My understanding is that religious Orders are able to operate almost
independently of the diocese and this is seen as a key factor in their being able to undertake
ecological works of greater extent and depth, and in a far faster manner than generally occurs in
the diocese (see for example McFarland Taylor, 2002, 2007b, a).
149
8.4 Summary and conclusions
CEA is the Catholic Church’s recently formed issue-specific national body to formulate
and promulgate ecological policies, and to promote praxis. Officially, it was created in response
to the call for ‘ecological conversion’ made by the late Pope John Paul II. However, there was
also substantial bottom-up support and lobbying for such an outcome (J. Schooneveldt, pers.
comm., 08/07). Prior to CEA’s formation, the Church had produced a very small number of
ecological policies, both specific and general. These often include ecological concerns as a
component of social justice, with the social dimension being emphasised. Anthropocentrism and
agrarianism is evident.
CEA has produced a substantial range of ecological policy statements and associated
educational material in a relatively short time, but as a result of it being relocated to Canberra
and in need of replacement staff, its generation of policy appears to have stalled during 2007.
Somewhat akin to ‘environment departments’ in government and corporate realms, CEA
appears to have been chronically underfunded and understaffed, and as a result its staff,
particularly the former CEO, appear to have been overworked. Such circumstances are
described matters by Millikan, 1981 p104, as typical in relation to the Churches’ commitment to
social justice issues. Whilst CEA has produced quite a lot of policies during its first four years,
most of them substantial, I doubt that this would have been sustainable in terms of staff and
budgetary resources.
Some of CEA’s policies are relatively issue-specific, for example the management of the
Murray-Darling Basin and the Great Barrier Reef, and the challenge of addressing climate
change. The latter is a particularly strong theme in the recent work of CEA, which until its
staffing crisis in 2007, was running a series of state-based conferences and workshops about the
Church’s position on climate change. The policies of CEA are evidence that the Church has not
simply adopted a single broad-brush ecological policy that fails to address specific issues.
However, most of its policies are symbolic and externally directed. Internally directed policies
and operational policies are very rare and very recent.
CEA’s policy products tend to be prepared by specialist authors or panels of experts in
relevant fields. They tend to be far less anthropocentric than the earlier policy produced by
CEA’s functional predecessors. In some instances, anthropocentrism is specifically disclaimed,
with bio- and even ecocentrism (in a theocentric model) being promoted. However,
anthropocentrism is still evident even in documents that argue for a theo-ecocentric approach.
This appears to be a result of multiple authorship, the input of editors and reviewers, or
confusion on the part of the author(s).
150
CEA’s role is primarily educative and it has no powers to enforce or even monitor
compliance with the policies that it produces on behalf of the ACBC. CEA does not have any
formal mechanism in place for determining the extent to which its policies are adopted. This in
part explains its focus on externally directed and largely symbolic policies. It is not empowered
to make and enforce policies that affect the Church’s own operations.
Evidence gathered for this chapter reveals that CEA’s policies are being adopted in some
parts of the Church, though it is often unclear whether the praxis was driven by the policy or
whether it arose independently. In some circumstances, it is evident that the praxis or the intent
to enact it was already underway before CEA existed. CEA and its policies have certainly lent
weight to existing ecological praxis activities in the Church but the extent to which praxis has
been facilitated or encouraged by CEA remains unknown.
Ecological policy and praxis remains an optional extra at the diocesan level, and I have not
found any evidence of it being implemented as ‘core business’ within a diocese. Ecological
policy and praxis is patchy to the extent that I encountered it through my research methods.
There are some excellent examples of praxis in a very small number of dioceses, but the
extradiocesan religious orders, particularly nuns, appear to be leaders in this regard156, a finding
consistent with the work of McFarland Taylor, 2002, 2007b, a. The centralised role of CEA in
policy-making, ecological education, and the provision of tools such as its “environmental audit
CD” may be a factor in the apparently poor rate of ecological policy-making and praxis at the
diocese level. This may be because the parishes and transdiocesan organisations go direct to
CEA, bypassing, at least to some extent, the dioceses.
There is not a consistent national approach, in part due to the autonomy of bishops. Some
parts of the Catholic Church, including some prominent leaders, remain effectively and/or
overtly opposed to environmentalism, whilst other parts and some leaders take a very
progressive view but appear not to have converted that view into meaningful action.
At present, implementation of ecological policy generated by CEA largely relies on the
influence of critical change agents operating at relatively low levels of the Church hierarchy,
rather than on any substantive institutional mechanisms. Where there are effective change
agents operating within the Church, some examples of significant ecological policy and praxis
can be observed, but they are not ‘top-down’ in their origin. These include the work of the
Sydney Catholic Education Office through its Earthcare Project. This endeavour resulted in
numerous office-based ecological audits, the development of ‘environmental management
systems’ leading to reduced ecological impacts through resource efficiencies, and the
156 Not all of the examples of ecological praxis by religious orders could be presented in this chapter.
151
establishment of ethical purchasing requirements (Australian Catholic Bishops Conference,
2002).
The challenge would appear to be the enactment of an institution-wide mechanism to
achieve similar results to the Earthcare Project across the full spectrum of the denomination’s
operations. This would require a change to long-standing organisational structures and the
related issue of power and authority within the Church. It would also potentially conflict with
the deeply held notion of organisational subsidiarity and with the doctrine of conscience, i.e.
that individuals have to make up their own minds as to how they act – they cannot be required
to do so. The latter is a contested doctrine in some parts of the Church that feel they should be
able to impose ‘Church’ policy on Catholics, under threat of excommunication. Such views are
restricted to issues such as homosexuality and abortion. The Church would also need to put
considerably more resources into the training of clergy and staff, into CEA, and would likely
need to mandate the establishment of equivalent bodies in each diocese and major transdiocesan
or extradiocesan organisation. At present, the Church’s structure and its long-standing emphasis
on anthropocentric concerns impede its ability to convert its ecological theology into ecological
policies and praxis.
152
Chapter 9: Anglican Church ecological
policy & praxis
9.1 Introduction
I adopt a slightly different approach to my presentation and analysis of Anglican ecological
policy and praxis than that used for the Catholic Church. A major reason for this is that the
Anglican tradition is far behind the Catholic tradition in dealing with ecological issues at a
national level. The Anglican Church lacks an equivalent to Catholic Earthcare Australia and
subsequently does not have the same form and volume of ecological policy. However, the
Anglican tradition has a greater depth of response at the diocese level, perhaps in part because
of what it lacks nationally. Consequently, this chapter provides a larger section on diocesan
responses and a smaller section for the national response. I was also able to document some
research at the parish level within two Anglican dioceses, unlike in the chapter dealing with the
Catholic response.
9.2 The national website
The national Anglican website157 has been revised since research for this section of the
thesis commenced in 2004. As of March 2006, it had been altered such that what little
ecological policy content is available was more accessible, though it was not as apparent and
accessible as it could be. This remained the case in February 2007.
The website organises the main body of ecological policy (small as it is) under the heading
‘Social Issues’. This is consistent with normative Western Christian theology, which retains a
hierarchy of ‘God, Man, Nature’158, such that ‘the environment’ is a social issue because the
non-human world is subordinate to ‘Man’ [sic]. The only document available under ‘Social
Issues – Environment’ is ‘Green by Grace’, which is discussed later in this chapter. It is not
listed under the ‘Students’ Page’ link.
Under the website’s ‘Theology, Liturgy, and Professional Standards’ section, the
documents that are available relate to administrative and conventionally conceived social justice
concerns, with no notion of Church professionals having any ecological standards to meet. The
home page contains a profile and link to a document entitled ‘State of the Family 2005’. There
is no ‘State of the Environment’ report or any similar publication. This is again consistent with
157 http://www.anglican.org.au
158 See for e.g. Callicott & Ames, 1989 p3-4.
153
the often bemoaned anthropocentrism of Western Christianity and its Churches, of which
Protestantism is frequently said to be the most recalcitrant (Breuilly & Palmer, 1992).
9.3 National Environment Working Group
In 2005, the Australian Anglican Church’s website contained a page relating to ecological
concerns159 under its ‘Governance’ and ‘Working Groups’ pages. This revealed that the Church
in Australia deals with ecological issues through an Environment Working Group, which is one
of several dealing with particular themes, others including Child Protection and Refugees. I
extracted much of the following information on the Australian Anglican Church’s position from
the Environment Working Group’s website as of 2007160.
The Environment Working Group was established in October 2001 by Resolution 01/01 of
the General Synod (the Church’s national governance body). It is notable that this Resolution
specified that the Group was to include representatives of the Church’s Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Council. The Group was constituted to “advise… on sustainable environmental
practices.” A year later, the Standing Committee of the General Synod required the Group to
provide “advice to the Standing Committee and to the Primate on the matter of encouraging the
Federal Government to sign the agreement to the Kyoto Protocol.” I discuss this issue later in
this section. The Group responded to its constituting Resolution by proposing to:
• “develop a short (4 x A4 page) statement about the theological basis of
a Christian approach to the environment, which specifically addresses
the indigenous perspectives;
• establish a way of collating and making available information about
environmental activities which dioceses, parishes and Anglican
organisations are involved in. This will include liturgical resources (e.g.
for Environment Day each year), practical advice (e.g. on recycling),
activities (e.g. field days, conferences), and Anglican environmental
groups (e.g. WA EcoCare, Canberra-Goulburn and Grafton's
Environment Commissions).”
The response reveals that two diocesan Environment Commissions precede the formation
of the National Working Group. I investigated the reference to WA EcoCare and found that the
group appeared to be largely defunct as of 2005. From what little information was available
(none of it on-line), it appears that EcoCare was a very small group whose work was relatively
narrow in scope and was restricted to a small area of southwest Western Australia.
159 http://www.anglican.org.au/governance.cfm?SID=22&SSID=75&PID=132
160 http://www.anglican.org.au/governance.cfm?SID=22&SSID=75
154
The newly formed Working Group noted that its first priority was the presentation of the
Anglican theological “basis for environmental concern” as this “needs to be stated clearly so
that its advice to the church on developing sustainable environmental practices might be
received appropriately. At the very least, the Group believes that a debate on the theological
issues about the environment needs to be stimulated.” This indicates that in 2001, the Anglican
Church of Australia lacked a nationally accepted ecotheology, let alone anything resembling
ecological policy or praxis. Again, at the diocese level, policies and praxis were already
underway. This is evident in that when the Group met for the first time in July 2002, it:
• “considered reports from diocesan groups in Canberra & Goulburn,
Western Australia and Grafton;
• received a theological statement for environmental concern by Bishop
George Browning (Canberra & Goulburn);
• welcomed the contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island
speakers who emphasised the necessity of taking into account the role
of their spirituality and close affinity with the land.”
Apparently, a small but influential diocesan team prompted or at least facilitated the
national Anglican response. This contrasts with the response of the Catholic Church in
Australia, which appears to have been driven by the call for an ‘ecological conversion’ by Pope
John Paul II. The situation in the Uniting Church is somewhat less clear, as its National
Assembly has produced statements of ecological relevance in some form since the Church’s
unification in 1977. Though again, the strongest operational policies and praxis come from the
Synod level – roughly the equivalent of the dioceses.
The first meeting of the Anglican Environment Working Group reports that it highlighted
the need for:
• “developing a sound theological basis for environmental concern that
can inform and encourage us, and to give a means of responding both to
cynical and extreme non-Christian views;
• practical advice, concerning environmental management and inclusion
in worship through liturgy;
• the church to speak out on environmental matters and to take action
within its diocesan and school structures; and
• encouraging city people to identify with the issues of rural parishes.”
There is no reference to any proposed structural arrangements that might best achieve the
above aims, even though at roughly the same time, the Catholic Church was publicly launching
its response in the form of CEA.
155
9.3.1 The Kyoto Protocol
In 2003, as required by the General Synod, the Environment Working group submitted a
response to the issue of the Kyoto Protocol (discussed below) and a draft theological and related
policy document entitled Green by Grace (also discussed separately below). It also sought:
• “to continue working to collate information on practical steps which
individual Anglicans, parishes and church organisations can take
towards sustainable environmental practices, and
• to maintain and foster links with world-wide Christian environmental
networks, and
• to arrange seminars in several regional centres to discuss environmental
issues and their practical and theological implications with local
Christians. This would have particular reference to the issues of water
management.”
Due to its length, I do not provide the full text of the Working Group’s response to the
issue of whether the Australian Government should sign the Kyoto Protocol. It is available on
the national Anglican website161. Key points arising from the Group’s submission include:
• concern about the Church getting mired in the associated politics;
• the need to transcend that concern because the debate about the Kyoto Protocol is “also a
serious social and moral issue about how the world as a whole approaches global
environmental problems”;
• “greed, selfishness and exploitation of global resources underlie this and other
environmental issues”;
• an awareness of the connection between scientific opinions, funding sources and scientific
peer pressure;
• the Church lacks the scientific expertise to make a decision on what it views as a still
contentious and technical scientific question as to whether global climate change is real
and whether it is caused by certain human activities. Consequently it can’t determine its
position purely on technical grounds;
• in light of scientific uncertainty and some obvious ethical and practical arguments relating
to fossil fuel dependency, “it is both ethical and practical to apply the precautionary
principle and support a more environmentally conscious global community” (even though
we may not be certain about the reality and mechanism of climate change);
161 http://www.anglican.org.au/docs/Sign_the_Kyoto_Protocol.doc
156
• “There is widespread community concern” about ecological issues…. (The subtext of
which is that if the Church is to be socially relevant, it has to respond positively to that
concern);
• the need for the Church to lead by example, noting that some members are already doing
so;
• the Working Group isn’t united in its position on the priority given to addressing climate
change. One member referred to earlier in the context of the Archdiocese of Sydney
believes that “the greenhouse debate is an obsession of wealthy societies not needing to
focus on basic matters such as food and water supply”; and
• “On balance it is clear that the majority of the Working Group would prefer to see the
Protocol signed, not necessarily because we are convinced of the technical detail or the
primacy of the issue in environmental problems. But we believe it is imperative to
acknowledge the sinfulness of, and to take specific action to lessen, current exploitation
and consumption.”
The General Synod accepted the proposition in the above report and wrote to the
Australian Government, asking that it sign the Kyoto Protocol. It received a response in July
2003, though the Synod report does not discuss this. However, I know that the Australian
Government continues to reject signing the Protocol, which came into force in late 2004 after
the Russian Government became a signatory.
As of 2007, the Working Group’s website contains a link following-on from its work on
the Kyoto Protocol debate. Notably, the link is not to further material in the Australian Anglican
realm, but to the progressive and forthright position of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to a
Church of England website that “looks at how Anglicans in the UK might address this issue by
reducing their environmental ‘footprint’162.” The associated website is an example of what
could be replicated in Australia was there sufficient commitment from the General Synod.
9.3.2 The Working Group since 2004
In 2004, the General Synod received a report from the Working Group and agreed to the
Group’s reappointment for a further 3 years. It asked the Group “to collate information on
practical steps which individual Anglicans, parishes and church organisations can take towards
sustainable environmental practices, and to make that information available on the General
Synod website.” It also asked the Group “to maintain and foster links with world-wide Christian
environmental networks.” The latter was addressed in part at the 2005 meeting of the
162 http://www.shrinkingthefootprint.cofe.anglican.org/
157
international Anglican Communion Environment Network (ACEN) in Canberra, at which
Bishop Browning was appointed the Network’s chairperson. There is no evidence of other
networking occurring.
The Group’s website notes that in 2005, General Synod agreed to continue providing
Internet space for the Group’s material, with a focus on “practical steps for churches and
individuals to promote environmental sustainability”. As of February 2007, that information did
not appear to exist on the Group’s site other than for the recent link to the aforementioned site
operated by the Church of England. In addition, General Synod provided a maximum budget of
$5400 for the Working Group’s participation in the then forthcoming meeting of the ACEN. It
also agreed to “support the Environment Working Group in requesting information from
dioceses about whether the dioceses currently include, or would be prepared to include,
environmental concerns in their criteria for choosing ethical investments…” The results of that
research were not available on-line in February 2007. Notably, the Uniting Church and at least
some of its Synods have already addressed the issue of ecological dimensions to their
investment portfolios. The matter is also mentioned as part of the work of the Environment
Commission of the Anglican Archdiocese of Melbourne and is addressed to some extent in the
Catholic realm.
Subsequently, there appears to have been very little activity, let alone further development
of policy and praxis by the Working Group, though this may be a result of the Group’s website
not listing any developments since 2005. However, the link to the Group’s page via the ‘Social
Issues’ and the renamed ‘Energy, Environment and Climate Change’ links notes that in 2006
“Anglicans joined with other 16 faith traditions and the Climate Institute to release ‘Common
Belief: Australia’s Faith Communities on Climate Change’.”163 That statement is correct but
does not tell the whole story. The Anglican contribution did not come from the Environment
Working Group, the Primate or the General Synod, but from Bishop Browning writing under
the auspices of the ACEN – an international body. In effect, there was no official national
Anglican contribution to this publication. This is not entirely surprising given the publicly
available164 views of the Working Group’s chairperson, who believes that:
“Global warming is an issue that only well-off democratic countries can
afford to make a fuss about. The third world has far more pressing issues,
issues of sustaining life. The greenhouse effect is really peripheral to
Australia’s environmental concerns. What does it really matter if Australia’s
ski fields shrink?”
163 See Appendix 1.
164 http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/socialissues/435a/
158
I attended a meeting of the Environment Working Group in Canberra in 2005 and did not
come away inspired by its progress or what I perceived its potential to be. The meeting was
under-attended, with barely enough attendees for the Group to function. I noted that the Group
had no staff, no office and no resources other than perhaps some borrowed administrative
support to compile minutes and organise meetings. The General Synod may have paid for
members’ travel costs, as it is one of its official bodies. It was little more than a shell of an
organisation and clearly relies primarily, if not entirely, on volunteer labour.
Compared to the productivity of CEA, which was constituted at roughly the same time, the
Anglican Environment Working Group has been relatively unproductive. Its primary outcome is
the document ‘Green by Grace’, which is reviewed later in this section. To my knowledge, it
has not produced any other policies or policy-related material other than the advice and
recommendation that lead to the General Synod calling for the Federal Government to sign the
Kyoto Protocol. With no staff, and not even the resources to construct and operate its own
website akin to that of CEA, it cannot fulfil the networking and central resource role that it
envisaged for itself in 2001. At the Group’s meeting in 2005, the hosting Bishop, George
Browning165, mentioned plans to form a body equivalent to CEA but as of mid-2007, this had
not occurred.
In addition to a lack of resources and a small and widely spread volunteer membership, the
Group faces potentially on-going disharmony arising from the strongly different views of its
Chairperson. This may be a factor in the Group’s relative lack of success and it is unclear how
the Group, if it is still functional as of 2007, proposes to deal with this. Perhaps the fact that the
Chairperson is a Sydney Anglican and that the Archdiocese of Sydney now has its own form of
a non-operational ‘environment policy’ may allow the Group’s internal dynamics to progress.
In discussions that I had with members of various diocesan environment commissions, I
was given the clear understanding that they had little or no faith in the ability of the Working
Group to achieve its aims, let alone match those of CEA, which are themselves very limited in
terms of operational policy. Instead of directing energy toward improving the effectiveness of
the clearly struggling Working Group, Environment Commission members seemed to feel it
was more useful to get on with the job of ecological reform at the diocesan level. They often
noted that they had enough trouble with their own constraints in terms of funding and a
widespread lack of interest from parish priests, so trying to shift things at the national level was
beyond their agendas. I note that even in the Diocese of Grafton, only two parishes were fully
165 It is notable that despite being a national and international leader in Anglican ecological policy and
praxis, Bishop Browning is not an official member of the Environment Working Group.
159
participating in the outcomes from the Environment Commission’s policies. A Commission
member in the Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn reported a similar situation.
9.3.3 ‘Green by Grace’
As of March 2006, the national Anglican website suggests that the Church does not have
an official institutional ecological policy. This was still the impression given in February 2007.
This situation contrasts with the websites of the other subject denominations, both of which
provide collections of both broad and issue-specific ecological policy documents. The Anglican
website’s ecological policy content is restricted to the Working Group’s advice on the Kyoto
Protocol and the primarily theological document ‘Green by Grace’, which was prepared by the
Environment Working Group for the 2004 National Synod.
In 2005, the Anglican home page contained a link to ‘Green by Grace’ under the heading
‘Theology, Liturgy, and Professional Standards Resources’, suggesting that the Church saw the
document as a theological rather than a policy resource. Yet in 2007, the document was only
available via the Environment Working Group’s page. ‘Green by Grace’ is certainly a primarily
theological work, but has a very small final section on praxis. It is not a directive operational
policy and is perhaps best considered, in secular governance terms, as a ‘white paper’ i.e. the
background material that usually precedes formal policy. As such, it indicates that the Anglican
Church of Australia is still bridging the gap between a very recent (2004) ecotheological shift
and its manifestation as institutional ecological policy at a national level.
‘Green by Grace’ was substantially prepared by Bishop George Browning, a leader of
environmental reform in the Anglican Church, assisted by Jeff Sturman166 and Deborah
Guess167. As a primarily theological rather than policy document, it is beyond the scope of this
thesis to undertake a detailed analysis of it. I provide only a brief assessment of it below.
‘Green by Grace’ addresses popular secular perceptions about Christianity’s ecological
credentials that are consistent with the work and widespread misinterpretations of the work of
Lynn White Jr., (1967). It specifically refutes White’s assessment that the ‘dominion’
interpretation of key text within Genesis is orthodox, and instead argues for the stewardship
interpretation, citing other biblical texts to support this. Some of the texts used are agrarian and
166 Dr Jeff Sturman is a Senior Lecturer in the field of environmental engineering (particularly relating to
water) at the School of Environmental Science, Murdoch University, Western Australia. Fellow Anglican
environmentalist and member of the Environment Working Group, Dr Catherine Baudains is also an
academic in that School.
167 Deborah Guess was then a recent postgraduate in Christian ecotheology from Monash University. She
has been highly influential in the ecological policy and praxis developments in the Anglican Archdiocese
of Melbourne. As of 2007, she is a PhD candidate addressing an aspect of Anglican ecotheology.
160
uphold the long-standing but subsumed and obscured tradition of Christian stewardship
grounded in an agrarian view of Nature. It does not address the issues that arise from the
concept of agrarian-based stewardship, particularly anthropocentrism, instrumentalism,
productivism and utilitarianism. However, it does address the long-standing criticism of
Christianity (and indeed other religions) for its emphasis on the transcendent realm at the
expense of the physical world (after Collins, 1995). It places works to “manage the resources of
the earth” in the same realm as proselytising and working to alleviate human suffering, noting
that such work is about striving towards a goal that cannot be reached until the foretold divine
intervention occurs to complete such work.
‘Green by Grace’ addresses the claim that modern society and the dominant Western and
Christian culture is uniquely to blame for the extent of ecological harm. It points out that
historical non-Christian civilisations have also caused great harm, and that indeed modern non-
Christian nations continue to cause great degradation. It does not state this to downplay the
ecocrisis.
Despite evidence of an anthropocentric and instrumentalist theology, the document claims
to be otherwise and asserts that it uses a theocentric basis for its position, i.e. that addressing the
ecological crisis is a moral obligation because Creation was made by God and is therefore
sacred, making it a sin to abuse it.
It also refutes the ‘all beings are equal’ argument of Peter Singer, which it labels as
utilitarian and open to abuse, lacking a “clear standard of right and wrong”. It rejects both
ecocentrism and pantheism as inconsistent with Christian theology. It briefly describes
panentheism as per Barbour, 1990, and de Chardin (1881-1955), but doesn’t take a position for
or against this. It advocates acceptance of the concept of ‘ecologically sustainable
development’, particularly the precepts of intergenerational equity and the precautionary
principle, noting that these must be addressed theocentrically, not instrumentally.
The section entitled “Some practical responses by Australian Anglican churches”, whilst
very short, is the closest that the document comes to being operational policy, though in this
case it is purely advisory and has no institutional force. It includes:
• “The energy and water audits undertaken by the Diocese of Canberra &
Goulburn. The diocesan Environment Commission works also with the
Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture, and Catholic Earthcare
Australia, arranging seminars on topics such as global warming;
• The conferences on spirituality and ecology in the Diocese of Grafton;
• Melbourne diocesan synod’s decision to set up an Environment
Commission;
• The grass-roots action of WA Eco-Care in communities dedicated to
sustainable living;
161
• The Australian Anglican Church’s participation in the world-wide
Anglican Communion Environmental Network;
• The greening of church space using endemic168 [sic] plants.”
The document then provides a suggested reading list.
Despite its philosophical problems, ‘Green by Grace’ is a leap forward for the Australian
Anglican Church. It has the potential to empower significant positive ecological outcomes in the
Church were its full potential to be realised through operational policy and praxis. I explore the
latter at the diocesan level in the following section.
9.4 Diocesan policy and praxis
The Anglican Church of Australia has 23 dioceses, all of which had websites during 2005-
6. Of these, eight contained substantial ecological content. Again, ‘substantial’ content refers to
original material rather than simply linking to external sites. However, more often than not,
there was either no content or substantial content, with only a very small number of sites falling
in-between.
The standout Anglican diocese is that of Canberra & Goulburn. It appears to have been the
first to publish substantial ecological content and furthermore, appears to have been the
inspiration for the small number of dioceses who have followed. It is even cited by CEA in
relation to the development of its ecological audit program – something apparently pioneered,
revived or first implemented169 in Australia by the Anglican Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn. I
provide a detailed review of this Diocese’s ecological policies and praxis later in this chapter.
9.4.1 Archdiocese of Melbourne
Another notable diocese is that of Melbourne. When its website was first reviewed in
2005, it had substantial ecological content but of a limited and largely non-institutional nature. I
accessed ecological content from the home page under the headings ‘Issues’ and ‘Environment’.
The Diocese had a Social Responsibilities Committee and there were two related articles under
the ‘Environment’ category. The first, written by a Committee member, is a substantial paper
about the impacts of forestry operations in general, but more specifically on Melbourne’s
potable water catchments. The paper proposes a ban on logging in that area because of various
168 The reference is clearly to indigenous plants not those that are restricted to the site or its environs.
‘Indigenous’ and ‘endemic’ are commonly confused in this context, even by relevant professionals.
169 In 1993, the Uniting Church NSW Synod passed a resolution calling for the development and
implementation of regular, semi-independently assessed, ecological audits across all levels of the Church
from parish to Synod. However, nothing appears to have come of this.
162
ecological and public interest concerns. The Committee endorsed that recommendation. The
other article is a call for the Federal Government to support signing and implementation of the
Kyoto Protocol. There is a third article in which the Committee’s newsletter discusses the need
for ethical investment, however, ecological concerns are not specifically mentioned and are only
addressed obliquely.
When revisited in 2006, the website of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne had been
significantly updated and rearranged. Ecological content was now accessible from the home
page via ‘Resources’ and ‘Environment’, with the volume of content, original and external,
increasing dramatically. Its Social Responsibilities Committee had apparently seen its
ecological concerns moved to a new Diocesan Environment Committee, a term apparently
pioneered in the Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn. Similar to that diocese’s site, Melbourne’s
website now included tips on energy and water conservation, organic gardening, ‘green’
cleaning products, waste reduction, transport options, and targeted the provision of “practical
environmental solutions for parishes and individuals.” Deborah Guess, the author of the earlier
paper on logging in Melbourne’s water supply catchments, made a major contribution to the
new website.
The revised Melbourne website also contains details on why and how to perform an
environmental audit170, again aimed mainly but not exclusively at parishes. The justification for
conducting an audit comes in part from the official statements of the Anglican Communion
Environment Network. The audit process is a revised version of the Eco-Congregation’s audit
reworked for Australian conditions by the Environment Commission of the Diocese of Canberra
& Goulburn, subsequently reworked by CEA. The audit is very practically oriented and focused
on reducing impacts and providing solutions to associated problems. It is broad in its scope but
not so broad as to be tokenistic.
A key feature of the revised website and the new Environment Commission is the publicly
available Diocesan Environment Policy171. The policy has the headings:
• Background (defines ‘sustainability’ but in an apparently anthropoexclusive way);
• Theology (‘matter matters’ and ecological concern is said to be part of the core Christian
values – see over page);
• Principles (“God created humankind as part of an interdependent world of organisms and
the natural processes and resources that sustain them; We have a responsibility to look
170 http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/environment/downloads/pdf/EnergyAudits.pdf
171 http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/environment/policy.html
163
after God’s creation; The mission of the Church now takes place in a time of planetary
environmental crisis; This crisis has a spiritual basis, and is a consequence of neglect of the
environment, and of an economic past dominated by greed and over-consumption; The
solution to the environmental crisis will involve transforming heart and will, attitudes and
action, and the way human institutions work. These principles impact on all aspects of the
life of the Diocese.”);
• Actions (comprehensive approach to impact prevention and minimisation through all
levels of the diocese); and
• Implementation (including education, building codes, and an independent review of the
Environment Policy within 3 years).
The Diocese’s Environment Policy is one of the few Church ecological policy responses
that is operational rather than purely symbolic. It has clearly been influenced by the earlier
policy emanating from the Environment Commission in the Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn
but adds its own variations. The operational aspects include setting up the Committee as a
formal and permanent body; intervening in decision-making that has ecological implications;
providing education and support resources; having its policy independently reviewed to see that
it is both sound and effective; and changing the diocesan building code to address ecological
issues.
Despite the substantial positive developments seen on the Melbourne Diocese’s website,
its ‘What Anglicans believe’ page does not include mention of ecological concerns. This is
perhaps indicative of the gradual process of reform that is going on in the Churches. Core
statements of belief and associated values have largely remained unchanged for many, even
though in most cases, the official position has at least mentioned ecological issues. In the
Anglican case, the international Communion’s ‘Five marks of mission’ contains a statement that
is overtly related to ecological concerns. Yet very few dioceses in Australia, let alone the parish
churches, reflect this addition of what amounts to environmentalism in their statements of core
values. Perhaps in the case of Melbourne, this difference is simply a result of the core belief
webpage not being updated to reflect recent changes in values.
In contrast to Melbourne and Canberra & Goulburn, the websites of the dioceses of Perth,
Adelaide, Tasmania, and Northern Territory contained little or no ecological content.
Tasmania’s website contained only one item of relevance in the form of an article by an
academic economist on the topic of ‘consumerism’. The focus was on social justice aspects, not
ecological or ecojustice concerns. The Northern Territory website has no original ecological
content but did have some off-site links to US sites, some with an ecojustice focus.
164
9.4.2 Archdiocese of Perth
Perth’s website had no ecological content in 2005 other than a review of its Rural
Feedback Project in which ecological issues were touched on from a farmer’s perspective. There
was no diocesan policy content. Only in 2006 did the website change to reflect official changes
in the Anglican Communion’s orientation, adding, “strive to safeguard the integrity of creation
and to sustain and renew the life of the earth” to its list of core values.
Perth’s website also had a link to an external business called ‘Church Resources’ that
functions as a bulk purchasing supplier of various goods and services. That website included a
range of products and services that are clearly well outside the scope of ‘environmentally
friendly’, though it did proclaim the ecological merits of buying ‘recycled’ copying paper. The
site operates primarily on the theme of “saving money for ministry” but has not made the
connection between the products and services it promotes and sells, and the impact on the
Church’s official ministry to Creation.
9.4.3 Archdiocese of Adelaide
The website of the Archdiocese of Adelaide contained no policy material or indications of
organisational responses. However, it had some promotional material for an ecotheology
conference in 2004, and an article about an “environmentally friendly spiritual garden” built at a
parish church. The site also had a link to the Anglican Ministry Development Centre that is
affiliated with Flinders University. The Centre’s website172 had some ecological content, though
it was relatively cryptic and mainly of a theological or very symbolic policy nature173. When I
viewed the website during late March 2005, the home page174 was dominated by a flier for the
Ecospirituality 2005 program that involves fieldtrips to various inland properties and reserves.
This is a venture of the remote rural diocese of Willochra, which covers most of South
Australia. It involves an annual series of ecumenical though primarily Protestant-oriented
fieldtrips for the purposes of building Christian ecospirituality amongst adherents. The diocese
of Willochra’s website only contains ecological content related to this matter. No policy
material was present.
172 http://www.ministry-development.org/main/about.html
173 http://www.ministry-development.org/main/intentions.html
174 http://www.ministry-development.org/index.html
165
9.4.4 Archdiocese of Brisbane
In 2005, the Diocese of Brisbane’s website had no ecological content. Some such content
was added when the site was rebuilt in 2006. The Archbishop of Brisbane is also the current
Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia. The website contained a statement by him as
Archbishop on the topic of water conservation and management. It is broad and general but
includes an ecotheological aspect and recommends that we ‘change our ways’ and ‘cease
endless production’. Perhaps picking up on a central tenet in the ecotheology of Fr. Denis
Edwards (Edwards, 1992, 2001), the Archbishop calls for humans to rest themselves and to rest
the Earth. Despite his well-argued position, the website did not indicate the existence of any
diocesan policy or praxis in response to ecological concerns.
9.4.5 Diocese of Newcastle
Whilst many of the metropolitan and State / Territory dioceses’ websites yielded little
content of substance, the diocesan website of the regional centre of Newcastle in NSW was
more productive. In a situation similar to that of Melbourne, it had no substantial ecological
content when first visited in 2005, yet in 2006, the site had been rebuilt and a Diocesan
Environment Commission had been formed. The Commission’s website has a large number of
external links to ecologically related content from local groups through all three tiers of
government agencies up to national ecumenical projects such as Seasons of Creation. It also
links the Catholic sites for CEA and CREATE. Again, similar to the Commissions of
Melbourne and Canberra & Goulburn, and almost certainly influenced by the latter, Newcastle’s
Commission provides practical advice and advocacy on ecological impact reduction;
suggestions for liturgy and activities to celebrate the official Creation Sunday event; a
reiteration of Eco-Congregations’ environmental audit process; recycling; and its campaign to
rid the area of plastic shopping bags. It also links to ecological content in back-issues of the
Diocese’s newsletter, ‘Anglican Encounter’, some of which were read and found to contain a lot
of information and practical advice.
The Diocese of Newcastle’s Environment Commission specifically includes promoting
‘sustainable environmental practices’ in the diocese and it cites the international Lambeth
Conference to bolster its orientation. It has both an education and action agenda, but its parish
audits are still voluntary, though the Commission makes clear its intention that all parishes
eventually complete the process, even if the Commission has to do the audit for them. Again,
with clear influence from similar work done in Canberra & Goulburn, the Commission raises
theological problems that need to be overcome if ecological actions are to be addressed, namely
the problem of anthropocentrism in the Church. The position of leading by example, also a
strong theme in the work of the Commission in Canberra & Goulburn, is reiterated.
166
9.4.5.1 Parish of Gosford
Whilst I have largely kept my Internet-based research of Church policy and praxis above
the parish level, I have occasionally ventured down to this level of detail either to ‘test the
waters’ or because a specific issue came to my attention. In this case, it was the latter in the
parish of Gosford, the southernmost parish of the Diocese of Newcastle. My attention was
drawn to this parish because of its on-line public endorsement of a document called The
Ourimbah Protocol. The document appears to be a community-based response to conflict arising
from forestry activities in the region. However, further investigation, which later included my
dialoguing with a representative of the Wilderness Society’s Newcastle office, confirmed that
the Protocol is a public relations venture of NSW Forests, the government forestry agency. The
Protocol claims to have the support of environment groups and local Aboriginal people but
investigation confirmed that this claim was specious at best. According to the Wilderness
Society, none of the peak environmentalist groups locally or at a State level supported the
Protocol. The Society also claimed that NSW Forests’ local Aboriginal cultural heritage officer
resigned partly because contractors employed by the agency repeatedly and illegally destroyed
sites he had identified as significant. That officer was a member of the local tribe.
The parish’s endorsement of the Protocol is an example of substantial ecological and
political naivety within the Church, an aspect commented on by King, 2002. Furthermore, the
letter written by the Wilderness Society (Dunn, 2004) revealed that the parish officials and
apparently even some at the diocesan level, had consistently refused to discuss the matter with a
representative of the Society, a problem that arguably needs to be addressed in the broader
context if the Churches are to maximise the effectiveness of their ecological ministry175. This
issue relates to on going, though slowly dissolving tensions between the nominally secular
environmental movement and the Churches, particularly the more conservative and elitist
Anglican Church.
Despite the above-mentioned controversy, the Parish of Gosford’s website also listed two
ecologically related projects. One involved salvaging and rebuilding bicycles for distribution to
the poor and for use on the Newcastle University campus. The other related to the Church’s
support for what amount to informal workshops promoting and building local Aboriginal
ecospirituality.
175 By this I refer to the Churches’ teaching of their ecological theology and encouragement of related
praxis beyond their own ranks, something that is particularly strong in the Catholic approach.
167
9.4.6 Diocese of Grafton
Another regional centre with a diocesan website containing substantial ecological content
is the northern NSW area of Grafton. The area includes some of the well-known ‘alternate
lifestyle’ regions as well as a large agricultural industry. In 2005, the main website had no
ecological content but a thorough search revealed that the diocese did have an Environment
Commission. When checked again in 2006, the Commission’s web pages linked directly to the
home page. The main body of ecological content on-line took the form of numerous articles by
the Commission in the diocese’s monthly newsletter, The North Coast Anglican. These include
topics such as reducing the use of plastic shopping bags, water conservation, recycling, ethical
seafood purchasing, ecotheology, promoting positive actions taken by people, and the
requirement for personal action to address the ecological crisis (i.e. not just government and
corporate action).
A particularly notable article relates to an award scheme called ‘Re-weaving the tapestry’ –
a reference to the ‘tapestry of life’ or the ‘web of Creation’. The award is an annual
collaboration between the Diocesan Environment Commission, the local branch of the National
Parks Association of NSW (a state-wide not-for-profit environmentalist organisation based in
Sydney), and the Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition. The award recognises people who
have made significant contributions to ecological protection and restoration, particularly the
latter. Such collaboration represents an emergent phenomenon that offers considerable hope in
broadening and deepening the environmental movement by bridging the secular/religious and
perhaps some of the progressive/conservative divide.
The Diocese of Grafton’s Environment Commission proved to have a lot more praxis and a
growing body of largely informal policy than was evident on its website. After engaging with
two Commissioners by email, I received a large dossier containing copies of the Commission’s
articles in The North Coast Anglican along with other publications and evidence of
collaborations with secular environmentalist groups. Some of the contributors to the dossier
included comments about proposed works to be undertaken by the Commission. I present some
of the results of my communication with Commission members below.
168
In an email dialogue with one of the Diocesan Environment Commissioners, I received the
following explanation of the ‘state of play’ in the Commission’s work:
“In the Anglican Diocese of Grafton we have a very new Commission for
the Environment and our current priorities are education via our Diocesan
newspaper; introducing the UK (environmental audit) initiative called
(becoming an) Eco-congregation, which some parishes have taken up; and
joining with ‘secular’ environment groups to host climate change seminars.
We are looking at some practical issues such as the Bishop’s car and the
travelling he does - do we convert to LPG, or plant trees throughout the
Diocese to off-set the greenhouse gas emissions? We are also investigating
the use of Green Energy throughout the Diocese. At a parish level, we have
done some extensive revegetation work on some of our own land here in
Grafton. There is very little natural rainforest left on the North Coast region
of NSW, and as we had quite a lot of land on the Clarence River, we have
planted over 600 indigenous rainforest trees over the last 6 years. They are
growing beautifully.” (Rosie Catt, pers. comm., 03/05/2005)
In a follow-up email, Ms Catt noted that she and another Commissioner (the Registrar’s
wife) were planning to travel to the UK to investigate the work of the Eco-Congregations
consultancy group, with a view to introducing at least some of its projects into the diocese and
into Australia more generally. I asked whether they intended to offset the greenhouse gas
emissions of their flight to the UK and received the following reply:
“Rest assured we already have considered offsetting our air travel! We also
decided at Synod last weekend to ‘Greenfleet’176 as many Diocesan cars as
possible. Our Cathedral already uses, and the Registry is about to convert to,
Green energy.” (Rosie Catt, pers. comm., 26/05/2005)
In later emails, some further details of ecological works in the diocese were provided:
“Our own Cathedral have [sic] been in the process of regenerating a
riverbank with indigenous rainforest trees and are now looking to extend this
area of revegetation. The (Cathedral) Parish itself is following the UK Eco
congregation model, as is the Parish of Kempsey.” “We also have a
Diocesan camp site in Ballina, which (as many Diocesan camp sites are) is
rather a difficult issue of whether to keep/sell/develop! However, there has
been some rather major work done by the Landcare group around the site
and the local Council seems to think there may be some significant flora
varieties involved.” (Rosie Catt, pers. comm., 26/05/2005)
Further to the above email exchange, I received a longer email from the Diocesan Registrar
(roughly the equivalent of a company secretary and manager). This was in the context of my
making enquiries about the Diocese’s land management practices as an aspect of my assessment
of their policy and praxis. I had mentioned that the diocese is home to an order of the Little
176 Greenfleet was one of the earlier and to my knowledge is still the largest provider of carbon off-sets
for vehicle emissions.
169
Brothers of St Francis. Associated off-site web pages177 reveal that the ‘monastery’ is sited on a
large bushland property and that the buildings and other operations are constructed and
managed to have minimal ecological impacts. I had asked Ms Catt whether the Brothers might
be interested in formally protecting the bushland via a government support scheme. I received a
response from the Dioceses’ Registrar:
“…As Rosie has indicated to you we have very limited natural areas with
any meaningful conservation areas. The Little Brothers do, I believe, manage
sympathetically to nature, but to what level of specific concern I do not
know, but will now start to find out. The Gunundi Conference Centre site is
in a coastal preservation area and may have a R&T178 plant, but the amount
of natural cover is very limited, really a strip around the outside of the about
1.5ha site. However, we do provide a buffer and extend the edge a little. We
have a small piece of rainforest scrub near Nimbin, managed by the local
Landcare Group, but I have never sought proper particulars of that site. I will
now.
A number of small sites have been protected by chance - the boggy end of a
school site at Port Macquarie, a riparian strip behind a building development
that we undertook, the planting Rosie referred to, habitat trees on some
church sites etc.
Having said that my belief is that one area of natural land management that
we might be able to do something with is a series of small blocks of land
which we have in a variety of different parts of the Northern Rivers which
were originally intended to be church or graveyard sites. For whatever
reason these sites were not proceeded with and are still on our books, none
are in high density areas, but they are often in cleared landscapes. It is my
hope that we will identify each of these sites, assess them for their natural
values, and if suitable fence them to protect them or if cleared, plant them to
ensure that in a hundred years time there will be mature trees with some
habitat values if not high conservation values. If possible I’d like to see us do
some plantings which a [sic] sympathetic to some of the threatened
Lepidoptera.179 We will also as a Diocese move on (the) provision of nest
boxes, as well as the energy and vehicle issues.” (Rev. Pat Comben,
Registrar, pers. comm., 27/05/2005).
The above exchanges provide some valuable information not available from the Diocese’s
or the Commission’s web pages. They show a commitment to further researching how the
Diocese might best respond to ecological policy matters; a relatively comprehensive approach to
policy and praxis; and the value of specialist knowledge. The naturalist background of the
177 http://www.franciscanhermitage.org/
178 Meaning rare or threatened, presumably in the context of the CSIRO’s Rare Or Threatened Australian
Plants codes.
179 Lepidoptera include butterflies and moths. The Registrar, Rev. Pat Comben, apparently has expertise
in entomology, hence his particular interest in restoring habitat for threatened butterflies of the region. He
is also a former Labor Party Minister for Environment in Queensland and is featured in an article in the
SMH (Sept 9-10, 2006) in relation to the discovery and naming of a new species of spider named
Habronestes diocesegrafton by the Australian Museum.
170
Registrar is clearly useful for his ability to understand the opportunities for work such as
protecting remnant vegetation and for replanting schemes. I also noted a comment in the
Commission’s newsletter that a young priest with a degree in environmental science was one of
three who successfully lobbied for the creation of the Commission. It is rare enough to have a
young priest, let alone one who is qualified in environmental science. This may be a significant
influence in the diocese.
Ms Catt had earlier cited the work of the Environment Commission of the Diocese of
Canberra & Goulburn as a source of inspiration and as a model for the work of the Commission
in Grafton. Information sharing within and between the denominations is clearly important in
furthering ecological policy and praxis developments and in reducing the likelihood of repeated
‘reinventions of the wheel’.
I also note the significant involvement of Commissioners in a local environmentalist
coalition. Such interaction helps to enlarge the Church’s knowledge base for improving
ecological policy and praxis. I have not observed the same sort of interactivity between
Commission members and the environmentalist groups, even naturalist groups.
9.4.7 Archdiocese of Sydney
The ‘Sydney Anglicans’ are known primarily for their evangelical and morally
conservative orientation and are regarded by some as so different to the rest of Australian
Anglicanism as to warrant recognition as a different denomination180. Rumours of a split in
Australian Anglicanism abound. For all of the usually negative commentary about ‘Sydney
Anglicans’, it is notable that they are the only diocese in the nation to be growing in members.
The above context is important in considering my assessment of the Archdiocese’s website
in terms of ecological policy and praxis. The website was up-to-date, very large and complex,
and was evidently professionally constructed and maintained.
The website included commercial advertisements and offered space to advertisers. This
was the only Church website that I encountered that included and offered commercial
advertising, though I did see the same practice in at least one diocesan newsletter elsewhere.
The website contained a vast amount of highly corporate material relating to Church
business, mainly in terms of property sales and acquisitions, and related fiscal matters. Much of
the site looked and read like what I would expect to find on the website of a large national and
secular for-profit corporation. Economic rationalism and corporate culture were pervasive, and
180 See for e.g. Tacey, 2000; Brighton et al., 2004; Carnley, 2004.
171
in much of the site, I wondered whether all but the specifically religious aspects of the Church
had been deliberately corporatised to maximise financial returns. None of the business matters
or formal reports of the Archdiocese gave any regard to ecological or ecotheological
considerations.
In 2005, the website displayed some articles relevant to ecological concerns but none of
these related to institutional policy or praxis. I found two articles under the links ‘Culture’ and
‘Social Issues’. There was no category for ecological issues in any form. This is consistent with
the long-standing allegation that Western Christianity is anthropoexclusive or at least
anthropocentric. The articles were interesting but were presented in the context of a media
forum where the diocese provided a vast array of articles, internally and externally derived, but
none of the few that dealt with ecological matters even hinted at an institutional response.
Both of the internally derived articles were critical of secular environmentalism. The first
article181 was nothing short of a rant that compared modern environmentalism to the Nazis! It
was not anti-environmentalism per se, just completely opposed to secular environmentalism as
morally wrong, dangerous and deficient, especially in the political manifestation of The Greens.
It advocated a form of Christian environmentalism but did not provide any details as to how it
might operate.
The second article182 was much longer and less polemical. It also demonstrated a strong
anthropoexclusivism and productivism in its discussion of the stewardship model. It was an
excellent example of propaganda via its failure to disclose some key facts about the academic at
the centre of the article, whose views fall within the realms of pseudoscience and demonstrate
problems with the narrowness of academic disciplinarity when tackling global ecological issues.
The second article is particularly instructive as an example of one of the key challenges
confronting Christian environmentalism – namely the lack of adequate, sound knowledge within
the Churches on which to base ecological policy and praxis decisions. The article puts up a
retired academic with a background barely relevant to global climate change, as an expert in this
field and indeed on environmentalism. She happens to be a Sydney Anglican who at the time
held a position on the Anglican National Environment Working Group, though this was not
disclosed. She was presented as an expert despite the fact that her views on global climate
change are contrary to the vast body of scientists and indeed of world religions. The basis for
her position was apparently a version of the standard (often exclusive) emphasis on a very
narrow and fragmented view of human welfare – well motivated but badly informed.
181 http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/socialissues/436a/
182 http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/socialissues/435a/
172
Unless it adequately informs itself, Christian environmentalism risks selectively adopting
advice from ‘experts’ whose views sit relatively comfortably with entrenched dogmatic
positions within the Churches, even when that advice is technically poor and lacks credibility in
the public domain. How can an ecologically naïve Church determine from whom it should seek
‘expert’ advice when it wants to inform itself about complex ecological issues so that it can
formulate a response? In the case of the Sydney Anglicans, it seems that they determine
expertise by whether or not the views of the ‘expert’ are politically acceptable within the bounds
of the local interpretation of the faith. Insiders are certainly preferred as is evident in the later
formulation of the Archdiocese’s ‘environment policy’.
Given the highly conservative orientation of the Archdiocese of Sydney, it is unlikely to
retain or attract ecological / environmentalist expertise amongst its members, so it will have to
make do with whatever knowledge remains in its ranks or it will have to look outside the
institution for advice. Unlike the operation of CEA, whose Advisory Council includes external
expertise, Sydney Anglicans seem to have restricted their ‘expert’ advice to within their own
ranks. The situation in Sydney contrasts with that in the Anglican Diocese of Grafton where
Environment Commission members are active in and engage with the regional environmentalist
movement outside the Church and where there is apparently some internal expertise, even if its
scope is relatively narrow. They are also clearly prepared to seek expertise outside the diocese,
for example by travelling to research the work of the UK’s Eco-congregations group, by
engaging with other dioceses (Catholic and Anglican) and by asking me to assist them by
forwarding key results from my Internet research.
In addition to the two articles mentioned above, the Archdiocese’s website contained
several other items related to ecological matters. These were only located by using the internal
search engine and key search terms. The first of these articles stood in stark contrast to one
accessed via the ‘Social Issues’ page. It was a link to a SMH article183 featuring the views of
progressive US commentator of religion, Bill Moyers, who bemoaned the rise of the religious
right and the associated negative ecological policies and outcomes.
The second article184 was a somewhat scholarly work by an academic writing in the field
of ecotheology and advocating a positive Christian response to the ecological crisis. It was
followed by a broader theological article185 that touched on ecological concerns and concluded
that from his perspective, Christianity and environmentalism are inherently linked.
183 http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2005/03/08/1110160822380.html
184 http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/indepth/whose_garden/
185 http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/383a/
173
The latter two articles were from the UK. The first relates to the work of McGrath, 2003,
and his strongly argued view that religion is not inherently antithetical to science. McGrath
makes a strong ecotheological and philosophical case for Christian environmentalism. The final
article was about a media statement by the Bishop of Liverpool in which he advocated urgent
and effective Christian environmentalism. He said, “We cannot carry on consuming as we are,
and cannot carry on treating the Earth as we are, without realising that what we sow we will
reap”.
When revisited on 30/05/06, the internal search engine of the Archdiocese’s website
produced a much larger list of content with some ecological relevance. There was more content
available than can sensibly be reviewed here so I have concentrated on only the most significant
findings. Most of the content was in the form of links to off-site media stories. There was very
little original internal content. The most important was a brief report about what seemed to be
the first formal policy or at least advisory document of the Archdiocese on ecological
matters186. This was apparently published in 2005 and is entitled, ‘Environment: a Christian
response’. The publication was not available for download but a link was provided to a
theological bookstore from which it can be purchased cheaply. A small introductory abstract
from the booklet was provided.
There are two associated articles that indicate the publication is intended to bring Sydney
Anglicans up to date with environmentalism, both outside and inside the Church, and to advise
them on “the kind of environmental thinking (that) we think makes the most sense”. One of the
articles mentions the ecumenical collaboration with the ACF that produced the Changing
Climate – Changing Creation brochure and it contains a link to this document on the NCCA
website. I discuss ‘Environment: a Christian response’ below:
9.4.7.1 ‘Environment: a Christian response’
This publication by Cameron, 2005 is not an operational policy document. It is as a
theological exploration and justification for Christian, or more specifically, conservative
evangelical Anglican concern about the ecological crisis. The author is an academic in the
Anglican Church’s Moore Theological College within the Archdiocese. The document was
written for the Archdiocese’s Social Issues Executive. It did not have an Environment
Commission at that time. Its placement of ecological concerns under ‘social issues’ is consistent
with the traditional anthropocentrism of Western Christianity (see John, 2005), and is not a
phenomenon unique to Anglicanism or the Sydney Anglicans.
186 http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/mission/resources/environment_a_christian_response/
174
The document develops a conservative ecotheology that is deeply anthropocentric,
utilitarian and ecologically naïve. It adopts a hierarchical theocentric model that specifically
claims to avoid anthropocentrism. However, the model still leaves humanity at the top of its
hierarchy, above all else but God. It propounds a version of the increasingly outdated
stewardship model that other parts of Christianity have developed, reviewed and since
abandoned.
The document promotes a version of Christian environmentalism as theologically and
morally sound. It addresses some political aspects overtly and encourages readers to become
fully informed about the orientation and policies of political parties, noting that they all claim
some degree of environmentalism. It notes that what amounts to economic fundamentalism is
morally wrong but that what it sees as misanthropic environmentalism is also wrong –
essentially two ends of the spectrum. It encourages readers to act locally and to think globally
but notes that the latter is very challenging because of the scale and complexity of the issues and
the limited extent to which an individual can address them. It promotes self-education on a
range of ecological issues and suggests some topics to focus on.
For the purposes of this thesis, the key point arising from the work of Cameron, 2005, is
that it is not an institutional operational policy. The praxis dimensions that it raises are opt-in
aspects for readers to consider as individuals. It does not talk about the Archdiocese’s
organisational response to the issues that it raises. Whilst it is the largest ecotheological policy
document that any Anglican diocese in Australia appears to have produced, it is very much a
first step in the process of institutional policy development. The fact that there was already a
national and international Anglican policy on ecological matters seems to have been inadequate
for the Sydney Anglicans, who also appear to have had no regard to the established ecological
policies and praxis occurring in other Anglican dioceses in Australia.
9.4.8 Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn
This was the first diocesan website that I investigated. I visited it before I had considered
the Internet-based assessment of Church ecological policy and praxis used in this thesis. It came
to my attention through the locally and sometimes nationally prominent environmentalist stance
of its bishop, George Browning, whom I first encountered when he presented a paper at a
seminar in April 2004 (see Browning, 2004). Bishop Browning clearly took ecological policy
well beyond symbolism and rhetoric, spending large sums of money (~$600,000) to reduce the
ecological impact of church buildings and other operations. Hearing about those and related
commitments and achievements motivated me to explore the extent to which such a ‘greening’
had occurred elsewhere in the mainstream Churches of Australia.
175
The Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn was apparently the first to establish an Environment
Commission, doing so in 2001. This may be the first official body of the Anglican or Catholic
Churches in Australia constituted specifically to deal with ecological policy and praxis. Earlier
bodies in the Catholic and Uniting Churches certainly dealt with ecological concerns but only as
part, usually a relatively small part, of bodies addressing conventional notions of social justice.
The Diocese’s monthly Anglican News edition of February 2004187 describes the
formation of the Environment Commission. The motivation for forming the Commission came
from relevant outcomes of the 1998 Lambeth Conference in the UK and the subsequent 2002
Anglican Congress on the Stewardship of Creation188.
The Commission’s objectives are “to promote Christian obligation to nurture and care for
the environment at three levels: within the church as a community of faith; within the church as
an institution; in the wider community as an influential party in the development of community
and government attitudes and policies.” It sees that a large part of its role is, “to support
Christian people in the Diocese in their contemplation of environmental issues and what should
be done about them - as individuals, as a church and as a nation; and to provide information to
individuals, parishes and others in the church to enable Christian people to make informed
decisions.”
The policies and praxis of the Environment Commission are too many and too extensive to
discuss in detail here. Most are documented to some extent on the Commission’s website189.
Following is a very condensed summary of some of the Commission’s ecological policies and
praxis, including selected formal statements made by Bishop Browning. I also briefly note some
of the difficulties that the Commission is experiencing in pursuing its agenda across the diocese.
I discuss such problems and some potential solutions in more detail in the summary chapter
dealing with diocesan and synodal policy and praxis in the three subject denominations.
The Commission comprises lay people and clergy. The former includes various retired
technical experts. It divides its work program into the fields of Energy, Education, Liturgy,
Environmental Audit and Water. It publishes reports of its activities and proposals in the
diocesan newsletter, with other articles also published on its website. The Commission’s own
website contains a large amount of original ecological content and was well ahead of all other
dioceses (Anglican and Catholic) in this regard until relatively recently when it was perhaps
187 http://www.canberragoulburn.anglican.org/html/publications/anglicannews/200402Environment.htm
188 It is unclear to me how an event in 2002 can have influenced the formation of the Commission in 2001
unless this occurred through knowledge in 2001 of what would be taking place at the 2002 event.
189 http://www.pastornet.net.au/envcomm/
176
matched by the volume of content on the website of the Environment Commission of the
Archdiocese of Melbourne.
By 2002, the Commission had produced and distributed within its domain a ‘handy hints’
package addressing easy ways to reduce one’s ecological footprint (mainly in terms of water
and energy use). It also produced and distributed related liturgical resources, established internal
and external networks to support its ecological agenda, and commenced negotiations to obtain
energy management contracts over diocesan assets. The energy contracts form part of an agenda
to reduce energy use through retrofitting and improving the efficiency of its buildings, with the
ultimate aim of switching its electrical usage to ‘green power’.
The Commission was instrumental in enacting a particularly notable operational policy that
requires all new building and substantial renovation work in the diocese to comply with best
practice for energy and water conservation. This is a rare example of the diocese being in a
position, because of funding and related governance rules, to impose an ecological policy on
parishes and other diocesan bodies. In many other ecological policy situations, the diocese only
recommends a particular approach. Yet in other policy areas such as financial accountability and
child protection, compliance is mandatory and enforceable, including provision for the
imposition of financial penalties.
Through 2003, the Commission further developed the ecotheological and ecclesiastical
explanations for is work. Its Chair resigned, later followed by three other founding members,
yet it did not collapse, and was able to recruit replacements. It notes its extensive use of email to
communicate to its more distant members in order to reduce their need to travel to meetings
(and quite probably as a necessary means of attracting and retaining members who would prefer
not to travel). It attempted to operate a diocesan gathering on ecological matters but did not get
sufficient interest from parishioners and priests. In response, it embarked on a five-year internal
education program. It notes progress in establishing the aforementioned energy management
contracts and details their benefits.
In 2004, Bishop Browning spoke at the 2004 synod meeting on the topic of ‘The Church of
the future should have environmental issues as core values’. This speech was later issued as a
media release190. In summary, it makes very clear his view that environmentalism is a non-
optional aspect of the Christian faith and that short-term political and alleged economic
concerns are not valid reasons for failing to take significant national action to address the
190 http://www.canberragoulburn.anglican.org/HTML/NEWS/mediarelease20040915environment.pdf
177
challenge – particularly that of climate change. He spoke further on this matter in an interview
with ABC Radio National191.
In 2005, the Commission was involved in the meeting of the international ACEN, which
was held in Canberra. Global warming was a key theme. Bishop Browning was elected to the
Chair of ACEN. The Diocese’s St Barnabas Ministry Centre was awarded an ACT ‘No Waste
Award’ for its outstanding example of waste minimisation through avoidance, reuse and
recycling. It collects and sorts material placed in Anglicare charity bins. Members of the
Commission published articles in the newsletter that deal with water management and the
justification for switching to ‘green power’ electricity.
In 2006, Bishop Browning again wrote on issues of energy, this time in response to the
Government’s agenda of ‘investigating’ nuclear power. Bishop Browning advocated reducing
energy consumption and increased use of renewable sources prior to considering nuclear power
in Australia. However, he saw nuclear energy as useful and relevant in fast developing,
currently fossil fuel-dependent nations. He later followed-up with an open letter to the federal
Government and Opposition in which he called for strong and meaningful action to address
climate change.
In late 2006, the Commission facilitated an “Interfaith action on climate change” entitled
‘For the love of the world’192. Whilst it was reportedly well attended, the event was not
publicised through any of the many faith and/or environment networks with which I am
connected as part of my research. This suggests that attendees were mainly ‘insiders’.
9.4.8.1 Environmental audit
A key initiative of the Environment Commission is its ‘environmental audit’ of the
diocese. A questionnaire based on the design by the UK-based Eco-Congregation group had
been distributed to all parishes193. The Commission appears to have been the first such body to
import the Eco-Congregation audit resource, which has subsequently been adapted and adopted
by other Anglican Environment Commissions and by Catholic Earthcare. In summary, the
Commission received a response rate of ~30% to its audit questionnaire.
191 http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/stories/s1407001.htm
192 http://www.canberragoulburn.anglican.org/forloveoftheworld.htm
193 http://www.pastornet.net.au/envcomm/Resources/Audit/Environmental%20Audit.pdf
178
It described the results on its website as:
“…a very spotty report card. We treat some matters responsibly but others
seem to have been missed almost entirely. For example, we support
Christian development agencies but, unlike the Church in England, have
little knowledge or interest in supporting fair trade. We use crockery rather
than disposable cups but do not use green cleaning agents. We run adult
education programs but do not consider Creation as a suitable topic for a
course.”
The Commission received what I consider a low response rate to its audit questionnaire
given that the process was a formal request of the Commission as a diocesan agency. The
Chairman of the Commission described to me some of the associated problems such as a lack of
interest and knowledge amongst parish priests and parishioners. He noted that not only had most
parishes failed to respond to the questionnaire, but that many were also failing to comply with
regulatory financial reporting obligations, even though monetary penalties can be imposed by
the diocese for non-compliance. This situation is consistent with that mentioned by Bouma,
2006 p97. Similar to its response to having to cancel its proposed diocesan gathering on
ecological matters, the Commission committed to taking its ‘environmental audit’ process to the
parishes through a series of regional meetings. It has made it clear that it wants to see all
parishes audited at some stage and that there are sound theological and economic justifications
for this.
9.5 Summary and conclusions
Of the three subject denominations, the Anglican Church of Australia has the least amount
of ecological policy and has very little praxis at a national level. This is unsurprising given the
relative theological and social conservatism of Australian Anglicanism and its growing
dominance by American-style, ultraconservative Evangelicals from the large Archdiocese of
Sydney. Australian Anglicanism takes a relatively strong stance when it comes to the interaction
of Church and State, generally advocating a clear division between religion and politics. This
tradition is contrasted by the overt and covert politicking of the Evangelical Anglicans (in
favour of socially conservative policies), and by a vocal minority of Anglicans who see that
their faith calls them to act by all means, including the political, in the interests of the poor, and
more recently, of Creation.
Despite its weakness at the national level, a small number of Anglican dioceses are well
developed in both policy and praxis, with at least one of these being a national
interdenominational and perhaps even an international leader. Indeed, Catholic Earthcare
Australia has drawn on the ecological policy and praxis of the leading Anglican diocese, as have
some parts of the Uniting Church.
179
In contrast to the progressive policy and praxis seen in some of the many religious orders
of Catholicism, there was little evidence of a similar phenomenon within Anglicanism. This is
at least in part because of the far smaller number of orders and ordinates within Anglicanism.
Anglicanism in Australian is an increasingly divided Church and is also suffering
particularly severely from a decline and ‘greying’ of its membership. Bouma, 2006, suggests
that this is so severe that Anglicanism will be largely extinct across most of the nation within 20
years. Nonetheless, there are individual Anglicans, informal groups and formal ecclesiastical
units such as diocesan environment commissions who are contributing to ecological reform
within the Church and within broader society. The latter includes examples of diocesan
environment commissions whose members interact officially with local-scale secular
environmental organisations and with related bodies such as field naturalists’ groups.
The challenges facing the Anglican Church and its members in converting ecotheology
into policy and praxis are substantial. Many of these challenges are generic within Western
society; some are common to large institutions; and some are generic to the Churches. However,
at the national level Australian Anglicanism faces a particularly strong challenge in relation to
the influence of the ‘Sydney Anglicans’ and the fact that a ‘Sydney Anglican’ and virtual
‘climate change sceptic’ chairs the Church’s relatively ineffectual National Environment
Commission.
It appears likely that as the Evangelical part of the Anglican Church is the only part that is
growing, with the others literally dying out, the ecological stance of Anglicanism in Australia
will be dominated by the Evangelical view. Whilst internationally the Evangelicals have been
particularly slow to respond positively to ecological concerns, with the Australian Evangelicals
being even slower, the strong Evangelical movement in the USA is now taking a very positive,
though increasingly divided environmentalist stance. This suggests that there may be a ‘trickle
down’ effect such that Australian Evangelicals within the Anglican Church and perhaps in other
denominations will move beyond basic policy formulation and towards more specific policies
and praxis.
Despite its constraints, it is the Anglican Church in Australia that has produced some of the
strongest examples of regional (diocesan) ecological policy formulation and praxis, as well as
having an international leader in Christian environmentalism (Bishop George Browning, Chair
of the Anglican Communion Environment Network). This shows that a progressive ecological
stance is not outside the scope of present-day Anglicanism. Indeed, some of its more vocal
ecological reformists insist that authentic Anglicanism (and Christianity in general) demands of
its adherents a genuine ecological commitment backed by meaningful action (see for example
the recent works of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams; and Bishop George
Browning).
180
Chapter 10: Uniting Church ecological
policy & praxis
10.1 Introduction
This chapter is considerably larger than those that address ecological policy and praxis in
the Catholic and Anglican Churches. The Uniting Church of Australia (UCA) has a history of
ecological policy production that dates back to its inaugural National Assembly in 1977
(Stringer, 2000). The UCA’s foundational document, The Basis of Union194, a reference to the
amalgamation of its component denominations, gave rise to its first public statement on
ecological issues (John, 2005 p25-27). This put the UCA well ahead of any official recognition
of the validity of ecological concerns by Anglicanism and Catholicism, and perhaps even by
most of Australian society. This is consistent with the UCA being relatively progressive and
activist when compared with Catholicism and particularly with Anglicanism. This longer
history of ecological policy-making means that there is simply more policy to review within the
UCA than in the other subject denominations.
Furthermore, the structure of the UCA is considerably different to those of the two older
subject denominations. The nature of this structural difference, combined with the longer
history of policy-making appears to have created a larger volume and greater depth of policy
and praxis at the sub-national level. Consequently, even though the UCA is the youngest, the
smallest, and the most rapidly diminishing of the subject denominations, there is more relevant
material than there was for the two much larger and older denominations.
This chapter first addresses the ecological policies of the UCA at a national level. There
has been essentially no praxis at that level, in part because the national governance body is
removed from the ‘on-ground’ implementation of ecological policy. I then provide a more
detailed review of Synod-level policy and praxis. Consistent with my approach to the Catholic
and Anglican chapters I have not researched or presented other than a very small sample of
material below the Synod level.
194 http://assembly.uca.org.au/basisofunion/Basis1992.htm
181
10.2 The National Assembly
The National Assembly is the central policy-making body of the UCA and has national
doctrinal authority195. It has issued statements, proclamations, policies and resolutions that
include reference to ecological issues, some specifically, and others more generally. Most of the
ecological policy and related publications are made by a specialist body within the National
Assembly such as the former Social Responsibility and Justice Commission. The name of the
body responsible for matters that include ecological issues has changed over time. The most
recent change was the renaming of the SR&JC to become UnitingJustice in 2003.
From early on, the National Assembly had a focus on a social justice agenda linked to
Aboriginal reconciliation and the peace / anti-nuclear movement, and it made clear its view that
religion and politics cannot be separated if social justice is to be provided. Whilst it shares the
Protestant tradition with Anglicanism, the UCA’s overtly political stance is very different to that
taken by mainstream Anglicanism which even in its more progressive forms, fears crossing a
perceived boundary between the Church and politics (see for example ‘Green by Grace’196).
Even before I started research for this thesis, in my relative ignorance of the religious
landscape of Australia, I still knew that the UCA was perceived to be the most progressive
mainstream Church in the nation. Indeed, “In January 1983, in a cover story, the Bulletin
magazine named the Uniting Church along with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
(ABC) and the Consumer Affairs Association as the bastions of radical left wing policies in
Australia” (Stringer, 2000). However, a chronological analysis of national UCA ecological
policy development from 1977 to 2003 (John, 2005) reveals that until relatively recently, whilst
it was well ahead of the other Churches in ecological policy-making and some areas of praxis,
the philosophical basis of its policies were deeply problematic and remained so for many years.
For example, most of its environmentalist sentiment came from a profoundly anthropocentric, if
not anthropoexclusive orientation (John, 2005). This led to conflicting rationalities and a lack of
intellectual (and theological) rigour in its policies, and it arguably fuelled division within the
Church. Given this underlying conflict, it is unsurprisingly that the Church “has failed to
implement many of those (ecological policies) which call us as an organisation to action”197.
There are also some parts of the Church that are clearly far to the Left of the present day
political centre (see for example the Earth Team website discussed later in this chapter).
However, as I have noted in Chapter 5, the Uniting Church is anything but united, and whilst its
195 For further information on the organisational structure of the UCA refer to Bentley & Hughes, 2004.
196 http://www.anglican.org.au/docs/WG-Environment_Greenby%20Grace_.pdf
197 National Assembly 2004, Statement on environmental justice – the 2004 Federal election.
182
National Assembly has generally projected a politically progressive approach, there are other
influential parts of the UCA that are profoundly conservative in their theology and politics.
John, 2005 p16, notes that only the official policies of the Assembly have doctrinal
authority, i.e. are binding. It is unclear to me whether they are simply morally binding or
whether they can at least theoretically be enforced. The Assembly has issued official ‘policies’
relating to ecological matters, but none have been prescriptive and as such, are effectively
unenforceable in any case. Indeed whilst they are technically policies and would have doctrinal
authority, they function as no more than broad statements of belief and orientation.
As an example of how these statements are seen within the officialdom of the Church, the
Assembly’s website lists some of them under the heading “Important historical statements”,
whereas the more regulatory policies are listed under “Policies, Procedures, & Guidelines”198.
None of the ‘policies’ that deal with ecological matters are listed under the latter heading. Until
very recently, all such ‘policies’ were externally directed, i.e. they were about what other parties
should do, or about what ‘we’ (the public including the Church) should do. They were not
directed internally, i.e. towards ensuring that the institutional Church adopted and implemented
the policy positions that were being advocated.
Despite the Assembly’s seemingly advisory approach to matters of ecological policy,
elements within the Church have perceived such statements as too authoritarian in what remains
the contentious field of ecotheology and related doctrine (John, 2005). In response to objections
of this nature, the Assembly moved away from making official policy statements dealing with
ecological concerns. After the year 2000, the Assembly’s approach shifted to advocating and
providing education on ecological issues. Such educative materials do not have doctrinal
authority (John, 2005 p 16) and are essentially an ‘opt-in’ resource for anyone who chooses to
accept them. However, in late 2006, the Assembly’s approach to ecological policy reverted to
the more doctrinal orientation of some of the earlier statements. Yet, in a break with that earlier
tradition, the latest statement acknowledged the inadequacy of earlier policies. It calls for
specific action within the Church and it appears to be worded such that it could conceivably be
enforced if deemed necessary.
In researching this thesis, I noticed that the Churches and at least some Christians with
official roles in the churches tend to recoil at notions of enforcement, instead preferring the
concept of moral persuasion. However, it is clear that the Churches do enforce some of their
doctrines with the sort of institutional vigour that I argue should be employed in relation to
ecological policies and praxis. For example, Catholic clergy cannot marry, and bishops,
198 http://assembly.uca.org.au/resources/index.htm#policies1
183
Catholic or Anglican, must be male. Similarly strong stances are taken in relation to
homosexual clergy or even homosexual Christians in various denominations and parts thereof.
Despite sometimes-strong protestations from some of the Christians who were participants in
my research, I fail to see why a Church has accepted once an ecotheology, enforcement of
related policies should have any less force than other Church policies and doctrines.
10.2.1 Statements and policies from 1977 to 2003
John (2005) provides a detailed history and commentary on National Assembly policies
and Statements that deal with ecological issues in the period 1977 to 2003. Before encountering
his work, I had reviewed National Assembly content of this nature and had formulated my own
views on this material. I later found that John (2005) and I had reached the same conclusions,
but that his insider199 knowledge of the UCA, the National Assembly, and its policy-making
processes gave him a depth of insight beyond that which I could otherwise provide.
Because of constraints on the volume of material that I can include in this thesis, and to
avoid duplication of effort, I decided that I would not provide a review of National Assembly
material from 1977-2003 as this has already been done by John (2005). Furthermore, our
conclusions are much the same. Instead, I provide over page in Table 10.1, a summary of my
view of John’s findings in relation to each of the Assembly’s relevant publications. The table
includes material that was not addressed by John.
John’s focus is mainly theological but despite what might appear to be a more esoteric or
theoretical orientation, his work reveals some key institutional and praxiological matters. I
discuss these more substantially in Chapter 11.
199 Rev. Dr. Jason John is a UCA Minister who, in 2006, became the Church’s first ‘eco-minister’. He is
based at Scots Church in Adelaide. His website is http://ecofaith.org/.
184
Table 10.1 Summary of UCA national ecological policies 1977-2003
Document200
Orientation
Basis of Union
(1977)
The approach is deeply anthropoexclusive and productivist. Ecological concerns
are understandably a minor component of this document, which is mainly about the
formation of the united Church. Nonetheless, it represents a significant inclusion of
ecological concern ~20 years before the Catholic and Anglican Churches in
Australia formally expressed any similar concern.
‘Statement to the
nation’ (1977)
Ecological concerns are addressed only as a minor component of a mainly social
agenda. Again, deep anthropoexclusivism and utilitarianism is evident, but there is
also an anti-consumerist and pro-equity (human) agenda. ‘Resource conservation’
and energy use are a focus. This appears to be largely a result of the general
emphasis of mainstream environmentalism of that time.
Assembly
Minutes (1985)
This document uses an anthropocentric stewardship orientation to express concern
about nuclear testing in the Pacific.
Uranium:
Resolutions and
Statement (1985)
This document was not mentioned by John, 2005, perhaps because it contains no
specifically theological content. However, the text reveals a deeply anthropocentric
if not anthropoexclusive orientation. Opposition to the nuclear industry is mainly
about human health and peace (see also Stringer, 2000).
‘Educational
resource on
nuclear testing in
the Pacific’
(1986)
The stewardship model is again used in what is an anthropocentric rather than
anthropoexclusive approach.
‘Statement to the
nation’ (1988)
‘Social Justice
Sunday 1990 –
Healing the Earth’
~90% of this document is about human justice (divorced from ecology) seen from
a deeply anthropocentric and productivist orientation. Earth is seen as a resource
for human use, with only human equity issues being considered. However,
surprisingly, the document concludes with a statement that suggests that Nature has
intrinsic worth. Humans are still seen as profoundly separate from Nature201.
This is the first document to reveal the shift towards educative202 and worship
resources rather than the making of formal policy statements. It provides lots of
background information to the problem and notably provides some practical
solutions. It does not address some key theological issues including conflict
between ecological values and the official UCA liturgy. It raises the concept of
interconnectedness and recognises the inherent value of Creation to God, and that it
does not need our ‘improvement’ to be ‘good’. Yet other sections argue the
converse. Overall, it is deeply conflicted, apparently in part as a result of having
input from multiple authors.
‘The rights of
nature & the
rights of future
generations’
This is a reworking of a World Alliance of Reformed Churches document. It
reveals deep and unquestioned anthropocentrism. Nature is given rights but they
are subsumed by those of humans, who are clearly seen as not being part of Nature.
200 At least some of the documents referred to here can be viewed at
http://nat.uca.org.au/unitingjustice/cherishingcreation/environmentaljustice/index.htm or on linked
websites. At the time of writing, the Church planned to assemble all of its statements and policies relating
to ecological matters on this site but work was still in progress.
201 In this section, I use ‘Nature’ and ‘Creation’ to show different concepts: ‘Nature’ is used where the
Church is referring to the non-human part of the ecosystem, whereas ‘Creation’ is used when they are
referring to all matter inclusive of humans.
202 The reasons for the shift to an educative focus are discussed by John, 2005 who also cites Harrison,
1986 and Tabart, 1997. The primary reason is that the ‘rank and file’ membership objected to ‘being
spoken for’, especially in the field of ecotheology where there was and remains a considerable diversity
of perspectives within the UCA despite the impressions given by national policies and educative
resources.
185
Commission for
Mission report to
the National
Assembly (1991)
‘Social Justice
Sunday 1993 –
The Land our
Mother’
Statement on
Covenanting
1994: Congress
Report
Submission to
Select Committee
on Uranium
mining and
milling (1996)
‘Invitation to the
Nation’ (1997)
‘Social Justice
Sunday 1998 –
International Year
of the Oceans’
Nuclear fuel cycle
policy (2000)
‘World
Environment Day
2001 – Connect
with the world
wide web of life’
This document explicitly affirms the shift from formal policy pronouncements to
an educative approach. It expands on the above work. It contains the first UCA use
of the ‘priestly’203 model of Orthodox Christianity, though it was not repeated in
later works. It is a profoundly anthropocentric position.
Ecological concerns are not the focus – the document is mainly about Aboriginal
justice issues. It muddles traditional Aboriginal theology with Western theology
and so contains anthropocentric models but also sees the Land as something that
we belong to, not just as a resource.
Whilst mainly about the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
members of the Church, the document also presents some ecotheology. Even the
stated Aboriginal position is Westernised, anthropocentric, and ecologically
exploitative.
Not mentioned by John, 2005, perhaps because it contains no specifically
theological content, however it does refer back to Assembly policy and related
theology in a manner which reveals some of the underlying theology. The
document reveals that the UCA maintains a moratorium on mining and export of
uranium in Australia. It includes an interest in protection of “the environment” and
in advocating “ecologically sustainable development”. It also mentions that
nuclear-related activities are excluded from the ethical investment protocols of all
Synod investment agencies. However, the orientation is anthropocentric and
appears to have little other than tokenistic and naïve regard to non-human Nature,
which is clearly treated as just a backdrop to human affairs, though one nonetheless
worthy of moral consideration. Only when citing external documents that mention
impacts on non-human Nature is this aspect mentioned.
Not mentioned by John, 2005, though it does contain one sentence that mentions in
part the UCA’s desire to see the nation commit to “the well-being of the
environment, for the sake of the whole creation and for future generations.” It also
mentions the “whole of creation” but keeps humans separate from the rest of
Nature.
This is the first adoption by the Assembly of a secular (UNESCO) statement on an
ecological issue. The Assembly adopts UNESCO’s then deeply anthropoexclusive
orientation without question, even though the UCA rejected this position in its
1988 Statement.
This statement is anthropocentric and draws on dominion theology, revealing at
least some of the variability in the Assembly’s theological, philosophical and
ecological orientation.
This is the first WED response by the Assembly. It muddles its stance on how
humans relate to the rest of Creation, seeing them as distinctly separate but also
calling on them to reconnect. “So we have mixed messages. Having opened by
affirming the anthropocentric stewardship model, WED 2001 closes by claiming
that we are, ‘merely a strand in the web,’ pilgrims with not on Earth” (John, 2005).
“WED 2001 is…an example of the inevitable theological compromises involved in
preparing a resource for a diverse community” (John, 2005).
203 The ‘priestly’ model is very similar to the vicegerency concept of Islam and is a version of the
stewardship model. “In the Orthodox view, human beings are believed to be, ‘… a bridge between heaven
and earth, a natural bond and mediator between extreme divisions’ (Grdzelidze, 2002). Humans are the
crown of creation, put on Earth to reign over creation, under God’s direction. The task of humankind is
to, ‘… purify creation, and elevate it to the level of its creator’ (Grdzelidze, 2002). We are, then, more a
minister or priest of creation than a ruler, and it is only through our priestly attitude to creation that it will
survive” (John, 2005).
186
‘Social Justice
Sunday 2002 –
Sustaining
Creation’
‘World
Environment Day
2002 – Give Earth
a chance’
‘World
Environment Day
2003 – Water,
two billion people
are dying for it’
This is the first ecumenical document of its type in Australia. It comprises
ecumenical sections and denominational sections. The former again muddles
different theologies, trying to achieve an ecologically, theologically, and
ecclesiastically acceptable approach. The stewardship model is dominant in the
ecumenical component. The UCA component challenges this in sections written by
two progressive authors, but a third reverts to stewardship whilst later calling for a
move beyond it. Specifically ecotheological sections also use stewardship whilst
clearly trying to escape it for something that is not anthropocentric. The seeds of a
radical new ecotheology are evident.
Stewardship is again evident, but also confused understandings of humanity’s
relationship with the rest of Creation. Evidence of the notion of agriculture “as a
divine fiat” (John, 2005) emerges (as seen previously in some earlier Catholic
approaches tainted by ‘the Garden of Eden’ concept). Productivism is evident. A
biocentric theology emerges in a children’s liturgy. Conflicting theologies
undermine the document.
Frustrated by the problems with the above works, Jason John received approval to
write this document himself. He focussed on revealing the two competing
theologies (anthropocentric and biocentric) evident in earlier Assembly writings,
not taking sides but simply presenting them as alternatives to be considered in light
of their attributes. His intention was to trigger a more informed debate within the
Church as to how it would orient itself and its policies relating to ecological issues.
10.2.2 UnitingJustice
Jason John’s writing of the Assembly’s ‘World Environment Day 2003’ statement was the
first to produced by the newly formed UnitingJustice, which was formed from the Social
Responsibility and Justice Agency / Committee. The organisation’s mandate is described on a
page of its website204. It is a small organisation, comprising a chairperson appointed by the
Assembly, a National Director (Rev. Elenie Poulos), a synod staff representative, and three
normal members appointed by the Assembly Standing Committee. It has only one staff member,
the Director, making it even smaller than CEA (which had a CEO and an administration
assistant). However, given that the UCA is a far smaller organisation than the Catholic Church
in Australia, UnitingJustice is proportionally the largest national ecojustice body amongst all
three of the subject denominations. In contrast to CEA, UnitingJustice deals with both nominal
fields of ecological and social justice, with the bulk of its work evidently in the realm of the
latter. Even with its Director shared between the fields of social justice and ecological justice,
UnitingJustice is still proportionally larger than CEA. At the time of writing, there was no
equivalent body in the national Anglican Church.
204 http://nat.uca.org.au/unitingjustice/aboutUJA/mandate.htm
187
UnitingJustice has a considerable body of policy and related content available on the
Resource Archive section of its website205. However, it divides the ecological content into two
sections under the heading “Cherishing Creation”: namely “energy and the environment”206, and
“environmental justice”207. The reason for such a division was not apparent, though it may
relate to the historical focus of the Assembly on alternative energy matters alongside its
objection to the nuclear industry.
To the extent that UnitingJustice’s mandate specifies that it “Educate, inform and resource
the church, to engage in actions for social and ecological justice and peace”, the resourcing can
only refer to educational material, as the organisation is not a source of funding for works such
as ‘green’ retrofitting of Church infrastructure. The latter is a matter for Synods, Presbyteries
and Church Councils. The focus of UnitingJustice on education and related worship resources is
very similar to that of CEA and to the intent of the Anglican Environment Working Group.
However, I note that UnitingJustice does provide some practical advice to members via the
resources in the SJS 2002 Sustaining Creation materials and via its website. At the time of
writing, it did not offer a self-audit scheme similar to that used by CEA and some Anglican
Environment Commissions.
Following is an overview of ecological policies produced by UnitingJustice or other
related bodies of the National Assembly after 2003.
10.2.2.1 No security without justice: Election 2004
This publication208 by the Assembly outlines the policies and positions it sees as
significant for the 2004 Federal election and it advocates action by its members to promote
those outcomes. It includes a small section entitled ‘Securing ecological justice’, which opens
with the statement: “We hope for a nation that respects the integrity of the earth’s ecosystems
and is committed to securing our future through ecological justice and environmentally
sustainable living.” It then backgrounds the issue by acknowledging the global ecological crisis
inclusive of climate change, biodiversity loss and extinctions, industrial waste, exploitative use
of water and energy, desertification and salinity.
205 http://nat.uca.org.au/unitingjustice/resourcearchive/index.htm
206 http://nat.uca.org.au/unitingjustice/cherishingcreation/energyenvironment/index.htm
207 http://nat.uca.org.au/unitingjustice/cherishingcreation/environmentaljustice/index.htm
208 http://nat.uca.org.au/unitingjustice/resources/election2004/index.html
188
It goes on to discuss “the policy we seek”, and it is here that instrumentalism and
anthropocentrism undermine the otherwise very progressive stance of the document:
“Recognising the vulnerability of life and the resources of the earth,
environmental policies must promote the responsible management, use and
occupation of earth by human society. They must ensure a fair distribution of
natural resources and promote the long-term security of our natural
environment.” (My italics)
This is again evident where the desired policy is said to “care for and manage
environmental assets for the public good”. Emphasis is again on resources and “assets”, with
there being no hint of any intrinsic worth within Nature. But as was identified by John, 2005, it
is quite common to see the ecological statements of the Uniting Church combine
anthropocentrism and elements of biocentrism or at least an occasional acknowledgement of
intrinsic worth. This is evident in this document, where simultaneously the desired policy is said
to protect ecological values for future generations (clearly referring to humans), whilst also
protecting “ecosystem functioning”. The latter may be because this is intrinsically valuable, but
from the rest of the document, it is reasonable to infer that this is valued because it protects
“resources” that are of use to humans. The document calls for the “protection of biodiversity”
but also for a “sustainable harvest”, apparently assuming that “sustainable” refers to ecological
as well as social values, and suggesting that as long as the “harvesting” is “sustainable”, it is
morally acceptable – an essentially instrumental approach.
‘Securing ecological justice’ is a small part of a larger document and it would be
unreasonable to expect it to comprehensively explain the basis for the Church’s orientation in
this regard. However, similar to many earlier Uniting Church publications dealing with
ecological concerns, it appears unclear as to what the philosophical basis for its position is. It
appears to be anthropocentric and instrumentalist but hints at potentially going beyond this.
Even given the limited size available in this publication, it could have been concisely
worded to better explain the Church’s position and the basis for it. However, as suggested by
the work of John, 2005, it seems that all too often, the Church’s ecological policy statements are
philosophically and ecologically confounded. This appears to be because of a schism between
the progressives who are comfortable with a more theo/biocentric orientation (Creation is
intrinsically valuable to God irrespective of its utility to humans) and the conservatives who
remains stuck in deep anthropocentrism, with an equally deep fear of the heresy of pantheism.
What emerges is often a poorly founded hybrid policy that tends to adopt much of secular
environmentalism’s rhetoric but does so for exclusively or at least primarily anthropocentric
reasons. Yet sometimes a policy document emerges in which anthropocentrism is specifically
189
denounced and in which the intrinsic value of Creation is argued to be fundamental. This is
evident in the document that I review in the following section.
10.2.2.2 For the sake of the planet and all its people (2006)
The UnitingJustice website lists this document as an Assembly Resolution,209 and as such,
it would have doctrinal authority. This appears to represent a return, at least in part, to the earlier
tendency to make official policy statements that address ecological themes, rather than using the
softly-softly approach of providing purely educative resources. The Resolution involves
adopting the associated policy statement, which is subtitled, “A Uniting Church in Australia
statement on climate change”. Assembly and UnitingJustice statements relating to climate
change were brought together on one webpage in mid-2007.210 The Resolution then calls on its
members to enact the policy statements as follows:
(Assembly) “encourages Uniting Church members, congregations, groups,
agencies and councils to:
• model ways of living and working that minimise the production of
greenhouse gas emissions;
• seriously and regularly include matters of environment and lifestyle
change in prayer and worship, study, and communal decision making;
and
encourages Uniting Church members to:
• advocate for government to implement policies that significantly reduce
our dependence on fossil fuels and increase our use of non-nuclear
renewable energy sources;
• engage in dialogues, shared learning and action with non-government
environment action groups.”
The policy statement underlying the Resolution starts by recognising what John, 2005,
points out in relation to the problematic theology of some earlier Assembly statements relating
to ecological concerns. It acknowledges that contrary to its Statement to the Nation 1977, “The
natural environment is, however, not merely a resource for the benefit of human beings but has
intrinsic value (my emphasis) as part of God’s good creation.” It attempts to show that it
addressed such earlier problems by citing its 1991 ‘The Rights of Nature and the rights of future
generations’ in which it declared that, “Nature has a right to the protection of its eco-systems,
species, and populations in their interconnectedness”. The statement goes much further:
209 Assembly Resolutions - Climate Change 2006
210 http://assembly.uca.org.au/unitingjustice/cherishingcreation/ClimateChange_2007.htm
190
“Since its inauguration the Uniting Church in Australia has been concerned
about the continued existence of all creatures and plant life and believes that
nature is not to be plundered and abused. We must acknowledge, however,
that the church has been complicit in the abuse of creation. We have lived
out a doctrine of the domination of nature by accepting and engaging in
practices that have failed to safeguard the integrity of creation. We have
supported systems and structures that exploit the natural environment in the
service of human greed. We make this confession and we renew our
commitment to move towards sustainable non-exploitative living, believing
that God’s creation—the earth itself and all the life that it supports—is
precious and the earth’s resources exist for the good of all now as well as
future generations.” (My emphasis)
This represents an overt acknowledgement of the problems of dominion theology. What’s
more, it is the strongest statement that I have encountered at the national level of any of the
subject denominations in terms of acknowledging the Church’s complicity in the very harms
that it now decries. Theologically, the orientation includes the concept of the intrinsic worth of
Nature, but it is ambiguous in its use of the term “earth’s resources for the good of all”. Does it
mean all beings or all humans? From the first sentence of the quoted paragraph, I could infer
that it refers to all beings, but having read all of the Assembly’s earlier works of this nature, I
can’t be sure, as many of those works were theologically confused and even conflicted but were
almost always underlain by anthropocentrism (a conclusion also reached by John, 2005).
However, it remains that the Resolution merely “encourages” particular ecologically
beneficial actions. Thus, whilst it has doctrinal authority, it cannot be enforced. It does not
require that any part of the Church do anything. In this regard, it arguably remains symbolic
policy, though it does go beyond the previous stance of being purely educative and advisory.
Whilst the Assembly could have used stronger language and directed211 rather than simply
encouraged Synods and other parts of the Church to act, it appears unwilling to do so.
Perhaps the most important aspect of ‘For the sake of the planet…’ is the confession by the
Church of its complicity in harming Creation, and that this was based on a flawed theology and
worldview. This seems to suggest a mood for serious reflection and reform, and in particular, a
move towards bringing the Church into line with its own public policies. The latter does indeed
seem to be occurring, with recent announcements from the Assembly and from the Synods of
Victoria & Tasmania and of NSW that they will be embarking on a process to become ‘carbon
neutral’, at least in relation to official activities. I discuss these announcements by the Assembly
211 Whilst it appears unwilling and seemingly unable to adopt a prescriptive approach to ecological policy,
the National Assembly is seen as potentially having a far greater role in governance and the operation of
the Church at lower levels than could equivalent national bodies in either of the older traditions (see
Bentley & Hughes, 2004).
191
at the end of this section, with the Synods’ announcements discussed in the sections dealing
with each of their policies and practices.
10.2.2.3 International Human Rights Day 2006
As one of several short publications forming part of the Church’s response to International
Human Rights Day 2006, UnitingJustice produced a two page statement entitled ‘Climate
change: a human rights issue.’212 The statement briefly explains what climate change is, then
how it can be viewed as a human rights issue. Emphasis is given to the impacts of the
phenomenon on Pacific island nations and to the inequality of impacts in relation to the causes
of climate change. The Uniting Church has strong connections to similarly oriented Churches in
the Pacific, and has been a vocal advocate of their plight in terms of climate change and the
resultant generation of current and future ‘climate refugees’.
The document is succinct, direct, and does not evade the political realities of the situation.
It does not raise the impact of climate change on non-human Nature but this is outside its scope.
It raises the fact that Australia is one of the largest per capita emitters of ‘greenhouse’ gases, yet
its government has refused to grant any special refugee status213 to the people of Tuvalu,
Kiribati, or other Pacific island nations that are already suffering severe impacts of climate
change (mainly through sea level rise).
The document also notes that UnitingJustice has endorsed a publication entitled ‘A
citizen’s guide to climate refugees’ published by Friends of the Earth214. The Friends of the
Earth website relating to this publication shows that other Church and environmentalist groups
have endorsed it. The former include CEA and three other Catholic organisations, along with
the Evangelical aid organisation, TEAR Australia. The guide is described as giving “all the
basic facts you need on climate change, greenhouse gas emissions; why people could become
climate refugees, how many and where are they likely to come from, and, most importantly,
what we can do about it.”
‘Climate change: a human rights issue’ is one of several recent publications that
demonstrate how the human welfare dimension of the impacts of climate change has apparently
made it easier for the conventionally anthropocentric Churches to express concern on this issue,
and for them to collaborate with secular environmental groups. The power of climate change as
a unifying issue is raised briefly by Goosen, 2000 p204.
212 Link to Human Rights Day 2006 / Climate Change
213 This is a reference to a refugee’s status under the UN Convention on Refugees. The granting of
“special status” would potentially mean that Australia would have to accept climate-change refugees from
these countries.
214 http://www.foe.org.au/resources/publications/climate-justice/CitizensGuide.pdf
192
The fact that climate change affects human and non-human Nature helps to demonstrate to
the Churches and their followers that ‘environmental issues’ are not just about threatened
species, forestry, and localised pollution. The global nature of climate change, the inequitable
distribution of its impacts on people, the shared suffering of humans and the rest of Nature, all
help to demonstrate important ecological realities such as interconnectedness and
interdependency. Realisation of these realities by the Churches has challenged the doctrine of
the separation of ‘Man’ from Nature, and has helped to replace the doctrine of dominion with
the relatively less harmful doctrine of stewardship, or more progressive models such as
custodianship.
10.2.2.4 Assembly commits to reducing its greenhouse gas
emissions (2007)
‘Crosslight’ No. 166, May 2007 p1, the newspaper of the Uniting Church Synod of
Victoria and Tasmania, reports:
“The church’s national Assembly… approved a proposal to go green, and
(has) taken the first step by authorising an energy audit of its operations. The
audit will assess how the Assembly can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions,
improve its use of clean energy and support the development of renewable
energy through investments and other action.
Its decision, only a few months after it adopted a Uniting Church statement
on climate change, ‘For the sake of the planet’, was based on a report about
how it could put the statement’s principles into practice.
The report’s author, Rev. Elenie Poulos, said it was vitally important to be
“doing all we can to reduce our own environmental footprint” when the
church was urging political leaders to make stronger commitments to
renewable energy and reduction of greenhouse gases, she said.
At the time of writing, details were not publicly available, but this initiative is evidently
another attempt to convert the Church’s ecological policies into praxis. Further information is
included in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald215, though this is mainly about actions in
NSW.
It is notable that this is apparently the first move by the Assembly to implement its policies
within its own domain (essentially its offices and associated operations). Previous such
endeavours were restricted to one or perhaps two of the most progressive synods. These have
also announced similar moves to reduce their contribution to climate change by switching to
certified ‘green power’ in their offices, and by amending their vehicle purchasing policy to
“encourage smaller cars” (Crosslight 166 p1). The combination of efforts by the Assembly and
215 Link to SMH article - "Church attacks on greenhouse gas not just hot air"
193
at least two synod offices may be enough to catalyse broader changes throughout the Church.
Indeed, examples of this are seen in a related article discussed in the section dealing with the
NSW Synod’s activities.
10.3 Ecological policy and praxis at the Synod level
In the UCA, the level of administration below the National Assembly is termed a synod.
The term has a different meaning and function in the Catholic and Anglican Churches. In the
UCA, synods are mainly based around the states and territories or more recently, amalgams
thereof. Synods comprise a group of presbyteries, which are regional groupings of churches.
Below that are local groupings under a Church Council, which has much the same function as
the Parish Council in the Anglo-Catholic traditions216. Each UCA synod has a formal annual
meeting. Synods have functionally more policy implementation power than does the National
Assembly. They have the power to make directive policies and can conceivably enforce them
through measures such as control of finances. A synod has much the same administrative power
as a bishop in the Anglican and Catholic traditions217, but on a larger scale and on a far more
democratic basis.
The following section raises a selection of ecological policy and praxis examples from the
synods. Because of constraints of the thesis format and the limited availability of the synods’
ecological policies, I chose to focus on one synod as an example. I chose the Synod of Victoria
and Tasmania because it provided a rich source of historical and present-day material and
because I had been able to obtain a greater depth of information from this synod via its
Environment Project Officer and its Earth Team. Providing an equally detailed analysis for all
of the UCA’s synods could warrant a thesis in itself. Consequently, for the others synods, I
provide only an overview of more recent material.
Generally, I have not extended my investigation below the synod level because of issues of
information availability and limitations on the volume of material that I can present. However, I
have included a very small number of presbytery or local-scale projects that came to my
attention.
216 For further information on the organisational structure of the UCA refer to Bentley & Hughes, 2004.
217 The Uniting Church does not have bishops and does not have an apostolic succession as it sees all
individuals as equal before God.
194
10.3.1 Synod of Victoria & Tasmania
10.3.1.1 Justice and International Mission Unit
Unfortunately, the Synod’s recently redesigned website does not make it clear to
‘outsiders’ such as myself the means by which it deals with ecological matters. Consequently,
use of the site’s search engine was necessary to find where, in what to me appears a complex
and foreign structure218, the Church deals with such things as ‘environmental issues’. The
relevant body within the Synod is the Justice & International Mission Unit (or JIM) and the
majority of ecological policy and praxis content is within this organisation’s website. The JIM
unit describes its operation219 in a manner that indicates that it is very much in the ecojustice
tradition i.e. it blends conventional social justice concerns with ecological justice issues.
The Unit employs a part-time Environment Project Officer and has done for several years.
Similar bodies in some of the other synods employ project officers who address ‘social justice’
matters that sometimes include ecological concerns (Cath James, pers. comm., 2006).
During searches in 2005-6, the JIM Unit’s website revealed a wealth of ecological policy
material. It included a link to all of the Synod’s Resolutions from 1977 to present that relate to
ecojustice concerns220, though when revisited in mid-2007, this part of the website was still
being rebuilt, along with several others. When last checked in mid-2007, the website’s main link
to ecological content was through the Project Areas link, which revealed the field of Climate
Change. This page contained a few paragraphs explaining the Unit’s involvement in this area,
and linking to a recent publication on this topic (reviewed later in this section). The Unit has
previously had other projects with significance for ecological policy and praxis (esp. forestry)
but they were not available on the new website. However, I discuss them later in this section
based on my earlier searches of the JIM Unit’s website.
218 Many of the Church websites investigated during research for this thesis has organisational structures
that made it difficult for me to locate any ecological content. This may simply be because the websites are
intended primarily or at least exclusively for the use of Church members, who I presume would be more
familiar with the organisational structures used to address ecological issues. There is an apparent
expectation that users will know that, for example, ecological issues can be found under the superficially
unrelated link of ‘justice’ or ‘social justice’, and that the search term ‘Creation’ may be more productive
than that of ‘ecology’.
219 http://victas.uca.org.au/main.php?id=960
220 http://victas.uca.org.au/main.php?id=1956
195
10.3.1.1.1 Energy conservation and the ‘greenhouse effect’
The Synod of Victoria, later merged with that of Tasmania221, appears to have been a
leader in the ecological policy and action of the UCA. Within just one year of the UCA’s
formation, the then Synod of Victoria passed a Resolution (75.5.11)222 relating to energy, in
which it resolved: “To instruct Synod Agencies and Divisions” to maximise energy efficiency
through appropriate design of new buildings’; to insulate all of its residences; to “consider
seriously the installation of solar water heaters in all residences.” The same Resolution states
that Synod will “request Presbyteries that they recommend to Parish Councils” that the same
actions be taken at this level of the Church. It also resolved to request the establishment of a
Committee on Solar Energy to provide advice to the Church in these matters. Perhaps most
notably, the Resolution recommended that church members “give serious consideration to
setting a personal/family goal to reduce their consumption of domestic energy resources - oil,
gas, electricity, petrol, etc. - by at least 10% in 1979.” Such a Resolution appears unmatched
within the Anglican or Catholic Churches until far more recently.
The Synod’s concern about energy use in the late 1970’s was not driven by concern about
climate change but by the so-called ‘oil shock’ or ‘energy crisis’, as well as by a general
concern for minimising the use of finite and polluting fuels. Whilst it is not an example of the
Church being a leader in addressing climate change, it does show a very early concern for
reducing energy use and for preferring alternative energy sources. This feeds into its later
responses to climate change.
John, 2005, comments that “Victoria, and to a lesser extent Western Australia, investigated
the practical implications of alternative energy sources at length in their Synod resolutions.”
This is particularly evident in the 1999 Victorian Synod’s Resolution 99.4.4 (Energy Audit) in
which it directed that an energy audit be undertaken in relation to the Synod’s offices. The audit
related to electricity use and the Resolution included the requirement that an investigation be
undertaken to determine how to reduce electricity consumption, along with an investigation into
the use of ‘Eco Power’ (known today as ‘green power’ or renewable electricity).
James et al., 2006 p7 report that the Synod committed to purchasing 25% of its electricity
from ‘green power’. It is unclear whether any part of the audit or the use of ‘green power’
occurred in the period 1999 to 2003. The motivation for the audit, reductions in consumption,
221 Tasmania was apparently the less progressive partner of the merger as suggested by the adoption of the
1991 National Assembly publication, ‘The rights of nature and the rights of future generations’ in the
Synod of Victoria in 1991 but by the Synod of Tasmania in 2001.
222 The Resolution can be seen in Appendix 2 of the Synod’s 2006 publication, ‘Climate change: faith and
action’ which is available at http://victas.uca.org.au/main.php?pg=download&id=2167.
196
and switching to ‘green power’ is clearly stated in the Resolution as deriving from concern for
the impact of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.
Despite the apparently disappointing outcomes from its earlier Resolutions, the Synod was
not silent on energy and climate change issues. In 1997 it called for Federal Government action
to address the impacts of climate change on Pacific Island nations and more generally. This is
typical of the externally directed approaches that dominated the UCA’s approach to ecological
concerns. It was followed in 2003 by another plea to the Federal Government, this time to ratify
the Kyoto Protocol. However, the latter part of the Resolution also directed the then Justice and
World Mission Unit to “Work with at least five congregations to develop ways of reducing their
energy consumption and report back to the 2004 Synod about the progress made.” This appears
to be the energy audit specified in 1999. James et al., 2006 p7, report that a pilot program
commenced energy audits in congregations and Synod agencies in 2003, finding that reductions
in energy use of 15% could be “easily achieved at relatively little cost.”223 The Earth Team, a
volunteer group associated with the JIM Unit (and which I discuss later in this section), carried
out the audit.
Again, it seems that even after the audit process and further related Resolutions, relatively
little change occurred throughout the Synod. This is evidenced by the fact that much the same
sentiment and intention as was expressed in these earlier Resolutions is again apparent in a 2006
publication by the JIM Unit, ‘Climate change: faith & action’. The Unit also endorsed the
CSIRO’s report entitled ‘Climate change in the Asia Pacific region’224. The JIM Unit’s
publication release predates the National Assembly’s 2006 statement and Resolution relating to
climate change, suggesting that it probably helped to drive the Assembly’s response. Both were
followed in 2007 by related commitments from the Synod and the Assembly relating to
switching to ‘green power’ and reducing their energy ‘footprint’ (this is discussed below).
The Synod’s newspaper, ‘Crosslight’ (No. 166 p1), reports a decision to switch (apparently
100% of) its electricity usage to certified ‘green power’ and to amend its motor vehicle policy to
“encourage smaller cars”. If granted approval at its meeting in late 2007, the Synod will also ask
its congregations and agencies to “comply” with past Resolutions relating to the reduction of
energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. This situation strongly suggests that earlier
Resolutions were, at least in large part, not complied with by the Synod or at least not by its
subsidiaries.
223 The audit report is cited as being available at http://jim.victas.uca.org.au/climate, but was not available
at the time of writing.
224 http://www.ccdr.org.au/report
197
Similar to the situation that I have documented in the other denominations, the Synod,
whilst it apparently has the power to direct its subsidiaries to make changes such as undertaking
energy audits, complying with recommended energy reduction measures, and switching to at
least a percentage of ‘green power’, remains reluctant to do so. It seems that its strongest stance
is “asking” its subsidiaries to comply with its earlier Resolutions.
10.3.1.1.2 Climate change: faith & action
This publication is the most in-depth and extensive that I encountered amongst all three of
the subject denominations’ responses to climate change. As noted earlier, this Synod-level
report by the JIM Unit appears to have been a factor in the subsequent statements and
commitments of the National Assembly. The report states that it “aims to assist Uniting Church
members and the general community in understanding the causes and impacts of climate change
and what action we can take to try to reduce the potentially harmful effects.”
The document is 60 pages long and contains more information than can be fully addressed
here. It contains only a small section that deals with the theological validity of the Church’s
concern about and action to address climate change. It notes that the Uniting Church has been
concerned about this and related issues for a considerable time and that it has previously taken
or sought to take positive steps to address the problem. The report contains substantial
background information about the nature of the phenomenon but it is dominated by discussion
of impacts and, to a greater degree, the various measures that might be used to address the
problem. Economic and social considerations are dominant. Ecological considerations are a
minor aspect of the document.
The theological/philosophical orientation of the document can be understood in one
paragraph from the Executive Summary:
“At the core of the Uniting Church’s position is a belief that Christian
theology implies respect for all of God’s creation (including future
generations) and a recognition [sic] of its intrinsic value. The Uniting
Church also believes it is called to advocate on behalf of the poor and most
vulnerable members of the global community. Because climate change is
predicted to impact on the world’s poorest people first, the Uniting Church
acknowledges its moral responsibility to prevent this from occurring. Global
resource use and the equity of this use are key elements in the climate
negotiations. The Uniting Church maintains that all are equal in the eyes of
God and this extends to our ability to enjoy and access the Creation.” (My
emphasis)
Like many of the earlier Church publications on ecological matters at both Synod and
Assembly level, this latest document on climate change demonstrates a strange and
uncomfortable hybrid of anthropocentrism with hints of biocentrism occasionally evident. The
reference to “all of God’s creation” appears to suggest a holistic and perhaps biocentric view in
198
which moral considerability is afforded to all of Nature, not just humans. However, the
subsequent reference to “future generations” is conventionally a reference to humans and there
is nothing in the text at this point to indicate that the reference might relate to future generations
of non-human life.
The reference to “intrinsic worth” is consistent with some of the later Church statements
but this position is not well supported, indeed, it is arguably undermined by other sections of the
paragraph. “Intrinsic worth” suggests biocentrism, or perhaps the theo-biocentrism in which
Nature is deemed intrinsically worthy but only because it was made by God and deemed
“good”. This is arguably a confounded position in itself as Nature is not actually being treated
as intrinsically valuable, i.e. of value irrespective of its worth to anyone or anything else. It is
only afforded value because it is seen to be made by God and deemed “good”.
The next paragraph returns to the Churches’ conventional emphasis on human welfare,
especially concern for the poor. Unlike some of the more advanced ecotheologies, the paragraph
indicates that the Church sees concern for the poor as being restricted to humans. Others such as
Fox, 1983; Berry, 1988; Berry, 1992; McFague, 1993; Ruether, 1993; Collins, 1995; McFague,
1997; Berry, 1999; Gnanakan, 1999; McFague, 2001; Habel et al., 2004, have extended the
concept of “love thy neighbour” to include other species, noting that many of them are poor,
dispossessed, abused, and at risk of extinction.
The paragraph’s reference to “resource use” and related issues of equity is about human
use of Nature, and equity issues in that context. There is no indication that the approach extends
to consideration of interspecies equity, nor the notion that Nature is more than a collection of
resources that simply need to be used in a more equitable manner between humans.
The final two sentences muddle concepts. The penultimate sentence states, “all are equal in
the eyes of God”, but it is unclear whether “all” refers only to people – it certainly appears to.
The last sentence seems to validate my view that despite there being hints of biocentrism, the
overall approach remains deeply anthropocentric. It concludes with a statement about “our
(human) ability to enjoy (hinting at the possibility of a non-exploitative use, though it is still
instrumental) and access (use/exploit) the Creation” (which interestingly and correctly receives
capitalisation).
Sadly, from my perspective, it seems that despite the findings and work of John, 2005, and
others in relation to the anthropocentric focus of the Uniting Churches’ ecological policies,
nothing or little seems to have changed in that regard. Even the JIM Unit, perhaps the most
active and progressive ecological policy unit in mainstream Australian Christendom, appears
stuck in anthropocentrism, or at least feels that it has to work from that perspective in order to
communicate to its readers. My concern is that whilst the Churches remain stuck in
199
anthropocentrism, even when they have denounced dominion theology and begun to understand
more ecologically valid orientations, their contribution to the resolution of the ecological crisis
will be severely limited.
However, for all its philosophical and related ecological failings, the document is still a
positive contribution to the Church’s stance on climate change. It offers some good information
to readers about the problem and some solutions. The document argues for reduced energy
consumption, including through improved efficiencies and changes in values and behaviours. It
advocates a shift towards existing renewable energy technologies and it rejects nuclear power. It
supports “binding greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 20% by 2020, based on 1990
emission levels, as part of a roadmap to achieve at least 60% reduction by 2050.” Notably, the
Australian Greens seek a target of 80% by that date225 and Monbiot, 2007, argues that 90% is
necessary to prevent catastrophic and irreversible global climate change (>2ºC increase). The
document is a positive contribution by the JIM Unit to what is expected to be a related policy
statement backed with genuine institutional praxis at the Synod and Assembly level.
10.3.1.1.3 Forests & forest issues in Victoria and Tasmania
‘Forests and forest issues in Victoria and Tasmania’226 (Blair & Dockray, 2004) is an
extensive externally prepared report that was produced for the JIM Unit on behalf of the Synod.
Forestry practices had been publicly contentious for some time in both Victoria and Tasmania,
and the Synod came under pressure from the JIM Unit to formalise its response at its 2002
meeting227. A Resolution produced by the 2002 meeting required the preparation of what in
secular government terms amounts to a ‘white paper’ on the issue, to inform the Synod at its
2003 meeting. The contentious nature of the debate and an alleged lack of or deficiency in
consultation on the issue within the Church membership saw the matter deferred to the 2004
Synod meeting.
225 http://greens.org.au/about/policy/policy.php?policy_id=20
226 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/localissues/forests/forestryreport.htm
227 In November 2002, ordained representatives of some Churches (including the Uniting Church) staged
a Forest Liturgy in Tasmania’s Styx Valley where great concern was expressed about the nature and
extent of forestry practices. This very controversial event and some of the related teachings of the Church
divided congregations, particularly in Tasmania’s north where there was strong opposition to the
Church’s position from members involved in the large forestry industry. The Forest Liturgy was
organised by The Wilderness Society, which has used footage of the event as part of its fundraising
campaign on its US-website.
200
At that event, the report and submissions228 combined with strong lobbying to see the Synod
pass a detailed Resolution in which it called for, amongst other things:
• an end to logging in “sensitive” and “high conservation value” areas;
• adherence to relevant law and policy by the industry;
• improvements in the regulatory system;
• adoption of “sustainable” practices; and
• adoption of ethical purchasing of forest products by all parts of the Synod and agencies.
The Resolution requires the JIM Unit to educate the Synod and its subsidiaries on the issue
of ethical forestry and forest product use. Paper use is to be reduced and plantation-derived
material is favoured. The Unit is to write to relevant governments requesting that they adopt the
recommendations mentioned above. The Unit is given a watching brief on the ecological
standards of forest products sourced from Victoria and Tasmania. I have not detected any action
on these issues, though this may be, at least in part, because the Synod’s website is under
reconstruction.
Irrespective of any operational outcomes, this report is highly significant, as it appears to
be the first in-depth investigation of forestry issues by any of the three subject denominations.
Even CEA’s series of relatively issue-specific position statements lack this level of detail and
specificity. The report is not the first involvement of the UCA in the forestry debate, parts of
which have previously been quite public in their opposition to aspects of the modern forest
industry both in Australia and overseas, but it appears to be the only investigation of the issue in
such depth. The Catholic Archdiocese of Hobart has also approached this contentious issue, but
did not use a comparable approach, or one of such magnitude.
Despite its relatively detailed and comprehensive approach compared to anything similar
within the ecological policies of the Churches, the JIM Units forestry report remains tainted by
anthropocentrism and utilitarianism. This is consistent with the overall findings of John, 2005.
Even though there are parts of the report that specifically attempt to go beyond
anthropocentrism and instrumentalism, the overall orientation is still ultimately anthropocentric.
I suspect that this is in part a consequence of the Church’s theological ‘baggage’ (dominion
theology and anthropoexclusivism) and the very controversial nature of this topic in the Church
(meaning that a pragmatic approach may have been taken).
228 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/localissues/forests/Forestry_Project_Submissions.htm
201
The Church also clearly struggles to address both sides of the ecojustice agenda. It is
relatively easy to mount an ecologically based case for dramatic changes in the forestry
industry, but it is harder to address the social disruption and economic costs (even if they are
relatively small and short-term), especially to market them to Church members that would be
affected by loss of or significant changes in their employment. For an organisation that has
strong roots in anthropocentrism and a passionate concern for human welfare, the oft-abused
false dichotomy of ‘jobs versus the environment’ was clearly a salient concern. Nonetheless, the
2004 Synod’s response, whilst it may be affected by anthropocentrism, is in line with at least
some of the nation’s foremost secular environmentalist groups such as the Australian
Conservation Foundation. Both the Synod and the ACF argue for strong protection of ecological
values whilst acknowledging the importance of social justice when it comes to addressing the
impacts of forestry reforms on affected workers and communities.
10.3.1.2 National Threatened Species Day
McGlone (2002; 2004), describes some ecological praxis by the Uniting Church in
Tasmania. These take the form of its 2002 National Threatened Species Day event, and a
subsequent use of an Envirofund grant “to assist with controlling weeds in the church-owned
cemeteries at Campbell Town that threaten several grassland plants.” McGlone (2002; 2004)
mentions that the church service associated with the National Threatened Species Day, at which
he was an invited speaker, included a sermon by Reverend Spaulding that ending “by asking
what parishioners and the church as an organisation could do for ‘God’s creation’ and
threatened species specifically.” He notes two outcomes that he attributes to this challenge,
namely the forests and forestry issues paper Blair & Dockray, 2004 discussed above, and the
action by the church in the Campbell Town area.
McGlone’s articles are published in The Web, the newsletter of the national Threatened
Species Network, and represent a very rare acknowledgement of religious environmental action
in a secular environmental publication. TSN is a project of WWF Australia in a controversial
partnership with the Federal Government.
I wrote a short article that was published in the summer 2005 edition of The Web, briefly
describing my work and asking anyone with knowledge of religious environmental action to
contact me. I received a small number of responses.
202
10.3.1.3 The Earth Team
The Earth Team is based in Melbourne and operates as an informal adjunct to the JIM
Unit. The Earth Team’s activities are largely restricted to Melbourne but it facilitates some trips
by UCA members to revegetation and ‘rebirding’ schemes in rural Victoria. Some of its
material has been adopted more broadly in the Uniting Church and in parts of the Anglican and
Catholic Churches, perhaps extending into other denominations and ecumenical bodies.
The Earth Team has a substantial Internet presence229 but at the time of writing (mid-
2007), its website was under reconstruction and no content was available, nor had it been for
several months. Material addressed in this section derives from older versions of the group’s
website.
The Earth Team’s website230 contained an ‘about us’ section where it describes itself as “a
network of people within the Uniting Church who are committed to working for environment
justice.” It “seeks to foster a greater awareness of local, national, and global environmental
concerns within our local church; communities and beyond.” It “is committed to keep(ing)
‘green issues’ on the agenda of the Church. However, rather than reinventing the wheel, it will
endeavour to network with existing green groups.” Its focus is on awareness raising within the
Church, developing practical ways to address ecological challenges, and networking for mutual
benefit. Further information on the group was available in the form of its Charter231 and a small
page dealing with the theological justification for Church’s involvement in
environmentalism232.
The Earth Team is not operated by paid staff. The part-time Environmental Project Officer
of the JIM Unit, Cath James, operates its email list and appears to function as the Team’s co-
ordinator. The Earth Team is apparently the powerhouse behind the JIM Unit’s ecological
policy and praxis agenda. This was particularly evident in relation to the Unit’s policies on
forestry and on climate change.
The Earth Team’s website contained numerous pages related to a range of environmental
issues. Examples included GM Foods233; Bioethics234; Energy, climate change, Kyoto
Protocol235; Forestry236; Uranium mining / Jabiluka237; Waste management238; and Water239.
229 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/earthteam/index.htm
230 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/earthteam/about.htm
231 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/earthteam/about.htm#charter
232 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/earthteam/theology.htm
233 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/localissues/GMfood/front.htm
234 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/localissues/Bioethics/home.htm
235 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/localissues/energy/climatefront.htm
236 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/localissues/forests/front.htm
203
The site also contained links to other Christian environmentalist content240 and to related
liturgical resources241. Its website was far more extensive and detailed than anything
comparable that I saw in the other two subject denominations from 2004 to 2006, though more
recently it was arguably matched by the sites of a small number of diocesan environment
commissions.
In 2005, the Earth Team was involved in a joint climate change project with the Catholic
Commission for Justice, Development and Peace (Archdiocese of Melbourne), in which they
received partial government funding to train people as energy auditors. Participants were
required to attend a training workshop, successfully audit their own home and make appropriate
changes to energy management in that context, then go on to audit and promote reforms in
Church buildings. This project arose in part from a related resolution of the 2004 Synod and is a
rare example of the Synod’s ecological policy being converted to praxis. The project was
apparently based on the national Cool Communities Project that was operated by state-based
non-government conservation councils with partial funding by the National Greenhouse Office
(a Federal Government body).
Traffic on the Earth Team’s email list reveals that it has also prepared a brochure of ten
things that each church can do to address climate change. The brochure was being updated and
examples of successful implementation of impact mitigation measures were being sought from
within the Church as of late 2006. In such works, the Earth Team functions as a volunteer arm
of the JIM Unit, filling in some of the gap between the size of the workload and the scarce
resources allocated to it by the Synod.
The Earth Team’s submission242 on the draft policy, ‘Forestry and forest issues in Victoria
and Tasmania’ demonstrates the blurring of notional boundaries between religion, spirituality
and environmentalism. Emails on its subscriber list indicate that it has maintained that interest
and activism, noting that it had a role in getting the Victorian Government to protect
controversial forest areas in East Gippsland, and presumably before that, in the Otway Ranges.
The Team’s submissions include some fascinating insights into Christian ecospirituality and the
role of experiential learning and Nature-based revelation (see also Collins, 2004 Chapter 4 for a
Catholic perspective). Having met two of the Earth Team and had extensive email dialogue with
another, I suggest that at least some of these people demonstrate how a personal ecospirituality
237 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/localissues/Jabiluka/jabilukafront.htm
238 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/earthteam/waste.htm
239 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/earthteam/water/water.htm
240 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/earthteam/links.htm
241 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/worship.htm
242 http://vic.uca.org.au/jim/localissues/forests/Earth_Team_Forest_Submission.html
204
can merge with and drive the institutional environmentalism of the Church. These people are
not environmentalists simply because the Church told them the facts and compelled them to act.
They are environmentalists first or at least in parallel with being Christians. This raises the issue
of the extent to which the Church can convert its followers to environmentalism as a part of
their faith, or whether such a conversion has to come about by other means.
The Earth Team was certainly a leader in on-line Christian environmentalism, though my
monitoring of traffic on its email group and a conversation with one its longer-term members
suggested that the group was in decline due to volunteer burn-out, inadequate resourcing by the
Church, and because of some conflict between some members and the leadership. Its activities
appear to have declined from 2005 to 2007 and the group now appears to function primarily as
an on-line network to distribute information about and co-ordinate involvement in events.
However, with its website out of action, my perspective on the group’s current situation is
relatively limited.
10.3.1.4 MorePraxis website
“MorePraxis seeks to be an online community of and a resource/support for young adults
who long for a more interconnected Christian spirituality of social action/involvement and
theological reflection.” 243 Its website has hyperlinks to the UCA Synod of Victoria and
Tasmania and to the UCA National Assembly. MorePraxis is a product of the Synod’s Uniting
Youth Ministries. It appears to be unique amongst the three subject denominations.
The website includes a ‘MoreEnvironmental’ chat forum244, which is one of many
different topic areas that are addressed. When I last visited the forum in mid June 2007, the
majority of postings had been made by the Church-employed webmaster, and most had no
replies. Its archive commenced on 8/10/05 with the last of only 20 postings made on
14/05/2007. Most of the other topics on the website had more postings than
‘MoreEnvironmental’, though it was not the least used. Even the forum with the most postings,
‘MoreActions’, was dominated by the webmaster’s own posts, and had very few replies.
The ‘MoreEnvironmental’ forum appeared to be receiving very little use if the number of
replies and postings is a genuine indication of usage (many may simply read but not comment
on postings). The sentiment behind the website’s creation is commendable and is consistent
with plans to retain and attract more young people to the Churches, not least to combat the
negligible levels of member recruitment. Yet, the numbers of users apparently taking advantage
243 http://morepraxis.org.au
244 http://morepraxis.org.au/?p=97
205
of the site is so small that unless the membership increases dramatically, I suspect the project
will not receive on-going funding.
10.4 Synod of NSW & the ACT
The website of the NSW & ACT Synod245 (herein referred to as the NSW Synod) is large
and complex. In early 2005 and mid-2006, standard search terms were used within the Synod
site and then on relevant subsidiary sites to detect ecological content. It contained far more
ecological content than can be comprehensively addressed in this thesis. A significant amount
of the content is accessible through links to other sites such as various news services and
publications, some of which are based in the UK or USA. As external content, it is beyond the
scope of my research. The Australian ecological content included material for teaching
secondary and tertiary students about the ethics of the UCA; general and specific policy
documents; discussion groups and opinion pieces; a large archive of its newsletter, Insights; and
the on-line newsletter Imago, produced by the Parish of Dee Why in NE Sydney. I obtained a
considerable volume of material through Insights and Imago, some of which I address below.
10.4.1.1 UnitingCare NSW
At the national level, ecological issues come under the domain of UnitingJustice, which
also deals with social concerns that were formerly addressed by UnitingCare. Yet in the NSW
Synod, a state-based version of UnitingCare deals with both social and ecological justice issues.
UnitingCare places its ecological resource archive246 (submissions, policies both local and
national, statements, background information etc.) under the heading ‘Social justice advocacy’,
subheading ‘Environment and sustainability’. This may indicate the influence of historical
and/or present anthropocentrism, i.e. ecological concerns are of interest primarily or only
because of their impact on people.
An anthropocentric orientation is evident in the sample text relating to UnitingCare’s
submission to the Sustainability Charter Inquiry247:
“Ecological sustainability is about meeting the needs of people within the
limits of a finite earth. This requires that dealing with ecological issues takes
place in a policy context that is also shaped by human rights and democratic
processes. Sustainability requires economic decisions; these must take
account of the human rights of the most disadvantaged, as well as
environmental imperatives...” (My emphasis)
245 http://nsw.uca.org.au
246 http://www.unitingcarenswact.org.au/advocacy/environment_sustainability.html
247 Sustainability Charter Submission
206
From that statement, it is clear that whilst pleased to address ecological concerns via the
concept of ecological sustainability, the Church is arguably more concerned about the human
welfare dimension of ecojustice.
UnitingCare NSW is a relatively large organisation compared to its equivalent bodies in
other synods. However, it has a wider range of responsibilities and operates more programs. It
has two staff members that have a role in ecological policy development and in submission
writing. The senior staff member is Rev. Dr Ann Wansbrough, who is variously given the titles
‘Research and Liaison Person on Social Issues’ and ‘Theologian and Policy Analyst’. Like her
counterparts in similar bodies of the Churches, her work encompasses “a wide range of issues
from anti-discrimination to environment, and health and human rights to welfare reform”248.
Her listed appointments within and beyond the Church demonstrate a strong focus on social
justice rather than ecological justice or ecojustice. She is supported by Justin Whelan, Social
Policy Officer, who has a background in “environmental political theory”, but whose work for
UnitingCare appears to be primarily about social welfare.
UnitingCare NSW does not have an ‘Environment Officer’ or equivalent position. It is
primarily a social welfare organisation to which ecological aspects of ecojustice have been
added. Nonetheless, it has produced substantial ecological policy, though the evidence appears
to be that this has not yet resulted in substantive institutional praxis. UnitingCare’s Resource
Archive page249 lists a range of items that demonstrate its involvement in advocating ecological
concerns, though in a form that would be best described as ‘nature conservation’ after Milton,
2002 p5. By ‘nature conservation’, Milton refers to forms of environmentalism motivated by an
anthropocentric rather than a bio- or ecocentric orientation.
Despite the dominance of anthropocentrism evident in UnitingCare’s approach to
ecological concerns (a situation consistent with the findings of John, 2005), there are works that
demonstrate a more critical orientation. The 1996 document ‘Environment and Compassion -
Caring for our Earth: Strategies for Thinking’250 written by Dr Wansbrough, is a very well
written publication that is essentially a methodology and method for critical thinking. She
explains and applies this approach in the context of ecojustice policy, but particularly with
particular reference to the ecological dimension.
The fact that Wansbrough is able to develop and promulgate such a scholarly approach to
policy analysis and policy-making stands in apparent contrast to some of the ecological policy
that emerges from the Synod. I can only assume that this is because there are other parties at
248 http://www.unitingcarenswact.org.au/whoweare/stafflist.html
249 http://www.unitingcarenswact.org.au/advocacy/environment_sustainability.html
250 http://www.unitingcarenswact.org.au/library/advocacy/environment/strategies.PDF
207
work in the policy-making process who have more influence in the outcome than does
Wansbrough.
10.4.1.1.1 Environmentally sustainable housing
This is a series of web pages attached to UnitingCare’s website. They present good quality
technical information about the impact of domestic energy and other resource usage. They
include a page dealing with the specifically religious aspect. It contains links to other
denominational statements on ecological matters and to some international sites of a similar
nature. The series of pages are well referenced, have useful external links, and provide a strong
basis for practical action. I noted from research elsewhere that Dr Wansborough’s house in
Sydney has been used by government agencies as a demonstration for best practice low impact
housing. There are numerous photos of it throughout these web pages. She is certainly leading
by practical example.
10.4.1.1.2 Environmental audits
An article published by Dr Wansbrough (1994a) in the in-house journal ‘Diakonia’, noted
that in 1993, the NSW Synod adopted the resolution, “That the synod:
• note that the NSW Synod/Assembly task group is preparing material to
help parishes conduct an environmental audit of their parish properties
and practices, as a practical way in which the church can assess and
improve the level of responsibility towards the environment
• encourages parishes to make use of the material when it becomes
available, by cooperating with a neighbouring parish so that each parish
is ‘audited’ by someone beyond their own parish and by reporting the
results to BSR
• encourages institutions within the synod and its parishes to have a
professional audit done to ensure that they fulfil legal requirements and
that their practices meet high standards of environmental responsibility
where there are no legal requirements, particularly where doing so does
not impose additional costs; and to report the results to BSR
• notes that an environmental audit should be conducted about every five
years, or when renovations or new buildings are proposed and
encourages this practice within the church
• recognising that property matters are involved, asks Presbyteries and
the Board of Finance and Property to include environmental matters in
their discussions with parishes of property renovations or new
buildings.”
A draft audit form was reportedly produced in 1995. However, it seems that the audit
process was never adopted or at least not by the Synod. Rev. Prof. Barry Leal, a senior member
of the UCA in Sydney reported to me that he had never seen the draft environmental audit form
and did not know of any parishes involved in the audit as proposed. Prof. Leal is a minister of
the Church and the founder of the Earth Ministry program, so I expect that if the above Synod
208
resolution had amounted to anything other than paperwork, he would have known about it.
Recent statements from the NSW Synod in 2006 seem to confirm that little came of the above
resolution (see section below on ‘Green Church’). This is unsurprising given the lack of
outcomes from similar resolutions of the Synod of Victoria & Tasmania, some dating back
many years.
Only in late 2006 did the Synod resurrect its concept of undertaking ecological audits. It
announced that it would audit its own operations, and did not raise the notion of compulsory
audits for subsidiaries, as this apparently remains a sensitive and unresolved issue.
10.4.1.1.3 Green Church program - Green power switch
Following the late 2006 resolution of the National Assembly, “In October, the 2006
meeting of the New South Wales Synod asked all congregations, presbyteries and agencies to
make one, simple and practical first step to help stop polluting the air and stop global warming:
switch to Green Power.”251 The Moderator (head of the Synod) claims, “If every church in the
New South Wales Synod switched to Green Power it could cut greenhouse gasses by 4,500
tonnes, the equivalent of taking 1,000 cars off the road for a year.” However, this would only
occur were all of the parts of the NSW Synod to switch all of their electricity use to 100%
‘green power’. This appears unlikely because, like similarly oriented earlier resolutions, it is
non-binding and only encourages such a change.
The Synod provided on-line and other information to its subsidiaries about the means of
switching to ‘green power’252 and some of the associated considerations. The Moderator’s letter
to Synod subsidiaries emphasises that the extra economic cost of ‘green power’ is minimal, and
he infers that it is not and should not be seen as a barrier to enacting the Synod’s resolution.
The associated information provides options for subsidiaries to adopt ‘green power’
ranging from minimalist (complying with the resolution but only to the minimum extent
necessary) to comprehensive (investigating and obtaining the most ethical source of ‘green
power’ for 100% of electricity requirements).
The information sheet provided to Synod subsidiaries also notes that those wanting to
switch to ‘green power’ can contact ‘Church Resources’ to obtain a bulk purchasing discount
that may be achieved if sufficient bodies join together in choosing a suitable electricity provider.
Church Resources253 is not part of any denomination, but claims to provide a range of bulk
purchasing discounts on all manner of goods and services for the benefit of churches and other
251 http://nsw.uca.org.au/news/2006/moderator-greening-the-church_16-11-06.htm
252 http://nsw.uca.org.au/news/2006/Green-Power-letter.pdf
253 http://www.churchresources.com.au/
209
not-for-profit groups. I have earlier mentioned the questionable ecological ethics of this
organisation in relation to the Anglican Diocese of Perth. For example, Church Resources
promotes and sells just about everything that the average business or private consumer would
desire, irrespective of the ecological impacts. This includes promoting the Mitsubishi brand of
vehicles, despite the fact that in environmentalist circles, a subsidiary of this company is
condemned for illegal and destructive logging practices in SE Asia. Church Resources is
arguably an example of economic rationalism having colonised institutional Christianity.
Whilst the NSW Synod’s call for subsidiaries to switch to ‘green power’ is commendable,
it lacks credibility in terms of institutional praxis because it relies on voluntarism. The
experience of the Synod of Victoria & Tasmania with similar endeavours and resolutions is that
voluntary compliance by subsidiaries is very low. The recent statement on climate change by
the National Assembly254 also acknowledges the Church’s general failure to enact its own
policies at an institutional level. Yet the NSW Synod has again relied entirely on voluntarism.
Hamilton, 2007c p110255 notes that voluntarism has not worked nor been the chosen
approach in key secular policy areas such as urban air quality improvement and the prohibition
and disposal of ozone depleting chemicals.
With particular reference to ‘green power’ he comments that this scheme (making
concerned consumers pay more for a service that it is in the public interest to purchase when
compared with the ‘black power’ alternatives), “suffer(s) from most of the problems of
voluntary approaches to environmental problems”. In an example of a policy/praxis or
attitude/behaviour disjuncture of particular relevance to the Churches, he points out that early
market research relating to the potential uptake of ‘green power’ indicated that two thirds of
Australian households would be prepared to pay more for ethical energy. Later research claimed
that by 2000, the uptake rate would be 26-30%. But by July 2006, the actual uptake rate
nationally was less than 4% (Hamilton, 2007c p52-3).
254 For the sake of the planet and all its people
255 “We did not eliminate the production of ozone-depleting substances by relying on the good sense of
consumers in buying CFC-free fridges. We insisted our governments negotiate an international treaty that
banned them. We did not invite car buyers to pay more to install catalytic converters, the greatest factor in
reducing urban air pollution. We called on our governments to legislate to require all car-makers to
include them.” The Churches have largely failed to ‘legislate’ that their institutions address ecological
issues. There are very rare regional and local exceptions such as the energy and water conserving building
codes imposed on subsidiaries in the Anglican Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn.
210
Notably, in his submission on the final report of the Prime Minister’s Task Group on
(greenhouse gas) Emissions Trading, Bishop George Browning, chair of the Anglican
Communion Environment Network, used the same argument as Hamilton, 2007c in relation to
the need for regulation, not voluntary action:
“Lead in petrol was not left to the market’s discretion, nor was cigarette
advertising, nor was drink driving, nor was gun control, arguably the Prime
Minister’s greatest triumph. The fact that carbon emission is harmful
behaviour on a global scale does not make it any less necessary to regulate”
Browning, 2007.
The Churches appear to believe that voluntarism in the context of their ecological policy
and praxis will work for them, despite evidence to the contrary from within and beyond their
ranks. Some of that evidence from within the Churches is now 30 years old. In contrast to their
stance on the achievement of ecological reforms within their organisations, the Churches do not
accept voluntarism as the appropriate method of policy enactment in the context of financial
accountability or the protection of children from sexual abuse. These domains have legal,
economic, and demographic costs that have convinced the Churches to mandate institutional
compliance with such policies. No such weight is given to ecological policies and praxis, which
remain voluntary in all but very rare and localised examples.
10.4.1.2 Regional praxis - Earth Ministry
This project was formed by Rev. Prof. Barry Leal in 2002 and “is an attempt to give
practical expression to ecotheology’s insights; seeks to heighten awareness of God’s creation;
and seeks practical ways of expressing commitment to the environment” (Leal, 2003). It
initially operated in just two congregations – Northbridge and Castlecrag on Sydney’s North
Shore. Earth Ministry launched its website256 in July 2006. Earth Ministry’s promotional
literature cited in Leal, 2003 states that it:
• “is a response to the need felt by many Christians to recognise the
riches of God’s creation and to address from a Christian perspective,
the environmental problems of our society”;
• “springs from a belief that only a fundamental change of attitude to the
Earth – a deeply spiritual change – will be sufficient to address the
problems we have created and to enhance our enjoyment of creation”;
• “comes from a conviction that the Christian faith has a significant part
to play in environmental debate and action in our society”; and
• “results from the knowledge that, at least in recent times, Christian
teaching has not sufficiently stressed the role of the Earth and the
environment in God’s plans for humankind”.
256 http://www.earth-ministry.com/
211
The March edition of the NSW UCA newsletter, Insights257, describes how Rev. Leal took
the program’s message to the Northern Sydney Presbytery before moving on to a new job as
Chaplain at Macquarie University. The article states that “He listed among the Earth ministry’s
achievements the planting of a bush garden outside the Northbridge church — ‘an expression of
our delight in Creation and an example for the community’ — and the successful lobbying of
Willoughby City Council to adopt calico bags as an alternative to plastic at supermarkets”
(Anon., 2005). The article is unclear as to whether Earth Ministry will continue given Prof.
Leal’s absence, though it suggests that it will not only continue but may expand across the
region. However, Rev. Leal later informed me that Earth Ministry was unsuccessful in retaining
its funding and that it will be unfunded after March 2007 (Leal, pers. comm., 26/06/06).
Earth Ministry’s website was still active in mid-2007 but appeared to have no content after
October 2006. However, one of its projects, ‘WaterLines’,258 may be continuing because of a
longer funding period. This project is more in the realms of ecotheology than praxis but it seeks
to raise community awareness of the significance of water in a particular catchment. It is notable
for its apparent involvement of interfaith and interdisciplinary approaches.
10.4.1.3 Local praxis – Maroubra Junction ‘Green Church’
The website of the Maroubra Junction Uniting Church259 in urban SE Sydney reveals that
it has been and apparently remains a recent leader in ecological praxis. Examples of the many
practical activities it has undertaken to reduce its ecological ‘footprint’ include:
• making the switch to 100% ‘green power’;
• installing a rainwater system to minimise potable water use;
• installing a solar hot water system;
• starting a local branch of a commercial car-sharing business;
• obtaining funding to install a greywater reuse system;
• operating a local composting scheme;
• having its own vegetable garden; and
• operating a battery powered volunteer-based eco-mower service (the grass is composted).
257 http://nsw.uca.org.au/news/2005/northbridge-uc-earth-ministry_03-05.htm
258 http://www.earth-ministry.com/waterlines.htm
259 http://www.mjuniting.org.au/default.asp?CID=1
212
Under a link entitled ‘Green Church’, the website shows that this church was the source of
the 2006 NSW Synod resolution that called for the adoption of ‘green power’ by
congregations260.
I engaged in a short email dialogue with a member261 of Maroubra Junction church, noting
that its website claimed that the Synod’s decision in relation to ‘green power’ would result in an
emissions reduction that clearly required all Synod subsidiaries to participate. I suggested that
this was unlikely based on interstate experience and the fact that the Synod had only
“encouraged” participation. The respondent agreed:
“Ultimately each church needs someone like Geoff262 (the local change
agent) who is willing to put in the (voluntary) hours to make the changes at
their local churches. Most churches either don't have the people who are that
concerned, or don't have the resources. The (Synod) resolution was a way of
trying to get green power onto all the church’s [sic] agendas. Some may well
have adopted it, who really knows.” (No apparent monitoring mechanism)
Despite this, the respondent rejected my suggestion of a more regulatory approach. He said
that such a move would be “totally at odds with a Uniting Church ethos that is all about
consensual-bottom up decision-making.” It seems that it is relatively easy to get consensus on a
resolution when it is completely non-binding but that it is apparently impossible or never
contemplated to seek consensus on the same resolution where it is enforceable. This is
consistent with my earlier comment about the ideological opposition of the subject
denominations to any regulatory and enforcement mechanisms dealing with ecological policy in
the Churches. I understand and appreciate the support for bottom-up and consensual decision-
making and praxis, but when this has demonstrably been inadequate in achieving stated goals, I
believe there are grounds for looking at additional approaches. This need not and ideally should
not involve swapping to an entirely authoritarian approach.
The respondent confirmed that this example of local ecological praxis relied entirely on
two critical change agents and many volunteer hours. There was apparently no institutional
support for the various Green Church projects.
260 http://www.mjuniting.org.au/art-template-normal.asp?CID=89&AID=463
261 I do not identify the member as he was not formally asked to participate in my research and was not
asked whether any of his comments could be attributed to him in this thesis. My contact with him was
incidental and initially sought to clarify the claimed carbon dioxide emission reductions associated with
the Synod’s promotion of ‘green power’.
262 Geoff Callaghan has since been employed by The Climate Institute as its Faith & Climate Officer. To
my knowledge, this is the only such position in any environmentalist organisation.
213
10.4.2 Synod of Queensland
I first searched the Synod of Queensland’s website263 in mid-2006. At that time, it had an
internal search engine, the use of which with standard search terms generated the following five
results: Firstly, a promotion for a 1999 seminar series entitled ‘One World’264, that was run by
Community Aid Abroad, the United Nations Assoc., Amnesty International, and the Global
Learning Centre. It includes academics and both social and ecological justice campaigners. The
‘Issues’ section of the series’ web page reads:
“How do we create a more just, peaceful and ecologically sustainable world?
How could the current levels of poverty, human rights abuses and
environmental destruction our world endures be significantly reduced in the
first decade of the new millennium? What are the critical issues that we need
to deal with if we are to live in such a world? What might ‘living
sustainably’ look like, locally and globally? The One World Seminar Series
is a fortnightly series of six seminars that offers at least some of the possible
answers to these questions, linking people and organisations committed to
creating a just and sustainable world.”;
Secondly, an Internet-based discussion group265 dealing with Christian perspectives on
ecological issues. Interestingly, it argues that humans are inherently ecologically ‘bad’ (this is
linked to the Christian doctrines of The Fall and Original Sin) but that Christianity offers
salvation and redemption for our inherent pollution of the world. This parallels some versions of
Deep Ecology and related eco-spiritualities that are often criticised by Christians because such
views are, or are seen to be, deeply misanthropic. Christianity usually sees humans as ‘made in
the image of God’ and therefore inherently ‘good’ subject to the limitations of the above
doctrines;
Thirdly, a promotional site266 for UCA conference centres that notes that these facilities
offer “environmental studies” detailed as being, “Rainforest studies, plant studies, wildlife
studies, water studies and astronomy studies”;
Fourth, a promotion267 for a 2002 lecture at the University of Queensland’s St Francis
Theological College entitled, ‘Exploring Eco-justice’ with lecturer Rev. Dr Noel Preston (who
is also a member of the Queensland Conservation Council, a peak state-based and nominally
secular environmentalist group); and
263 http://www.qld.uca.org.au/
264 http://www.ucaqld.com.au/mission/sr/news/99/apr99/29apr99.html
265 http://www.ucaqld.com.au/~piula/Groups/Windows/Social/social3.htm
266 http://www.ucconferencecentres.ucaqld.com.au/programming.html
267 http://ucinfo.ucaqld.com.au/archive/2002-8-9.htm
214
The fifth item is a protocol document268 about the establishment of new UCA schools.
Under “Curriculum”, the following statement is made: “Environmental education will be given
some prominence and students will be given opportunities to acquire familiarity with new
technologies.”
I checked most of the links relating to the aforementioned material in mid-2007 and found
many of them were no longer active. I revisited the Synod’s website and noted that it had been
completely rebuilt, with most of the aforementioned material, much of it being already out of
date in 2006, having been removed. The new website lacked an internal search facility and did
not appear to have any ecological content. However, my knowledge of how the UCA tends to
structure its management of ecological issues led me to investigate the link to the Justice &
International Mission Advocate. It was here that I located ecological content.
The JIMA website included links to equivalent organisations in the Synods of Victoria &
Tasmania and Western Australia, as well as to UnitingJustice. Original content included a page
about the JIMA’s sole employee269, whose interests include “the environment”.
A link is provided to a project entitled ‘Global Walking’270. Suspecting that this may relate
to the encouragement of less car use as part of a response to global warming, I investigated.
However, somewhat ironically, the project is about volunteering for international aid work in
the Pacific, a process that involves jet air travel, a major contributor to climate change.
The most relevant link to ecological content was headed ‘Go Green Church’. Its page links
to topics including the ‘greening’ of churches internationally, in Australia, and in the Synod;
facts about climate change; worship resources dealing with “environmental issues”; and
technical information about climate change and options for responding to it (links to external
government and NGO sites)271.
The page relating to Australian material includes a link to the interfaith statement on
climate change, ‘Common belief’; and related work of three other synods (Vic/Tas, NSW, WA).
I address the latter elsewhere in this chapter.
268 http://www.schoolscom.ucaqld.com.au/newschools.html
269 http://www.socialissues.ucaweb.com.au/index.php?page=content&idcon=1438
270 http://www.socialissues.ucaweb.com.au/index.php?page=content&idcon=3528
271 http://www.socialissues.ucaweb.com.au/index.php?page=content&idcon=3499
215
The page272 relating to international material includes a useful but small subset of some of
the major interfaith, ecumenical and single faith-based ecological projects such as the Alliance
of Religions and Conservation, and Eco-congregations.
The page273 dealing with “the facts about climate change” does not provide any
information. Instead, it has a link to an email address through which users submit their
questions. These are then referred to “experts” for a response. The page does not disclose who
the “experts” are.
The page274 providing liturgical resources links to the ‘Seasons of Creation’ on-line
resource (discussed in this chapter) and to an international publication entitled ‘Holy ground’.
The page relating to the Synod’s response to ecological concerns275 links to some
motions276 that were proposed to be presented to the 26th synod meeting. An email posted by the
JIMA’s employee shows that the ‘Green Church’ motion relating to energy audits, reducing
energy consumption, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions was carried as a resolution
(apparently in 2007).
Unlike equivalent proposals that I encountered in other synods, the motion addresses how
the proposals would be funded. Notably, funding was to come from external government grants,
not from the Synod. There was not even an attempt to seek primary funding from the Synod,
despite the fact that in the same set of motions, one of the proposals seeks the allocation of
$300,000 by the Synod to the potential establishment of congregations in new urban areas. This
suggests that the proponents of the ‘Green Church’ motion felt that whilst the Synod has money
to allocate, there was no point asking for it because it would not be provided for what remains
non-core business. This is further supported by the fact that the motion notes that if the external
grant applications are not successful, it will rely on volunteers and will not be able to carry out
the agenda within the specified time.
However, it notes that the external grants are sought for up-front costs arising from the
motion, but that the proponents will seek some internal recurrent funding from within the
JIMA’s budget or the general budget of 2008. The wording suggests that the proponents do not
see this as likely to be provided.
272 http://www.socialissues.ucaweb.com.au/index.php?page=content&idcon=3497
273 http://www.socialissues.ucaweb.com.au/index.php?page=content&idcon=3482
274 http://www.socialissues.ucaweb.com.au/index.php?page=content&idcon=3498
275 http://www.socialissues.ucaweb.com.au/index.php?page=content&idcon=3599
276 http://www.ucaqld.com.au/26synod/General%20Proposals.pdf
216
The ‘Green Church’ resolution:
• notes the Assembly’s statement on climate change;
• notes the Synod’s previous related resolutions (of which there are 5 spanning from 1989 to
2006), most of which appear not to have been achieved or were only vaguely instructive in
relation to the conduct of Synod subsidiaries;
• requests all congregations and faith communities to undertake an energy self-audit and
seek ways to minimise their production of greenhouse gas emissions;
• encourages congregations to change to ‘Green Power’;
• “encourages individual members to undertake an audit of their energy consumption and
seek ways to minimise their production of greenhouse gas emissions”;
• “requests the Council of Synod to establish a Synod working group including:
UnitingCare, the Schools’ Commission, Finance and Property Services and any other
interested parties to: collate and promote the work currently being done to reduce the
production of greenhouse gas emissions; explore ways of co-operatively seeking to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions; and report to the Council of Synod by November 2007 on the
progress, and recommend future action”;
• “requests the General Secretary to arrange for an energy audit of the UC Centre site”;
• “requests the Justice and International Mission Advocate to: arrange for experts to provide
training in energy auditing, and energy efficiency in all Presbyteries; provide an education
program on climate change to congregations”;
• “requests the Justice and International Mission Advocate to provide a report to the 27th
Synod on the progress of proposals (c) to (h) and recommend future action.”
This is a highly commendable program. However, it lacks any directive element beyond
the Synod offices. It remains optional for presbyteries and congregations to undertake energy
audits. Education and training is to be provided and there is a reporting mechanism, but similar
approaches have been adopted by other synods over at least several years and the results appear
to have been poor and patchy. The Anglican Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn encountered
similar difficulties. Getting individual churches to enact synodal or diocesan policy and
programs appears to be a transdenominational problem. A major constraint is the lack of
adequate resources for education, implementation and monitoring, though other barriers are
almost certainly involved.
217
10.4.3 Synod of South Australia
I first searched the website277 of the Synod and Presbytery of South Australia on 7/07/06.
The website was apparently professionally constructed. The home page did not present any
obvious ecological content or links to it. I chose to use the internal search feature, using
standard search terms to detect ecological content. Search terms ‘eco-justice’, ‘ecojustice’,
‘sustainability’, ‘environmentalism’, and ‘Earth’ did not generate any relevant results. The term
‘environment’ produced numerous results, many of which did not use the term in an
environmentalist or ecological context.
The first search item of ecological content was a short promotion for an event called
‘Lightening the footprint: a positive response to environmental issues’278. This was a forum run
by two international speakers. The central question appeared to be “What should Christians do
about the environment?” No further information on the event was available other than that the
item was posted to the site’s UC E-news in May 2006.
The second search item was a longer article posted on 19/06/06 and entitled “The Earth is
the Lord’s”279. It relates to the work of one of the two above-mentioned international speakers
on ecotheology – in this case, Rev. Brian Polkinghorne of Tanzania. An excerpt of the article is
included below:
“When speaking of the Word, full of grace and truth, and made flesh among
us, our Lord and Saviour Jesus, John says, that ‘nothing in all creation was
made without him’. Nothing! Therefore we and all the little and big and
extreme bits of creation are his - his property, which he loves. Every time we
pollute, use beyond sustainable limits, exterminate and contaminate anything
in the heavens and on earth, we are betraying and denying Christ - and are
certainly not worthy to be called Christians! Any wonder the world has
difficulty accepting the gospel when they see us throwing dirt in the face of
our Lord and King?”
The excerpt is from the later part of the article, the earlier sections of which list other
Biblical evidence for Christian moral consideration to extend to all aspects of Nature. The
author’s introduction to the article is a very brief story of how his worldview and faith was
significantly altered by learning to ‘look with ecological eyes’ (after Leal, 2006). The article is a
very succinct Biblical argument for Christian ecotheology and a related, though non-specific
call for action based on the understanding that “the Earth is the Lord’s” – being a common basis
for advocating the stewardship and custodianship approaches.
277 http://www.sa.uca.org.au/site/page.cfm
278 http://www.sa.uca.org.au/site/page.cfm?u=1&c=1088
279 http://www.sa.uca.org.au/site/page.cfm?u=1&c=1414
218
The third search item280 related to global warming and was entitled “What is the world
coming to?” The subheading was “Climate change is happening. There is now a general
acceptance that significant changes are occurring to the climate as a direct result of human
impact on the environment.” The article was written by Kate Tretheway who is identified as a
“Uniting Church SA Solidarity and Justice Officer”. The article draws significantly on the ‘The
weather makers’ (Flannery, 2005) in briefly making a case that climate change is real, is
substantially an anthropogenic phenomenon and that the consequences of not addressing it fully
are significantly negative. The article asks, “How should we respond? (and) Should this
question even need to be asked?”
Tretheway concludes, “Faced with the realities of climate change, surely the only response
we can make is to do all that we can to make a difference. The encouraging thing is that there
are steps that each one of us can take to reduce our impact on climate change.” She goes on to
list eleven commonly promoted and practical measures for reducing climate change (these
derive from Flannery’s work). What the article does not address is the extent to which
Tretheway’s recommendations as a Church employee have been or will be adopted by her
employer.
The updated version of this page281 viewed in mid-2007 notes that “Sadly Christians have
often been as slow to respond to this issue as anyone else.” There is also a new link to
congregational responses282 to climate change. It states that many actions are being taken but it
only lists one response (this is addressed under the heading ‘Landcare and related works’ later
in this section).
The website’s ‘Events’ page contained a link to an event termed a “Season of Creation
workshop” 283 scheduled for July 2006. The event was to be facilitated by Rev. Dr. Jason John,
Australia’s first ‘Ecominister’. Season of Creation is a liturgical and celebratory program
devised by the prominent Lutheran ecotheologian, Norman Habel. Notably, the UCA Synod of
Victoria & Tasmania’s JIM Unit hosts its website284. Season of Creation is an ecumenical
program. Season of Creation provides the basis for and the process of celebrating God as
creator. It attempts to establish this as part of the regular Christian schedule of rituals and
celebrations.
280 http://www.sa.uca.org.au/site/page.cfm?u=1&c=1415
281 http://www.sa.uca.org.au/site/page.cfm?u=326
282 http://www.sa.uca.org.au/site/page.cfm?u=425
283 http://www.sa.uca.org.au/site/page.cfm?u=198
284 http://www.seasonofcreation.com/
219
A range of other educational and celebratory activities were listed such as ‘Water
Lessons’, ‘Earth Day Retreat & Worship’, ‘Stewardship Sunday’ and ‘Radical discipleship: the
Spirit and sustainability’. The latter event is run by the Forge Mission Training Network285. It
was unclear from Forge’s website whether ‘sustainability’ was being used in the
environmentalist context or whether it was a reference to personally sustainable missionary
work. The latter appeared to be more likely as there was no ecological content on Forge’s
website.
10.4.3.1 Ecofaith Community
Use of the search term ‘ecological’ on the Synod’s website produced a link to the Ecofaith
Community286. This is a group operated by Rev. Dr. Jason John287, and it adopts a methodology
and method intended to facilitate personal ecospiritual growth. Similarly progressive projects
occur elsewhere in the Churches, but primarily at the fringes of Catholicism within what
amounts to the Australian version of the ‘green sisters’ movement of North America (see
McFarland Taylor, 2002, 2007b, a). At the time of writing, John was employed as an
‘Ecominister’ at Scots Church in Adelaide.
Ecofaith Community is a controversial venture. John communicated to me via his
participation in my Christian Ecojustice Yahoo Group, that he had received quite a few very
critical emails from Christians who considered his views and practices deeply heretical. His
work is, in my view, an example of where the Churches need to go if they are to fulfil their
potential as contributors to addressing the ecological crisis.
10.4.3.2 Landcare and related works
In response to a short article that I published in The Web, the newsletter of The Threatened
Species Network, I received an email from Bill Matheson, a Uniting Church member from
South Australia. His correspondence revealed ecological praxis that was not evident on the
Church’s website.
285 http://www.forge.org.au/
286 http://ecofaith.org/general/index.html
287 This is the same person as the author of John, 2005 cited extensively earlier in this chapter.
220
This may be explained by the fact it occurred at the level of a single congregation.
“For the past 7 years members of the Morialta Uniting Church in suburban
Magill, Adelaide, have assisted the revegetation of two properties…. Some
800 trees have been planted on the first, while more than 2000 trees and
shrubs have been planted on the latter. In addition, many of the seedlings
have been raised by Morialta church members. Planting takes place on the
Queen's birthday holiday…, the closest to the Environmental Sabbath when
some 50 church members participate. This year it is anticipated that more
than 1000 seedlings will be planted” (Bill Matheson, pers. comm.).
Matheson was evidently the facilitator of this event and he noted his professional and
volunteer involvement in Landcare and related works. The Earth Team in Victoria are involved
in similar activities but mainly at the planting stage, whereas Bill collects and grows the seed as
well.
10.4.4 Synod of Western Australia
I first visited the WA Synod’s website288 on 7/07/06. Ecological content was not evident
on its home page. An internal search facility was not available so I followed the Social Justice
link to the page of the Social Justice and Uniting International Mission organisation289 within
the Synod. The content was restricted to conventional notions of social justice, and had a
substantial focus on the international context, for example, East Timor, West Papua, and
Indonesia, perhaps because WA is physically relatively close to Asia. It also had local content
relating to Aboriginal social justice and broader national social justice concerns. The Mission’s
webpage had an internal search feature that I used to detect any ecological content that might be
identified using standard search terms. None of the search terms or their variants produced any
positive results. I also used the terms ‘eco-justice’ and ‘ecojustice’ but they did not produce any
links to ecological content. A brief manual search also produced no ecological content. I
attempted to determine how current the website was but this was not evident. The page
‘properties’ indicated that it was current to 7/07/06 but this may be an artefact of the software
and not confirmation that the home page had been updated on that date.
10.4.4.1 ‘The Transit Lounge’
In February 2007, I received a group email from the UnitingJustice list about a new
Uniting Church on-line magazine called ‘The Transit Lounge’290. ‘The Transit Lounge’ was
described as being a joint venture of the Synod of WA and the National Assembly. Its focus is
“offering new ways to connect with people on the margins of the church or those inside the
288 http://wa.uca.org.au/
289 http://www.justice.wa.uca.org.au/default.asp?id=1&mnu=1
290 http://www.thetransitlounge.com.au/home
221
church who want to reflect on the nature of faith and life from a contemporary Christian
perspective.” I examined the first edition and immediately found substantial ecological content
including references to reducing consumption of material goods and energy, and the benefits of
adopting a simpler lifestyle291. Some links associated with the article entitled ‘Designer
simplicity’, included a recent CSIRO publication about the economic impacts of reducing
Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions (the report favours doing so); a ‘Living Sustainably
Action Sheet’; and the multifaith and ecumenical statement on climate change (‘Common
belief’ – discussed in Chapter 8).
10.4.5 Northern Synod
I visited the Northern Synod’s website292 on 7/07/06. No ecological content was evident on
the home page. The website appeared to have been professionally constructed and seemed to be
current or at least relatively so. However, some components of the site, such as its Northern
Synod News page, were significantly out of date – in that case, October 2005. I noted that the
site does not produce page-specific hyperlinks. As a result, I can only provide the name of the
relevant link and page.
The ‘Committees’ link did not produce evidence of any bodies that might address
ecological concerns, however the ‘Agencies’ link revealed a Synod Social Service
Commitment. The Commitment was in the form of a series of statements. None of the
statements indicated the Synod’s position on ecological issues. However, the section entitled
Social Justice Statement claimed that the Northern Synod “supports the Uniting Church in
Australia stance on social justice issues”.
This suggests that the National Assembly’s policies that come under the domain of social
justice are supported by the Synod. However, my research indicates that in this context, ‘social
justice’ is still widely understood to mean ‘human welfare’, rather than encompassing any
ecological aspects. The ‘Guiding Values’ and ‘Guiding Principles’ sections of the
‘Commitment’ page also lacked any reference to the Synod’s position on ecological values.
The ‘Vision’ page displays the Mission Statement of the Synod. The Statement does not
contain any obvious ecological aspect. However, it does state, “As indigenous and non-
indigenous people, we live together in a Covenant relationship.” In ecotheology, reference to
covenants can be that between Moses and his descendants and God; between Noah and God; or
to the concept of covenant in the Hebrew bible. Such covenants have been interpreted to have
291 http://www.thetransitlounge.com.au/domestic/designer_simplicity
292 http://ns.uca.org.au/
222
significant ramifications for how Nature is perceived and related to (Northcott, 1996 e.g.
p130,146,167,181,187). However, my reading of Northern Synod News, November 2005,
makes it clear that the covenant referred to within the Synod is about race relations, rather than
ecotheology.
The Northern Synod News page contained three back issues of this publication. I
downloaded and manually checked the March 2005 edition and the then most recent (November
2005) edition for any ecological content. I found no such content, despite the presence of at least
one article that could have readily provided scope for mention of climate change as a concern
for people in low-lying coastal and island communities.
Given the very strong role of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders in the Northern
Synod, I was surprised not to find any evidence of ecological content on its website. I had
thought that the strong influence of indigenous culture would have connected with the
environmentalist stance of the National Assembly to make the Northern Synod a relatively
progressive area for the practice of ecojustice. The absence of on-line content of this nature does
not mean that the Synod has no ecological policies and no related praxis, however my reading
of the on-line content suggested the Northern Synod is primarily concerned with conventional
social justice issues. This is perhaps unsurprising given the poor standard of living experienced
by many Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. A similar situation is seen in those
Churches predominantly patronised by native Africans in South Africa (see for example,
Conradie & Martin, 2007).
Stringer, 2000; John, 2005 p28, note that at least in the past, Northern Synod did have
something to say on ecological issues, though the motivation was apparently not that of
conventional environmentalism. The first meeting of the Synod in 1977 passed a resolution
opposing uranium mining. The resolution came from the Aboriginal delegates. The orientation
underpinning this resolution was far ahead of the then Assembly’s theological position. It
clearly saw Nature as having genuinely intrinsic worth, as sacred, and as interconnected with
humans rather than as something entirely separate from them (Stringer, 2000; John, 2005 p28).
Northern Synod is apparently dependent on funding from the UCA National Assembly and
appears to have undergone significant administrative changes during 2005. My impression was
that it is a Synod significantly constrained by its relatively low membership over a vast area; by
associated financial and administrative difficulties; and apparently by on-going difficulties
between administrative groups of its indigenous and non-indigenous adherents. It appears to
have no resources left to address ecological concerns, which are apparently seen as secondary to
addressing what are admittedly often severe problems with the social welfare of indigenous
Australians. The ecojustice connection between at least some of the social welfare issues that
are faced, and the ecological context surrounding them, does not appear to have been made.
223
10.5 Summary and conclusions
The UCA’s policies are evident in some form at least 20 years prior to anything similar
emerging from the Catholic or Anglican Churches in Australia. Its concern for matters within
the scope of environmentalism date back 30 years to the Church’s formation in 1977. However,
most of the early ecological or related policies of the UCA at a national and synod level are
variously broad, symbolic, externally directed and non-operational. Where there were
operational elements, these were at the synod level and appear to have been largely if not
entirely unsuccessful in terms of their being converted to praxis until very recently. Regional
and local praxis has occurred but is largely undocumented on-line and does not seem to have
been collated by the synods. It is patchy and dependent on critical change agents and volunteers,
having received little or no higher-level institutional support. However, some examples of
regional and local praxis are very encouraging, as are a small number of synod-level policies
and related praxis.
The Assembly has recently noted that the Church has long been making ecological policies
but has largely failed to enact them internally. It has committed to praxis, and some meaningful
developments are apparently underway. The Assembly and some Synod offices and staff are
conducting energy audits to reduce consumption, switching to ‘green power’, and buying
carbon offsets.
A major problem within the UCA’s ecological policy and praxis is its reliance on
voluntarism with regard to subsidiary levels of the institution – at least in terms of ecological
policy. The Assembly will not require the synods to do anything and the synods will not require
their presbyteries or congregations to do anything. This situation is related to notions of
democracy and subsidiarity. All ecological policies were and remain recommendatory rather
than compulsory.
The lack of institutional ‘force’ behind the UCA’s ecological policies is also arguably
connected to its strong tradition of anthropocentrism, a problem comprehensively documented
by John, 2005. Most of its ecological policies and related statements reveal anthropocentrism,
even anthropoexclusivism, with only minor occurrences of bio-, eco-, or theo-biocentrism.
The theological basis of its policies has been and remains muddled. Even with, and
perhaps in part because of this confusion, there is a significant gap between the ecotheology and
the policies of the institutional Church. There is also a clear lack of real consensus within the
UCA as to its ecotheology, which despite more recent ventures beyond anthropocentrism,
remains largely stuck in a basic version of the stewardship ethic.
224
When I discussed such concerns with Rev. Prof. Barry Leal (who was also formerly a senior
administrator in two NSW universities) he agreed that:
“The environment is clearly not ‘core business’ as far as the authorities and I
suspect most parishioners (are concerned). A lot of good work has been done
and is being done but there is little background support so that much of it
remains dead in the water. I have come to the conclusion that the best thing I
can do is to write and at least leave something more or less permanent.”293
The lack of meaningful institutional support is noted by Millikan, 1981 p104, in relation to
earlier social justice activism by the Churches: “Though sponsored by the churches, these
initiatives have not been well received within the conservative church structures. There are
strong forces which would like to see the political tone and vigour of these activities modified.”
The same appears to be true in relation to ecological and ecojustice activism.
Leal (pers. comm.) also noted, along with Rev. Dr Clive Pearson294 (Uniting Theological
College) that economic rationalism is increasingly dominant in the operations and culture of the
UCA, at least in the NSW Synod, a situation strangely at odds with the Church’s long standing
and often vociferous concern for social justice. The preferring of economic values over
ecological ones is likely to have stymied some of the earlier attempts at ecological praxis, for
example, synod-based moves to adopt the use of ‘green’ electricity and solar hot water.
The dominance of economic rationalism over ecological values is consistent with the
Church’s general and often profound anthropocentrism. It is also consistent with what I perceive
to be a siege mentality within the UCA – a situation driven by its rapid decline in affiliates,
members and attendees; by internal schisms that threaten to tear the Church apart; and by fear of
anything that is perceived to add to pressures on what is arguably a slowly imploding
organisation. The latter includes pressures from inside and outside the Church (perceived and
actual) to dramatically improve its ecological performance.
293 His latter comment relates to his series of recent and planned publications on ecotheology (Leal, 2003,
2004a, b, 2006).
294 He made a comment to this effect on an earlier version of his website http://www.utc.uca.org.au/clive
and confirmed this view when I met him during late 2006.
225
Chapter 11: Synopsis
Each of the denominational chapters provides a summary of conclusions relating to the
ecological policies and praxis of those Churches. This chapter brings these together with a focus
on commonalities between the denominations and a return to the question at the centre of this
thesis: is ‘green’ religion the solution to the ecological crisis?
11.1 Overview
11.1.1 The Churches are part of the solution…
All three of the subject Churches have officially adopted a positive policy response to the
ecological crisis. At a national level, they all acknowledge the existence of the global ecocrisis
and there is broad agreement as to its causes, though in Catholicism, the sensitive issue of
human population growth and related issues such as contraception is largely avoided or
sidelined.
11.1.2 The significance of climate change as an issue
The Churches all acknowledge the phenomenon of anthropogenic climate change. They
have all called on various levels of government to take action to address it, with participation in
the Kyoto Protocol being given particular attention. Until recently, most ecological policies of
the Churches, including those dealing with climate change, have been externally directed. They
have often lacked any notion of action within the institutional Church to address the various
issues. They have sometimes raised the concept of the Church taking action internally, but this
has not been accompanied by effective operational policy on a national scale.
The Churches’ public concern about climate change has been particularly notable in its
influence on their ecological policy-making because this issue, perhaps like no other, overtly
links traditional concerns about human welfare, to the more recent concern of the Churches for
broader ecological impacts. Its significance in this regard is mentioned briefly by Goosen, 2000
p204. Rue, 2006 p20 observes that “Social justice was the doorway through which
environmental issues entered the public arena of the Catholic Church in Australia and the
message of ecological justice came first from the Third World churches: ‘If you want to look
after the poor, look after the Earth’.”
Despite this bridge-building feature of the Churches’ interest in climate change, the key
motivation for their concern is the inequitable impacts that the phenomenon is having and will
increasingly have on people and nations who have contributed the least to the problem. The
226
impact on humans, especially the poor, is emphasised and tends to be prioritised over broader
ecosystemic impacts.
11.1.3 The burden of anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism remains a dominant factor in the Churches’ ecological policies.
Anthropoexclusivism was dominant in the earlier policies and statements and it is still evident
in the orientation of some parts of the Churches. Occasionally elements of biocentrism or
ecocentrism emerge (in a theocentric context) but these are often muddled with
anthropocentrism in the same policy document, suggesting confusion on the part of the authors,
and/or the effect of policy-making by committees in which there is not genuine consensus. Even
in later documents that specifically disclaim anthropocentrism and its theological and ecological
ills, the influence of anthropocentrism remains evident. It appears that for some within the
Churches, the anthropocentric orientation is so deep and so linked to their faith, that it is
difficult for them to fully adopt a theology or worldview in which humans are not at the centre.
The Churches clearly struggle to move on from anthropocentrism and its manifestation as
the stewardship ethic. However, they are not alone in this regard, with the problem arguably
being typical of Western society. Nonetheless, to maximise their effectiveness in the context of
ecological policy-making and praxis, the Churches need to comprehensively address the
problem of anthropocentrism in their theologies, policies, and institutional operations. This is
linked to the need for education as discussed later in this section.
Whilst the Churches remain “infected with anthropocentrism” (Collins, 1995, p5) and
“absorbed with the pathos of the human” (Collins, 2004 p133) their policies will not be
ecologically sound and will be very confined in their scope and impact if implemented. There
are Christian ecotheologians and evidently members of all three subject Churches who have
moved beyond anthropocentrism, arguing for a form of Christianity that is theo-ecocentric, i.e.
the ecosystem of Creation is seen as sacred because it is made by God – humans are a part of
that interconnected system, but not the reason for the system’s existence. There remains a
substantial gap between their understanding and that of the institutional Churches other than in a
very limited and largely symbolic sense.
11.1.4 Organisational problems - subsidiarity
Whilst the Churches now have national policy that responds to the ecological crisis,
primarily calling for government and public action, this situation is not mirrored at subsidiary
levels of the denominations. For example, a national policy on climate change will not
necessarily be officially or functionally adopted by all dioceses or Synods, let alone by
individual churches. Even in the more hierarchical and less democratic denominations, central
227
authority is not applied when it comes to ecological policy. Even in the relatively democratic
Uniting Church, its National Assembly has the constitutional power to enact and enforce
binding policies but has never done so in an ecological context, despite acknowledging that 30
years of policy-making has had little effect within the Church.
All three Churches have organisational structures that afford a relatively large degree of
autonomy to components such as the dioceses of Catholicism and Anglicanism (C & A), and the
Synods of the Uniting Church. Indeed whilst much of the ecological policy emerges at a
national denominational level, most of the institutional and operational power occurs at the
diocesan (C & A) or Synod (UCA) level. Explanations for this include the ecclesiastical notion
of subsidiarity (power should be vested at the lowest level at which it can be reasonably
deployed); the theological notion of conscience (one has free will in terms of how one acts but
this should be done with reference to the Church’s teachings); and the political notion of
democracy (this is often muddled with subsidiarity and is highly constrained other than in the
UCA). In my view, the reality is that the Churches are not prepared to put much, if any
institutional ‘weight’ behind their national policies. They can agree to make a policy, they can
sometimes agree to implement it in some way, but they cannot actually implement it.
A similar pattern is evident at lower levels of the Church hierarchies. For example,
dioceses could control the building practices of parishes (subject to overriding government law
and policy) because dioceses control the funding. This is the case in the Anglican Diocese of
Canberra & Goulburn. Yet dioceses apparently do not have control of where a parish purchases
its electricity from, nor any related issues such as the achievement of basic energy uses
efficiencies in the operation of parish infrastructure. I understand the same situation applies in
relation to the synods and presbyteries of the Uniting Church. The outcome of this is that
dioceses or synods can make a policy relating to the purchase of ‘green’ electricity, the
conducting of ‘environmental audits’, etc., but they can’t or at least won’t enforce it.
My interpretation of this organisational issue is that the concept of subsidiarity that
underpins the structures is one of those ideas that looks good in theory but is another matter in
practice. It may well have been less of a problem, indeed it might have been a relatively positive
approach when the Churches were flourishing. Now that they are largely in decline and/or have
maintained archaic structures that do not mesh with present-day organisational needs,
subsidiarity appears to be more of a burden. It assumes, for example, that a parish is suitably
informed and resourced (in all regards) to make decisions about its use of energy, in particular,
issues of energy conservation and the option of switching to ‘green power.
228
However, this assumption does not hold in a reality where:
• the parish is being asked to take on-board a new and arguably still emergent ecotheology,
related ecological policies, and to implement them;
• at a time when its clergy are depleted in number, the few who remain are often tired,
overworked, nearing retirement, and lacking in any training relevant to ecological reforms;
• local funds are running low, along with volunteer numbers and hours;
• anthropocentric values are deeply entrenched in the Church and society; and
• there may be resentment of the diocese for pursuing new policies related to the ‘trendy’
issues of environmentalism whilst reducing parish staffing and budgets, and talking of
enforced church closures and parish mergers.
Subsidiarity needs to be re-evaluated as a decision-making and organisational concept
within the Churches. The assumptions underpinning it need to be subject to critical scrutiny,
especially in the context of ecojustice policies and praxis. Any such review needs to be
undertaken comprehensively and must take account of both bottom-up and top-down processes
and consequences. For example, from an ecological praxis perspective, I see no reason why
energy management cannot be taken out of the hands of parishes and presbyteries, and put
clearly under the control of the dioceses (C & A) and the synods (UCA).
11.1.5 Abuse of children is illegal, abuse of Creation is optional
I suggest that one reason why subsidiarity has not been adequately challenged in the
context of ecological policy and praxis is that such matters are still not ‘core business’ of the
Churches. Ultimately, subsidiarity did not prevent the Churches addressing, albeit belatedly and
inadequately, their organisational responsibilities towards the protection of children and others
from sexual abuse by Church personnel. One only has to look at the Churches’ mishandling of
the many sexual abuse scandals revealed in recent decades (see for example, Bouma, 2006 p19-
20; Robinson, 2007) to see that even in matters of criminal law and in an area of
anthropoexclusive concern, they still struggled to function effectively. Geoffrey Robinson,
former Chairman of the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference Professional Standards
Committee claims that the Catholic Church still struggles in this regard, adopting a policy of
‘managing’ rather than ‘confronting’ the issue (Robinson, 2007). Despite its slow and
apparently inadequate response, it is evident that having learnt hard lessons associated with the
criminal prosecution of offenders, large legal and punitive costs, ex gratia compensation
payments, bad publicity, losses of laity and clergy, the Churches have managed to enact a
substantive institutional response in this context.
229
The Churches’ response to the problem of sexual abuse within its ranks is in some, though
not total contrast with its response to its institutional abuse of Nature, i.e. its ‘environmental
impact’ or ‘ecological footprint’. In the Catholic context, a national process saw all but two
bishops and the leaders of religious orders agree to the enactment of a binding protocol to
address the problem of institutional sexual abuse (Robinson, 2007. Parishes were not afforded
discretion to accept, modify or reject the protocol. In relation to the Catholic Church’s impacts
on abuse of Nature, there is no binding national protocol, and dioceses and parishes have
complete discretion as to whether they adopt any measures to reduce their impacts.
My searches of Church websites focussed on policies and as a result, I often looked in
parts of websites with headings such as ‘Codes of Practice’, ‘Church Law’, ‘Church policies’,
yet none of these revealed rules for the minimisation of ecological harm. Instead, such areas
contained rules relating to the protection of children, and the management of finances and
property. I encountered only one (Anglican) diocese where there are binding and enforceable
rules relating to the minimisation of ecological impacts. However, even in that instance, such
rules are of very limited scope, are confined in their application by organisational subsidiarity,
and were found to be undermined and subverted by other more dominant parts of the
organisation, e.g. finance and infrastructure development.
The Churches are not alone in the privileging of anthropocentric values in their
organisational structures and priorities. Much the same can be said of Western society in
general, though again the Churches have been particularly slow to begin to address ecological
concerns other than through primarily non-operational and externally directed policies (see for
example Carmody, 1983; Collins, 1995, 2004; Leal, 2004a; McDonagh, 1990; Gnanakan, 1999;
Goosen, 2000; Rue, 2006 p34). One only has to look at the marginalised status of ‘environment
departments’ in government to see that ecological concerns are peripheral, not central.
Nonetheless, the Churches could place far more theological and ecclesiastical weight on
ecological policy and praxis, even within their existing structures. At the very least, they could
act consistent with the seemingly accepted doctrine of ecojustice by giving equal operational
significance to both ecological and social justice.
11.1.6 Low ecological literacy
A related challenge for the Churches is the problem of low ecological literacy in the clergy
and the membership. For most of the Churches’ existence, there was no concept of a global
ecological crisis, and neither ecological science nor environmentalism as we would recognise
them today existed. This is also true for Western society in general, though at least within some
parts of the Church there were and remain traditions that have a positive or relatively positive
relationship with Nature, for example the Franciscans. However, “Christianity in the modern
period almost lost interest in the revelatory power of the natural world and reinforced the
230
tendency to set humanity over and against nature in a manipulative, polluting way of life”
(Hessel & Ruether, 2000a p.xxxv). This saw it even more reluctant to engage with the
challenges of ecology and environmentalism when they arose.
Both the Churches and broader society are still struggling to come to terms with the
implications of the findings of ecology and the moral questions raised in at least some forms of
environmentalism. However, the Churches’ delay in responding to the ecological crisis has seen
them particularly poorly equipped in terms of the ecological literacy and skills of both their
clergy and their membership. Overall, clergy have not been taught ecology or ‘environmental
science’ or anything remotely like it. Most have not even been taught ecotheology, yet it is
arguably a change in ecotheology that forms the basis of the Churches’ ecological policy-
making.
The Catholic Church in Australia appears to have acknowledged and acted to address the
resultant deficit in its internal ecological literacy through its decision to appoint expert advisors
to the Council of Catholic Earthcare Australia. Such advisors are not restricted to the ranks of
Catholicism. CEA has also outsourced some of its policy writing to established authors who are
from traditions other than Catholicism, for example, prominent Lutheran ecotheologian,
Norman Habel.
Despite or perhaps because of the weakness in the Churches’ intellectual capacity to
respond to the ecological crisis, there are no compulsory ecotheology courses for trainee or
retraining clergy in Australia (see Leal, 2004a p73, and Chew cited in ABC Religion & Ethics
Unit, 2000). At present, they do not require their clergy to be trained or retrained in the relevant
fields that would potentially give them at least a working knowledge of the issues and the basic
skill-set to enact such policies. It is little wonder then that they struggle to convert their
ecological policies into institutional praxis.
A factor operating against the Churches in this context is the relatively elderly nature of the
clergy. Whilst Australian society deals with the politically contentious issue of an aging
population, the phenomenon is more intense within the Churches, particularly in the Protestant
realm (Bouma, 2006). With such a relatively elderly clergy, it is not so surprising to see a lack
of institutional commitment to their retraining, though this does not explain why new and
younger entrants to the clergy are not obliged to have at least a basic grounding in ecotheology
and ecology. I note that the generational factor influencing the Churches’ low ecological literacy
is also seen in wider society.
There are some exceptions to the norm and I encountered a small number of clergy or
other Church officials who had substantial ecological knowledge, and in some cases relevant
qualifications. Some were later life entrants to ministry who apparently had prior education in
231
ecologically relevant fields. Some were self-taught amateur naturalists. I read of a young priest
in one Anglican diocese who reportedly had a degree in environmental science, and the
relatively young Uniting Church ‘ecominister’ Rev. Dr. Jason John is another of the few clergy
who have qualifications in environmental science.
The problem of ecological literacy amongst clergy is arguably part of a broader problem of
their having a relatively low level of education in general, especially in Protestantism. Bouma,
2006 p100, notes that Catholic clergy have “usually been educated to a substantially higher
level than Protestant clergy whose professional preparation in the British Commonwealth is
usually at the level of a primary school teacher.” He sees this as a major factor in the decline of
Protestantism in Australia with most of its clergy being inadequately skilled and out of date
such that they cannot adapt to the rapidly changing social circumstances, which I believe
include the requirements of ecological policy and praxis.
There is a pressing need for the Churches to engage in so-called ‘capacity-building’ such
that they might be better placed in terms of knowledge and potentially the values necessary for
them to make and enact ecological policies within their institutions. Relying primarily on
voluntary education and on school-based education is insufficient for the purpose. Heavy
reliance on school-based ecological education (as happens in the Churches and in secular
society) is a form of generational buck-passing. Whilst a strong school-based education program
is necessary and commendable, it is not necessarily the most effective, or an adequate or
equitable response.
As part of the Churches’ challenge of converting their ecotheology and policy into
institutional praxis, there is a need for a comprehensive ‘whole of Church’ education and
training strategy accompanied by adequate resources and a genuine and sustained commitment
to its implementation. Drawing an example from the commercial world, the Churches could
choose to accept the challenge of reforming their operations (particularly their businesses) to
comply with the International Organisation for Standardisation ISO 4000 series295. This would
entail their agreeing to operate by internationally accepted standards of ‘environmental
management’. To achieve this, they would have to enact an effective education process across
all relevant aspects of their operations.
The low ecological literacy of clergy is linked to not only the long-standing disinterest or
at least peripheral interest of the Churches in ecological concerns; it is again part of a broader
phenomenon in Western Society. However, though the Churches have been, and remain,
particularly slow to address this problem, a situation worsened by their demographic challenges.
295 http://www.iso14000-iso14001-environmental-management.com/iso14000.htm
232
Traditional theology and ministry remain the educative and vocational domains for clergy,
whilst ecology is a domain and vocation for laity, and never (or rarely) do they meet, at least not
in Australia.
11.1.7 The role of change agents
Change agents, sometimes termed ‘critical change agents’ (where ‘critical’ means
‘essential’) are very evident in the ‘greening’ of the Churches. They are a key factor in the
extent to which the Churches can be part of the solution to the ecological crisis. There have been
influential change agents at the top of Church hierarchies, such as the late Pope John Paul II,
and more recently the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. There are others in the
middle ranks such as Anglican Bishop George Browning and Catholic Bishop Chris Toohey.
There do not yet appear to be similar high or mid-level ecological change agents within the
UCA, though this may be a consequence of its more democratic structure more than an
indication that such agents are actually absent. The newly elected Moderator of the NSW Synod
may be the first ecologically oriented change agent to emerge at such a high level in the UCA.
There are also influential change agents operating at the lower levels of all three
denominations. For example, Cath James (UCA Synod of Victoria & Tasmania), Rev. Dr. Jason
John (the first UCA ‘Ecominister’), many religious sisters within the orders of Catholicism (for
example the Presentation Sisters who operate the ErinEarth facility, and the Mercy Sisters who
operate the very ‘green’ Earth Link project), and some of the members of Anglican diocesan
environment commissions. I also encountered people from all three denominations who were
ecojustice change agents operating at the very local level, such as within particular churches and
parish councils.”My research indicates that such change agents are a significant factor in
explaining the conversion of ecological policy to praxis in some parts of the Churches, and its
absence in many other parts296. For example, much of the Anglican Church in Australia seems
to lack ecological praxis or at least anything beyond either the tokenistic or the very basic. Yet it
is Anglicanism that yields a particularly good example of policy and praxis at the diocesan
296 Reference has also been made in earlier chapters to factors such as the general orientation of particular
regions of the country, e.g. the tendency to conservatism in traditional rural areas and the tendency to
more progressive values in metropolitan areas, with the exception of Sydney, which has long been a
bastion of conservative religion (see for e.g. Millikan, 1981 p80). Patchiness at different scales was also
apparent both within and between denominations. I observed that adjoining dioceses and even adjoining
parishes had or were reported to me as having profoundly different orientations towards ecojustice in
theory and in practice.
233
level297, substantially it appears, because of the change driven by Bishop Browning and
supported by the diocesan environment commission.
There are others in Anglicanism who share at least an equally substantive reform agenda
and who have enacted it wherever possible. However, most of these other reformers are in the
laity or the lower ranked clergy.
Similarly, without the significant theological and policy reforms led by the late Pope, I
doubt that the Catholic Church in Australia would have responded to the extent that it has, albeit
still lacking in many ways. In Catholicism, the stand-out change agents are the ‘green sisters’
but there are others in the dioceses.
The influence of these positive change agents is constrained by a range of factors
including:
• heavy workloads of the few staff (including clergy) who seek to enact substantive
ecojustice reforms;
• the generalised absence of specialist and adequately funded positions that deal with
ecojustice at all levels of the Churches, meaning, amongst other things, that change-
oriented clergy rarely have any or adequate paid staff they can delegate related work to;
• high likelihood of ‘burn out’ and turn-over in volunteer and paid change agents because of
inadequate institutional support, and is some cases reported to me, due to profound
institutional obstruction;
• the ease with which senior leaders can readily and unaccountably quash change that they
are uncomfortable with (especially in the older Churches);
• a generalised lack of organisations within the Churches that give adequate weight and
resourcing to ecojustice reforms (meaning that change agents tend to operate individually
or in very small groups rather than having much if any institutional support);
• an ageing of Church leadership and membership, with resultant decreases in personal
energy to drive change;
297 I am not suggesting that the ecojustice reforms in the Anglican Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn are
adequate in my terms, simply that it is one of the better examples. Interviews conducted for this thesis but
generally not reported in it for various reasons included information about activities that reveal some
deep-seated difficulties in the process of converting policy to praxis in this diocese. In August 2007, I
noted an official announcement that Bishop Browning is leaving the diocese and returning to England.
234
• shrinking budgets to enact ecojustice reforms (noting that some are actually cost-neutral or
positive but won’t necessarily be known or perceived to be so), especially in rural areas
and in the Protestant churches(see for example Bouma, 2006 p 97); and
• the sidelining of ecojustice reforms by more established institutional priorities such as
social justice, evangelism, maintenance or renewal of infrastructure, and the survival or
expansion of the Church.
Again, many of the above-mentioned constraints on ecojustice change agents in the
Churches also operate in broader society. I have experienced and observed many of these
problems in secular environmentalist groups and within the ‘environment departments’, where
they existed, in Local, State and Federal government agencies. However, the Churches have
some particular problems and some constraints that may be more severe than in the secular
realm. For example, the relatively young age that boys used to enter training for the priesthood
such that they are effectively cloistered, indoctrinated and institutionalised before being able to
form independent adult views of the world. This would conceivably make it difficult for such
people to adapt to change, especially the radical changes necessary to address ecojustice issues.
11.2 Are ‘greened’ Churches the solution to the
ecological crisis?
I did not intend that the case study used in this thesis would definitively determine whether
and/or to what extent ‘greened’ religion or even ‘greened’ Christianity can be or is the solution
to the ecocrisis. It is simply an insight into this global and multifaith issue in the context of
mainstream Christianity in Australia. I simply intend that it contribute to the international
literature on this theme. The case study may be able to be extrapolated with a reasonable degree
of fidelity in other Western, predominantly Christian, or at least Christianised nations such as
the UK, Canada and New Zealand. Aspects may also be extrapolated in the context of Western
culture and Western religion, and perhaps into other religions.
My research indicates that the greening of the Churches is such that they are now part of
the solution to the ecocrisis, but that their contribution as institutions is currently little or no
more than any other part of society. However, the Churches have an advantage over the rest of
our increasingly individualistic society (see for example, Mackay, 2004b) in that their
communal structure provides a potentially powerful vehicle for collective education, motivation,
and action. Environmentalist groups can provide a similar platform for collective change, but
being secular and predominantly relying on rational science for many of their arguments, they
tend to lack something in which the Churches have been strong, at least historically. This
significant difference is the Churches’ background in being able to make overtly and profoundly
moral arguments for personal and societal change. Given increasing discussion of the ecocrisis,
235
particularly climate change, as a moral issue, ‘greened’ churches could conceivably be better
placed to convey the moral message and perhaps even achieve the necessary transpersonal and
collective changes than are the secular environmentalist groups. Were their efforts in this regard
effectively combined, synergistic benefits may be generated.
11.2.1 Summary of the case study of the mainstream Churches
in Australia
I have shown that the mainstream Churches researched for this thesis are part of the
solution to the ecological crisis. However, at present they are not anything more than one of
several parts of society moving in that direction. Their capacity to be even a substantial part of
the solution is limited by factors including:
• their current or demographically predicted decline in membership and affiliates, and the
related problem of an aging clergy and membership (for example Bouma, 2006);
• a shift in affiliates away from the Churches and towards a less institutionalised or entirely
deinstitutionalised expression of faith, apparently driven by dissatisfaction with and a lack
of trust in the Churches as vehicles of the faith (for example Bouma, 2006; Whelan,
2006a);
• a bifurcation that now sees the mainstream Churches respond to their demographic and
other challenges by becoming either more insular and fundamentalist or more progressive
(for example Bouma, 2006; Macken, 2007b; Tacey, 2007; and in part Millikan, 1981 p68).
Overall, the most fundamentalist churches are growing in members. The fundamentalists
tend away from ecotheology or at least progressive ecotheology, and denounce
environmentalism or adopt very superficial forms.
• long-standing and deeply entrenched anthropocentrism (for example Collins, 1995; John,
2005; Nasr, 1996; White Jr., 1967);
• conflicting corporate goals that see ecological concerns and reforms subsumed by
economic rationalism and concern for the narrowly-perceived financial well-being of the
institution (for example in part Howe, 2002);
• the related inadequate resourcing of ecological reform processes, despite the fact that some
of the processes have immediate or relatively rapid cost benefits;
• organisational structures that generally impede the conversion of policy to praxis, inclusive
of a generalised reliance on voluntary implementation and an absence of formal processes
for compulsory institution-wide auditing and (preferably public) reporting of ecological
impacts and mitigation measures;
236
• low levels of ecological literacy that are not being adequately addressed (see for example
Leal, 2004a) and which leave the Churches open to naïve, selective, and populist adoptions
of ‘science’ as their new or at least a subsidiary arbiter of truth;
• substantial reliance on often isolated change agents to drive both policy and praxis, rather
than there being a broader, institutionally supported movement of reform.
Despite these limitations, the Churches still have the capacity or potential capacity to
influence the 8 to 18% or so of believers who attend church at least monthly, perhaps extending
their influence to that much larger portion of the public who still affiliate with these
denominations. They also have considerable theoretical potential to reduce their institutional
ecological impact through the operation of their infrastructure and associated corporate bodies
that are active in healthcare, education, employment and welfare.
A potentially significant contribution of the mainstream Churches beyond the realm of
their own institutions and membership may be made through their increasing collaboration with
the broader environmentalist movement (see for example Gardner, 2002, 2003, 2006; Gottlieb,
2006, 2007). This serves to broaden the demographic and political base of environmentalism,
taking it into areas of relative political conservatism through the vehicle of the Churches and
their concern for social and (to a lesser degree) ecological justice. This phenomenon of
collaboration between the Churches and secular environmentalist groups warrants further
research.
There are some excellent examples of ecological policy and praxis in all three
denominations. However, these tend to be at the fringes of the institutions or in parts where
there are well-positioned change agents that have adequate institutional support or an absence of
substantial opposition.
The Churches are not leading societal responses to the ecological crisis. They are largely
following secular trends in environmentalism, though they bring an overtly religious and
perhaps spiritual dimension to mainstream environmentalism that has previously been absent or
at least cryptic, particularly in Australia. This aspect may be their greatest contribution to date,
as it provides a relatively legitimate (in cultural terms) alternative basis for environmentalism,
i.e. a mainstream Western religio-spiritual basis linked to science, rather than depending
primarily or solely on scientific rationalist arguments or the adoption of relatively foreign (to
Westerners) indigenous or Eastern perspectives.
The Churches have been late to join the environmentalist cause and they have great
difficulty converting their policies into institutional praxis, though they are not alone in this.
Despite this handicap, there are aspects of the Churches’ teachings that are well in advance of
mainstream society’s understanding of Nature and humanity’s place within it. However, these
237
more progressive ecotheologies are at the fringes of the Church or outside the official Church,
though they sometimes surface in the largely symbolic policy statements of the institution. They
are not seen in institutional operational policy. Such theologies are deeply antithetical to much
of what Western society currently sees as normative (see for example the work of (Berry, 1988,
1999 and Carmody, 1983).
Were these ‘deep ecotheologies’ (a version of Deep Ecology in a Christian context) to
become dominant in the Churches, it might then be more legitimately claimed that the Churches
were a direct and significant part of the solution to the ecological crisis. At present, such a
situation seems unlikely, though perhaps a radically reformed Catholicism could be a workable
vehicle for a Church-led ecological revolution in the West. The extent of reform needed to
address the problems within Catholicism comprehensively would likely be such that it would
not resemble the organisation as we perceive it today. There appears little hope for any such
radical change within mainstream Protestantism which seems doomed to fade away as a
tradition that failed to stay relevant (Bouma, 2006).
Beyond issues of organisational structure, anthropocentrism, demographics and ecological
literacy, the Churches are limited by some broader constraints of their traditions. Macken,
2007a, cites David Tacey as saying that that the future will be dominated by a hybrid spirituality
of East and West. “It might be argued that the East has the internal stuff worked out but it isn't
overly concerned about social justice. Whilst Christianity is the reverse – it’s strong on social
justice but has no interiority. We need both. We need to breathe in and breathe out” (see also
Tacey, 2003, 2007; Carmody, 1983).
I agree with Tacey, and I believe that the mainstream Churches will not be anything more
than a relatively minor and increasingly peripheral contributor to the solutions to the ecological
crisis. They are simply too Western in philosophy and operation, and they profoundly lack
applied critical reflexivity – the interiority that Tacey mentions. The Churches, as institutions,
are far more interested in their institutional survival. The Churches have arguably become the
religion.
The current and seemingly escalating interest in spirituality, primarily outside the
institutions of religion, may see aspects of the Christian faith reworked in an ecologically sound
form. It appears likely, from the work of Tacey, 1995, 2000, 2003; Bouma, 2006; Tacey, 2007,
that such a form will also need to address the demand for the interiority that mainstream
Christianity has largely lacked. Evidence of the emergence of an ecologically grounded and
critically reflexive Christianity is seen in some of the activities of the ‘Green Sisters’ of
Catholicism, such as the Mercy Sisters’ Earth Link. In that example, the theological basis is the
so-called ‘Creation spirituality’ of Thomas Berry and Matthew Fox combined with the
ecofeminism of Rosemary Radford Ruether. This is then linked to a strong commitment to
238
broadly based community education (not just school children) and to leadership through praxis.
A similarly positive and progressive, but smaller scale project is the ‘ecoministry’ of Rev. Dr.
Jason John at the Uniting Church’s Scots Church in Adelaide.
I believe that what the many authors and commentators who advocate the view that ‘green’
religion is the solution to the ecocrisis are honing in on is the transformative power of
spirituality, particularly in relation to the moral dimension of the ecocrisis. Some certainly see
religions as powerful institutions with large asset bases and memberships, which were they
directed to the environmentalist cause, could be very beneficial. However, at least in Australia,
the primary focus should not be on the economic or political power of religious institutions but
on the potentially radical transformative and transpersonal power of ecospirituality. This view is
expressed succinctly by Hamilton, 2006a:
“Traditionally, the churches have attended to and represented the deeper
aspects of life, those that transcend the individualism, materialism and
selfishness that so characterise modern affluent societies. It is in this
transcendent concern that I believe we can find the roots of a new
progressive politics – not in the institutions of the churches themselves but
by rediscovering those aspects of life that, at their best, the churches
articulate and cultivate.”
Ecospiritualities may well arise and perhaps even flourish in some institutional religions
but I suspect that they will best develop and flourish outside the institutions, or at least outside
the present day institutions.
11.3 Conclusion
Even were the Churches to have sound ecological policies, effective organisational
structures, adequate funding, and the necessary levels of training and education for a
demographically sustainable clergy, lay staff and general membership, a vital ingredient is
necessary to ensure that the associated ‘greening’ is other than relatively superficial. This
ingredient is ecospirituality. To be authentic and effective, ecospirituality needs to be based in
ecological reality, inclusive of critical reflexivity linked to praxis, transcendent of the
dichotomising so common in Western thought, and able to extend knowledge of ecological
‘facts’ into commensurate values, attitudes and behaviours through having a strong moral
dimension.
At present, mainstream Christianity, or at least the mainstream Churches, lack such an
ecospirituality and still struggle to comprehensively agree on an ecologically valid ecotheology
and the related policies and praxis. This is unsurprising given that they still struggle with the
comparatively simple issue of gender equity. Authentic ecospirituality is seen in a few people
and in a few groups at the fringes but it is not the norm.
239
As it stands, the mainstream Churches can only be expected to make relatively minor
changes such as switching to ‘green power’, buying smaller cars, participating in municipal
recycling schemes, and installing rainwater tanks. They largely lack the transpersonal and
transformative ecospiritual dimension needed to make them real leaders in the process of radical
change that is necessary to address the ecological crisis. On this basis, I have concluded that the
mainstream Churches in Australia do not provide a supporting case for the proposition that
‘green’ religion is the answer to the ecological crisis. This does not infer that I refute the
proposition. Instead, my research has led me to conclude that genuinely ‘greened’ religions have
the potential to be a major part of the solution to the ecological. However, ecospirituality rather
than institutional religion has this capacity or potential capacity to address the profound moral
challenge at the heart of the crisis. Ecospirituality may exist within or outside religions. In
Australia, it primarily exists beyond the Church.
240
References
ABC Religion & Ethics Unit (2000). "The Greening of God". Compass, Australian
Broadcasting Corporation, ABC TV. Sydney.
ABC Religion and Ethics Unit (2000). "The Greening of God". Compass, Australian
Broadcasting Corporation, ABC TV. Sydney.
ABC Religion and Ethics Unit (2005a). "Family First: a Federal crusade". Compass, Australian
Broadcasting Corporation, ABC TV. Sydney.
ABC Religion and Ethics Unit (2005b). "Kevin Rudd: the God factor". Compass, Australian
Broadcasting Corporation, ABC TV. Sydney.
ABS (1994). Australian social trends 1994: Religion - special feature - geographic distribution
of religions. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra
ABS (2001). National census of population & housing. Australian Bureau of Statistics,
Canberra
ABS (2007). "2006 Census of population and housing (Australia) - Religious affiliation by age
for time series". Australian Bureau of Statistics. Canberra.
Aiello, S. (2001). How The Matrix inspires freedom and the need to self-actualize: a
transformative journey into self-creation. MA thesis. Sonoma State University, Rohnert
Park CA.
Allison, G.T. (1971). Essence of decision. Little, Brown, Boston.
Anon. (2005). Little green flower flourishes. Insights. March.
Anshen, R.N. (1971). Perspectives in humanism: the future of tradition (Theodosius
Dobzhansky). In: The biology of ultimate concern. R. N. Anshen, Ed. pp.vii-xvii,
Collins Clear-type Press, London & Glasgow.
Armstrong, J.M. (2001). Religious attendance and affiliation patterns in Australia - 1966 to
1996: The dichotomy of religious identity and practice. PhD thesis. ANU, Canberra.
Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (2002). Social Justice Sunday Statement: a new Earth -
the environmental challenge. Australian Catholic Church, Sydney
Bainbridge, W.S. (2004). "Religion and science." Futures 36 (9): 1009-1023.
Bapat, J. (1988). "Towards a Critical Human Ecology." Journal of the Indian Anthropological
Society 23 (1): 1-16.
Barbour, I.G. (1990). Religion in an age of science. The Gifford Lectures 1989-1991 Volume 1.
SCM Press, London.
Batten, D. (2005). Caring for Creation. Creation. 27. 2. 16-19.
Beckford, J. (2003). Social theory and religion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bellamy, J. (2005). Unpublished data from 2001 National Church Life Survey. NCLS Research,
Sydney
241
Bellamy, J., Black, A., Castle, K., Hughes, P. and Kaldor, P. (2002). Why people don't go to
church. Openbook Publishers, Adelaide.
Bellamy, J. and Castle, K. (2003). The effectiveness of church planting: some initial research
findings. October 2003. NCLS Research on behalf of The Uniting Church Board of
Mission (NSW), Anglicare (Sydney) and the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference,
Sydney
Bellamy, J. and Castle, K. (2004). 2001 church attendance estimates: Occasional Paper No.3.
National Church Life Survey 2001, NCLS Research, Sydney
Bentley, P. and Hughes, P. (1998). Australian life and the Christian faith: facts and figures.
Christian Research Association, Kew, Victoria.
Bentley, P. and Hughes, P.J. (2004). The Uniting Church in Australia. In: Australia's religious
communities. P. J. Hughes, Ed. 2nd edition (CD-ROM), Christian Research
Association, Nunawading, Vic.
Berghofer, D.E. (2004). Creating a knowledge society: building blocks of a new transcendent
humanity. In: Building bridges: towards a sustainable future for all. Halifax, Canada
Canadian Commission for UNESCO.
Berry, T. (1988). The dream of the Earth. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.
Berry, T. (1993). "Ecological geography." Worldviews: Environment, Culture and Religion 37
(2): 228-237.
Berry, T. (1999). The Great Work: our way into the future. Bell Tower, New York.
Berry, W. (1992). Christianity and the survival of Creation: a lecture at the Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. In: Seeing God everywhere: essays on
Nature and the sacred, 2003. B. McDonald, Ed. pp.53-72, World Wisdom Inc.,
Bloomington, Indiana.
Binde, P. (2001). "Nature in Roman Catholic tradition." Anthropological Quarterly 74 (1): 15-
27.
Birch, C. (1965). Nature and God. SCM Press Ltd, London.
Birch, C. (1976). "Creation, technology and human survival." Ecumenical Review 28.
Birch, C. (1984). Religion and Nature. University of Auckland, Auckland.
Birch, C. and Cobb Jr, J.B. (1981). The liberation of life. Cambridge University Press,
Melbourne.
Blair, D. and Dockray, M. (2004). Forests and forest issues in Victoria and Tasmania. April
2004. Justice and International Mission Unit, Commission for Mission, Uniting Church
of Australia Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, Melbourne
Blombery, T. (2004). Anglican Church in Australia. In: Australia's religious communities: a
multimedia exploration. P. J. Hughes, Ed. 2nd edition (CD-ROM), Christian Research
Association, Nunawading, Vic.
Boff, L. (1997). Cry of the Earth, cry of the poor. Orbis Books, New York.
Bouma, G. and Dixon, B. (1986). The religious factor in Australian life. MARC, Melbourne.
242
Bouma, G.D. (2006). Australian soul: religion and spirituality in the twenty-first century.
Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne.
Bouma, G.D. and Lennon, D. (2003). "Estimating the extent of religious and spiritual activity in
Australia using time-budget data." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42 (1):
107-112.
Bouquet, A.C. (1967). Comparative religion: a short outline. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth,
Eng., Baltimore.
Boyden, S.B. (1987). Western civilisation in biological perspective: patterns in biohistory.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Boyden, S.B. (2004). The biology of civilisation: understanding human culture as a force in
nature. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.
Brady, V. (2000). Preface. In: Readings from the perspective of the Earth. N. Habel, Ed. The
Earth Bible, 1: pp.13-17, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield UK.
Braud, W. and Anderson, R. (1998). Transpersonal research methods for the social sciences:
honouring human experience. Sage, London.
Breuilly, E. and Palmer, M., Eds. (1992). Christianity and ecology. Cassell Publishers, London,
England.
Breward, I. (1988). Australia: "The most Godless place under Heaven"? Melbourne College of
Divinity Bicentennial Lectures. Beacon Hill Books, Melbourne.
Brighton, W., Castle, K. and Bellamy, J. (2004). Attendance statistics for the Anglican Church
of Australia 1991-2001. May 2004. National Church Life Survey on behalf of the
Standing Committee of General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia, NCLS
Research, Sydney
Brindle, S.K. (2000). To learn a new song: a contribution to Real Reconciliation within the
Earth and its peoples. The James Backhouse Lectures. Australia Yearly Meeting of the
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Armidale North, Victoria.
Brown, B. (2004). Memo for a saner world. Penguin Group, Camberwell, Victoria, Australia.
Brown, B. (2006). Lake of fire. Green: the magazine of The Australian Greens. Winter. 20. p32.
Brown, B. (2007). Preferential treatment is all part of a political ruse. The Weekend
Australian, Saturday 26th of May p28.
Brown, C. (2003). Pope's poetry on creation. Earthcare Newsletter. 2.
Brown, V.A., Dyball, R., Keen, M., Lambert, J. and Mazur, N. (2005). The reflective
practitioner: practising what we preach. In: Social learning in environmental
management: building a sustainable future. M. Keen, V. A. Brown & R. Dyball, Eds.
Earthscan, London.
Browning, G. (2004). Practical ways of repairing damage and finding a path towards living in
the land - Session II - Education. In: Sacred Ground: indigenous and non-indigenous
views of land. C. Watson, Ed., Australia Centre for Christianity & Culture, Barton,
ACT Common Ground Exhibitions & Research.
243
Browning, G. (2007). Response from Bishop George Browning, Chair, Anglican Communion
Environment Network to Final Report of the Prime Ministerial Task Group on
Emissions Trading. Anglican Communion Environment Network, Canberra
Budden, C. (1990). Healing the Earth: an Australian Christian reflection on the renewal of
Creation (Social Justice Sunday Statement). Assembly Social Responsibility & Justice
Committee, Uniting Church of Australia National Assembly, Sydney.
Caduto, M.J. (1985). A guide on environmental values education. UNESCO Division of
Science, Technical and Environmental Education, and UNEP International
Environmental Education Programme, Paris.
Cahill, D., Bouma, G.D., Dellal, H. and Leahy, M. (2004). Religion, cultural diversity, and
safeguarding Australia. Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous
Affairs; Australian Multicultural Foundation; World Conference of Religions for Peace,
RMIT University & Monash University., Canberra
Callicott, J.B. (1994). A survey of ecological ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the
Australian Outback. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Callicott, J.B. and Ames, R.T., Eds. (1989). Nature in Asian traditions of thought. State
University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Cameron, A. (2005). Environment - a Christian response. Social Issues Executive of the
Anglican Diocese of Sydney, Newtown, NSW.
Carmody, J. (1983). Ecology and religion: toward a new Christian theology of nature. Paulist,
New York.
Carnley, P. (2004). Reflections in glass: trends and tensions in the contemporary Anglican
Church. HarperCollins, Sydney.
Carnley, P., Carroll, F. and Haire, J. (2002). Message from the heads of the Anglican, Roman
Catholic and Uniting Churches in Australia. In: Sustaining Creation: Social Justice
Sunday 2002 (action resource kit). National Social Responsibility & Justice (Uniting
Church in Australia), The Anglican Social Responsibilities Network, and Australian
Catholic Social Justice Council, Marrickville NSW.
Chew, W. (1999). Cosmology and ecology: the way ahead. In: Developing an Australian
theology. P. Malone, Ed. pp.189-208, St Pauls Publications, Strathfield, NSW.
Chidester, D. (1987). Patterns of Action: Religion and ethics in a comparative perspective.
Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Coates, J. (2003). Ecology and social work: toward a new paradigm. Fernwood Books,
Peterborough, Ontario.
Cobb, J. (2000). Christianity, economics and ecology. In: Christianity and ecology: seeking the
well-being of Earth and humans. D. T. Hessel & R. R. Ruether, Eds. Harvard / CSWR,
Cambridge, MA.
Cock, P. (1991). "Values for sustainability: the necessity of transcendence and sacred realms".
Fundamental Questions Paper. No. 5 Centre for Resource & Environmental Studies,
Australian National University.
Cohen, J. (2006). "The right stuff: Janine Cohen investigates allegations of vote-rigging,
intimidation and branch stacking in the New South Wales Liberal Party". Four Corners,
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC TV. Sydney.
244
Collins, P. (1995). God's Earth: religion as if matter really mattered. Dove, North Blackburn,
Vic.
Collins, P. (2000). Upon this rock: the Popes and their changing role. Melbourne University
Press, South Carlton, Victoria.
Collins, P. (2004). Between the rock and a hard place: being Catholic today. ABC Books,
Sydney.
Collins, P. (2007). "Australians quietly spiritual, not Godless." Eureka Street 17 (8).
Connole, H. (1993). Issues and methods in research: overview. In: Issues and methods in
research: study guide. H. Connole, B. Smith & R. Wiseman, Eds. 2nd, University of
South Australia, Adelaide.
Connole, H., Smith, B. and Wiseman, R. (1993). Issues and methods in research: study guide.
University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Conradie, E.M. (2003). "How can we help to raise an environmental awareness in the South
African context?" Scriptura 82: 122-138.
Conradie, E.M. (2005). Hope for the Earth: vistas for a new century. Wipf & Stock Publishers,
Eugene, OR.
Conradie, E.M. and Martin, J. (2007). "Gender, religion and environment: A University of the
Western Cape case study." Ecotheology 11 (4): 431-444.
Costello, P. (2004). "Why the message in Christianity is Australia's heritage". National Day of
Thanksgiving
Commemoration,
May
31.
Melbourne.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/30/1085855438594.html
Cox, H. (1999). "The Market as God." The Atlantic Monthly 283 (3): 18-23.
Croucher, R. (2002). "The future of the Church in your town/area 1". John Mark Ministries.
Melbourne. http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/8601.htm
Cummins, C. (2005). Churches turn their land to profits. Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney,
p(viewed on-line).
Davie, G. (1994). Religion in Britain since 1945: believing without belonging. Blackwell,
Oxford.
Deane-Drummond, C.E. (2004). The ethics of nature. New dimensions to religious ethics.
Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
DeBlas, A. (2005). "Saturday Breakfast (environment section) 7th May". G. Doogue. ABC
Radio National.
Derr, T.S. (1975). "Religion's responsibility for the ecological crisis: an argument run amok."
Worldview 18 (January): 39-45.
Derr, T.S. (1995). The challenge of biocentrism. In: Creation at risk: religion, science, and
environmentalism. M. Cromartie, Ed. pp.85-104, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich.
Diamond, J. (1992). The rise and fall of the third chimpanzee. Vintage, London.
Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, germs and steel: the fates of human societies. W.W. Norton & Co.,
London / New York.
245
Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. Viking, New York.
Dixon, R. (2004). The Catholic Church in Australia. In: Australia's religious communities: a
multimedia exploration. P. Hughes, Ed. 2nd edition (CD-ROM), Christian Research
Association, Nunawading, Vic.
Dixon, R. (2005). The Catholic community in Australia. Australia's Religious Communities
series. Open Book Publishers (for Christian Research Association), Adelaide.
Dobzhansky, T. (1967). The biology of ultimate concern. Perspectives in humanism: the future
of tradition: VII. The Fontana Library - theology and philosophy, London.
Douez, S. and Gray, D. (2002). Latham attacks church lecturing. The Age, 22nd August,
Melbourne, p (on-line).
Douglas, J.D. and Johnson, J.M., Eds. (1977). Existential sociology.
Douglas, S.M. (2006a). "Conservation on Church-owned land." Environment NSW 12 (3): 6.
Douglas, S.M. (2006b). "The scope for collaborative biodiversity conservation on church-
owned land." Australasian Plant Conservation 14 (3): 23-25.
Dovers, S. (2005). Policy assessment for sustainability: institutional issues and options. Joint
Academies Committee on Sustainability project on Integrated Multidisciplinary
Approaches to Sustainability Assessment, National Academies Forum (on-line
www.naf-forum.org.au/ ), Canberra
Dryzek, J.S. (1997). The politics of the earth: environmental discourses. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Dubos, R. (1972). A God Within. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
Dunlap, R.E. and Michelson, W., Eds. (2002). Handbook of environmental sociology.
Greenwood Press, Wesport, CT, USA.
Dunn, C. (2004). "Letter to Bishop Rutherford of the Anglican Diocese of Gosford re The
Ourimbah Protocol (unpublished correspondence)". The Wilderness Society Newcastle,
Newcastle NSW.
Dutney, A. (1991). "Green, gay and... Christian?" Chain reaction 63/64.
Edwards, D. (1992). Made from stardust: exploring the place of human beings within Creation.
Collins Dove, North Blackburn, Vic.
Edwards, D., Ed. (2001). Earth revealing, earth healing: ecology and Christian theology. The
Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN.
Evans, M. and Kelley, J. (2004). Australian economy and society: religion, morality and public
policy in international perspective 1984-2002. Federation Press, Sydney.
Evans, M.D.R. and Kelley, J. (2000). "Church going steady in 1999." Australian Social Monitor
3: 63-64.
Facione, P. (1990). Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of
educational assessment and instruction. The California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA.
Falvey, L. (2002). The Buddha's Gospel: A Buddhist interpretation of Jesus' words. Institute for
International Development, Adelaide.
246
Falvey, L. (2003). The Buddha's Gospel: A Buddhist interpretation of Jesus' words. In:
International Conference on Religion and Globalisation. Chiang Mai, Thailand The
Institute for the Study of Religion and Culture (ISRC), Payap University.
Farb, P. (1974). Ecology. Time Life Books, New York.
Fay, B. (1980). Social theory and political practice. Allen & Unwin, London.
Fenn, R. (2001). Beyond idols. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Fien, J. (1992). Education for the environment: a critical ethnography. PhD thesis. University
of Queensland,
Finlay, V. and Palmer, M. (2003). Faith in conservation: new approaches to religions and the
environment. The World Bank, Washington DC.
Flannery, T. (2005). The weather makers: the past and the future impact of climate change.
Text Publishing, Melbourne.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. S. Sampson. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge U.K.
Fox, M. (1983). Original blessing: a primer in creation spirituality. Bear & Co., Santa Fe NM.
Fox, M. (1984). Creation-centred spirituality from Hildegard of Bingen to Julian of Norwich:
300 years of an ecological spirituality in the West. In: Cry of the environment:
rebuilding the Christian creation tradition. P. Joranson & K. Butigan, Eds. pp.85-106,
Bear and Company, Santa Fe NM.
Fox, W. (1990). Toward a transpersonal ecology: developing new foundations for
environmentalism. Shambhala, Boston, MA.
Frame, T. (2005). Examining religion's influence on politics. The Canberra Times, Panorama,
February 5, Canberra, p13.
Frank, T. (2000). One market under God: extreme capitalism, market populism and the end of
economic democracy. Doubleday, New York.
Gardner, G. (2002). Invoking the Spirit: religion and spirituality in the quest for a sustainable
world. Worldwatch Paper No. 164, December. Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC
Gardner, G. (2003). Engaging religion in the quest for a sustainable world. In: State of the
World 2003. pp.152-176.
Gardner, G. (2006). Inspiring progress: religions' contributions to sustainable development.
Worldwatch Books, Washington DC.
Garrett, P. (2002). "Address to the inaugural gathering of the Catholic Earthcare Australia
Advisory Committee." Catholic Earthcare Australia (on-line). Sydney.
Geason, S., Ed. (2006). Common belief: Australia's faith communities on climate change. The
Climate Institute, Sydney.
Gibson, W.E. (1985). Ecojustice: New perspective for a time of turning. In: For Creation's
sake: Preaching, ecology and justice. D. T. Hessel, Ed. Geneva Press, Philadelphia.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative
research. Aldine, New York.
247
Global Co-operation for a Better World (1990). Report of Group 4. In: International Symposium
on Science, Technology & the Environment, January 3-7 1990. Athens, Greece pp.24-
28, Athenian Society for Science and Human Development.
Gnanakan, K. (1999). God's world: Biblical insights for a theology of the environment. SPCK
International study guide: 36. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London.
Goosen, G. (2000). Australian theologies. St Pauls Publications, Strathfield, NSW, Australia.
Gore, B. and Garrett, P. (1995). "The celebration of the gift of the forests." South Pacific
Journal of Mission Studies 15 (December): 26-27.
Gore Jr., A. (1992). Earth in the balance: ecology and the human spirit. Houghton Mifflin, New
York.
Gormly, M. (2000). Our quest for ecological integrity. Catholic Social Justice Series Number
37. Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, North Sydney.
Gottlieb, R.S. (2006). A greener faith: religious environmentalism and our planet's future.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gottlieb, R.S. (2007). "Religious environmentalism." Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature
and Culture 1 (1): 81-91.
Grau, C. (2005). Philosophers explore The Matrix. Oxford University Press, New York.
Grdzelidze, T. (2002). "Creation and ecology: How does the Orthodox Church respond to
ecological problems?" Ecumenical Review 54 (3): 212-216.
Green, V. (1991). "A Christian attitude to the environment." Australasian Catholic Record
LXVIII (1): 43-55.
Guess, D. (2005). Anthropocentrism in Ecological Theology with Reference to the Works of
Charles Birch, Sallie McFague and Thomas Berry. Masters of Theology thesis.
Melbourne College of Divinity, Melbourne.
Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C.S., Eds. (2002). Panarchy: understanding transformations in
human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington DC.
Habel, N. (2000). Introducing the Earth Bible. In: Readings from the perspective of Earth
(Earth Bible Vol. 1). N. Habel, Ed. pp.25, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Habel, N., Trengrove, J., Turner, M. and Waller, V. (2004). Renewing Creation: listening for
the groans and hopes of the Earth. South Australian Heads of Churches, Goolwa SA.
Hallman, D.G. (2000). Climate change: ethics, justice, and sustainable community. In:
Christianity and ecology: seeking the well-being of Earth and humans. D. T. Hessel &
R. R. Ruether, Eds. Religions of the world and ecology, Harvard University Press (for
the Harvard University Center for the Study of World Religions), Cambridge, MA.
Hamilton, A. (2007a). "In praise of hypocrisy." Eureka Street 17 (8).
Hamilton, C. (2006a). "Church could hold key to salvation for the Left." Eureka Street 16 (16).
Hamilton, C. (2006b). The politics of the past and the future. In: National Civil Society
Dialogue convened by ACTU, ACF, ACOSS and NCCA. Parliament House, Canberra
The Australia Institute http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP89.pdf.
248
Hamilton, C. (2007b). "The Religion Report, Summer Season, 3rd January". Australian
Broadcasting Corporation, Religion & Ethics Unit. Melbourne.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1820903.htm
Hamilton, C. (2007c). Scorcher: the dirty politics of climate change. Black Inc. Agenda,
Melbourne.
Hamilton, M. (2000). "Eating ethically: 'spiritual' and 'quasi-religious' aspects of
vegetarianism." Journal of Contemporary Religion 15 (1): 65-83.
Harman, W.W. (1991). A re-examination of the metaphysical foundations of modern science.
Noetics Report CT-1. Institute of Noetic Sciences, Sausalito, CA.
Harris, J. and Robottom, I. (1997). "Postgraduate environmental education research: meeting the
needs of the community." Australian Journal of Environmental Education 13: 49-54.
Harris, J.A. and Dearn, J.M. (1994). The challenge of teaching ecology. In: Environmental
education: Imperatives for the 21st century. J. Bowen, Ed. James Nicholas Publishers,
Albert Park, Vic.
Harrison, J. (1986). Baptism of fire: the first ten years of the Uniting Church in Australia.
Uniting Church Press, Melbourne.
Hartshorne, C. (1948). The divine relativity. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Hartshorne, C. (1967). A natural theology for our time. Open Court, La Salle, IL.
Hartshorne, C. (1978). Physics and physics: The place of mind in Nature. In: Mind in Nature. J.
B. Cobb & D. R. Griffin, Eds. University Press of America, Washington, DC.
Hawley, A.H. (1986). Human ecology: a theoretical essay. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Hawley, S. (2005). "Christians in the media concerned about exclusion". M. Colvin. Radio
National - PM, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Hay, P.R. (2002). Main currents in Western environmental thought. University of New South
Wales Press, Sydney.
Hayes, K.T. (2002). Coltan mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo: The implications and
opportunities for the telecommunications industry. Flora & Fauna International,
Cambridge, UK
Hessel, D.T. and Ruether, R.R. (2000a). Introduction: Current thought on Christianity and
ecology. In: Christianity and ecology: Seeking the well-being of Earth and humans. D.
T. Hessel & R. R. Ruether, Eds. Harvard University Press/CSWR, Cambridge, MA.
Hessel, D.T. and Ruether, R.R., Eds. (2000b). Christianity and ecology: seeking the well-being
of Earth and humans. Harvard/CSWR, Cambridge, MA.
Hill, P. and Hood, R. (1999). Measures of religiosity. Religious Education Press, Birmingham,
AL.
Hill, S.B. (1999). "Social ecology as future stories." A Social Ecology Journal 1 (1): 197-209.
Hitchcock (1999). Healing our worldview: the unity of science and spirituality. Chrysalis
Books, West Chester, PN.
249
Hofferth, S. and Sandberg, J.F. (2001). "How American children spend their time." Journal of
Marriage and Family 63: 295-308.
Hogwood, B.W. and Gunn, L.A. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Holling, C.S., Gunderson, L.H. and Ludwig, D. (2002). In quest of a theory of adaptive change.
In: Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. L. H.
Gunderson & C. S. Holling, Eds. Island Press, Washington DC.
Howe, B. (2002). Foreword: the Church and markets. In: The Church and the free market:
dilemmas in Church welfare agencies accepting contracts from governments. A.
Nichols & M. Postma, Eds. pp.1-12, Victorian Council of Churches and the Australian
Theological Forum, Hindmarsh, South Australia.
Hughes, P. (2004a). Wellbeing and security study: Insecurity in Australia. NCLS Occassional
Paper 4. Edith Cowan University, Deakin University, Anglicare Sydney, NCLS
Research, Sydney
Hughes, P.J., Ed. (2004b). Australia's religious communities: a multimedia exploration. 2nd
edition (CD-ROM), Australia's religious communities. Christian Research Association,
Nunawading, Vic.
Irwin, W., Ed. (2002). The Matrix and philosophy: welcome to the desert of the real Popular
culture and philosophy, 3. Open Court Books, Chicago.
James, C., Wilson, A. and Zirnsak, M. (2006). Climate change: faith and action. Justice &
International Mission Unit, Synod of Victoria &Tasmania, Uniting Church in Australia,
Melbourne
Jensen, D.M. (2005). "Faith and politics: the rhetoric of Church-State separation." Australian
Religion Studies Review 18 (1): 25-47.
John, J. (1997). An argument for broadening the scope of the diaconate in the UCA. Diakonia
occasional papers 1999.
John, J. (2003). World Environment Day 2003 - Water, two billion people are dying for it!
UnitingJustice (a body of the National Assembly of the Uniting Church of Australia),
Sydney South, NSW.
John, J. (2005). Biocentric theology: Christianity celebrating humans as an ephemeral part of
life, not the centre of it. PhD thesis. School of Theology; Faculty of Education,
Humanities, Law & Theology, Flinders University, Adelaide.
Josephson, B. and Rubik, B. (1992). "The challenge of consciousness research." Frontier
Perspectives 3 (1): 15-19.
Kaldor, P., Dixon, R. and Powell, R. (1999). Taking stock: a profile of Australian church
attenders. NCLS Research. Openbook Publishers, Adelaide.
Kelly, T. (1995). Consuming passions: Christianity and the consumer society Occasional Paper
Number 24. Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, North Sydney.
King, C.M. (2002). Habitat of Grace: biology, Christianity and the global environmental crisis.
Australian Theological Forum Series 3. Australian Theological Forum, Hindmarsh,
South Australia.
Krishnamurti, J. and Martin, R. (1997). Reflections on the self. Open Court Publishing, Chicago.
250
Land & Water Australia (2001). Strategic R&D Plan 2001-2006. L&WA, Canberra
Latham, M. (2002). Speech to House of Representatives. Parliamentary Debates, 21st August.
House of Representatives, Canberra
Law, J.M. (2001). Of tee shirts and tree seedlings: the hidden problems with religion and the
environment dialogues. In: Sacred landscapes cultural politics. P. P. Arnold & A. G.
Gold, Eds. pp.35-54, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, U.K.
Leal, R.B. (2003). Wonder and the will to care. In: Wonder and the will to care: a multi-faith
forum on ecology. Sydney Faith & Ecology Network.
Leal, R.B. (2004a). The environment and Christian faith: an introduction to ecotheology. St.
Pauls Publications, Strathfield NSW.
Leal, R.B. (2004b). Wilderness in the Bible: toward a theology of wilderness. Studies in Biblical
literature: 72. Peter Lang, New York.
Leal, R.B. (2006). Through ecological eyes: reflections on Christianity's environmental
credentials. St. Pauls, Strathfield NSW.
Lehmann, P.L. (1972). "Contextual theology." Theology Today 29 (1, April): 3-8.
Lerner, M. (2006a). The left hand of God: taking our country back from the religious right.
Harper, San Francisco.
Lerner, M. (2006b). "What the left hand's doing: Rabbi Michael Lerner calls on
environmentalists to develop a spiritual vision". Main dish (God and the environment: a
Grist special series), Grist environment news and commentary -. Seattle.
http://grist.org/news/maindish/2006/03/22/roberts/?source=daily
Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, Berverly Hills, CA.
Lloyd, R. and Bill, A. (2001). Australia online: how Australians are using computers and the
Internet. Australian Census Analytic Program, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra
Lohrey, A. (2006). "Voting for Jesus." Quarterly Essay (22): 1-79.
Lorimer, D. (1988). Complementary approaches to science. In: Towards a new science: a
critical appraisal of scientific knowledge. The 17th Annual Conference of the Unity of
the Sciences, November 24-27. Los Angeles, CA
Macdonald, F.M.F. (1997). The social construction of responsibility for the environment.
Masters of Environmental Science thesis. Department of Geography and Environmental
Science, , Monash University, Melbourne.
Mackay, H. (2004a). Exploring the mind & mood of Australia. The Ipsos Mackay Report, June.
Ipsos Australia Pty Ltd, North Sydney
Mackay, H. (2004b). Right & wrong: how to decide for yourself. Hodder, Sydney.
Macken, D. (2007a). Faith in modern spirits. Australian Financial Review (Weekend Edition),
Perspective, April 5-9, p48-49.
Macken, D. (2007b). The trend is back to basics - that's fundamental. Australian Financial
Review (Weekend Edition), Relativities, April 5-9, p47.
251
Mackintosh, A. and Downie, C. (2007). A flight risk? Aviation and climate change in Australia.
Discussion Paper No. 94, The Australia Institute, Canberra
Maddox, M. (2005a). "Faith, ecology and propaganda." Chain Reaction (Friends of the Earth
Australia) 94 Faith & ecology (July).
Maddox, M. (2005b). God under Howard: the rise of the religious right in Australian politics.
Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest NSW.
Maher, P. (2007). Essay - What is the way forward for religion? The mix. 12. 4. 4-5.
Malone, K. (1996). School and community partnerships in socially critical environmental
education: research as environmental activism. PhD thesis. Faculty of Education,
Deakin University, Geelong, VIC.
Marr, D. (1999). The high price of Heaven. Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards NSW.
Marten, G., G. (2001). Human ecology: basic concepts for sustainable development. Earthscan
Publications, London.
Maslow, A.H. (1943). "A theory of human motivation." Psychological Review 50: 370-396.
Maslow, A.H. (1964). Religions, values and peak-experiences. Kapha Delta Pi Lecture Series
No. 35. Ohio State University Press, Columbus.
Maturana, H., R. and Varela, F., J. (1992). The Tree of Knowledge: the biological roots of
human understanding. Shambhala, Boston, MA.
McDonagh, S. (1987). To care for the Earth: a call to a new theology. Bear & Company, Santa
Fe.
McDonagh, S. (1990). The greening of the Church. Claretian Publications, Quezon City.
McDonagh, S. (2001). Why are we deaf to the cry of the Earth? Veritas Publications, Dublin.
McFague, S. (1993). The body of God: an ecological theology. Fortress, Minneapolis.
McFague, S. (1997). Super, natural Christians. SCM, London.
McFague, S. (2001). Life abundant: rethinking theology and economy for a planet in peril.
Fortress, Minneapolis.
McFarland Taylor, S. (2002). "Reinhabiting religion: green sisters, ecological renewal, and the
biogeography of religious landscape." Worldviews: environment, culture, religion 6 (3):
227-252.
McFarland Taylor, S. (2007a). "Eating Spirit: Food, faith and spiritual nourishment in the lives
of 'green' sisters." Ecotheology 11 (4): 445-464.
McFarland Taylor, S. (2007b). Green sisters: a spiritual ecology. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
McGlone, P. (2002). Caring for God's Creation. The Web. Spring 2002. 14.
McGlone, P. (2004). Uniting Church: looking after its own backyard. The Web. Winter 2004.
10.
252
McGrath, A.E. (2003). The re-enchantment of nature: science, religion and the human sense of
wonder. Hodder & Stoughton, London.
McGrath, A.E. (2004). The twilight of atheism: the rise and fall of disbelief in the modern
world. Rider, London.
McGuigan, J. (2005). "Towards a sociology of the mobile phone." Human Technology 1 (1): 45-
57.
McKenzie, S. (2005). Social sustainability, religious belief and global ethics: outlines for
research. Hawke Research Institute Working Paper Series No. 30., Hawke Research
Institute for Sustainable Societies, University of South Australia, Magill, SA
Menteith, S. (2003). "Planting seeds for the future: building a life-sustaining society." Compass
37 (Autumn).
Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature: women, ecology and the scientific revolution. Harper
& Row, San Francisco CA.
Merchant, C. (1992). Radical ecology. Routledge, Chapman & Hall Inc., New York.
Metzner, R. (1993). "The emerging ecological worldview." Worldviews: environment, culture,
religion 37 (2): 163-172.
Midgley, G. (1992). "The sacred and profane in critical systems thinking." Systems practice 5:
5-16.
Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology, and practice.
Contemporary Systems Thinking. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York.
Millais, C. (2006). The faith dimension. In: Common belief: Australia's faith communities on
climate
change.
pp.5,
The
Climate
Institute,
Sydney,
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/cia1/downloads/041206_common_belief.pdf.
Millikan, D. (1981). The sunburnt soul: Christianity in search of an Australian identity. Lancer
Books / ANZEA Publishers, Homebush West, NSW.
Milton, K. (2002). Loving nature: towards an ecology of emotion. Routledge, London and New
York.
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E. and Alexander, L. (1995). In-depth interviewing:
principles, techniques, analysis. Longman Australia, Melbourne.
Mische, P.M. (2000). The integrity of Creation: challenges and opportunities for praxis. In:
Christianity & ecology. D. T. Hessel & R. R. Ruether, Eds. pp.591-602, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge MA.
Monbiot, G. (2003). Sleeping to extinction. The Guardian. 12th August.
Monbiot, G. (2007). Heat: how to stop the planet from burning. South End Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Moncrief, L.W. (1970). "The cultural basis for our environmental crisis." Science 170: 508-512.
Moore, B. (1920). "The scope of ecology." Ecology 1 (1): 3-5.
Morris, W. (c.2002). "Ten steps towards environmental responsibility". Australian Catholic
Social Justice Council, North Sydney.
253
Murray, A. (2006). Democracy in the Church? In: Issues for Church and society in Australia.
M. Whelan, Ed. St Pauls Publications, Strathfield NSW.
Naess, A. (1988). Self realization: an ecological approach to being in the world. In: Thinking
like a mountain: towards a Council of All Beings. J. Seed, J. Macy, P. Fleming & A.
Naess, Eds. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, PA.
Nash, J.A. (1991). Loving Nature: ecological integrity and Christian responsibility. Abingdon
Press in cooperation with The Churches' Center for Theology and Public Policy
(Washington, DC), Nashville TN.
Nash, R.F. (1990). The rights of nature: a history of environmental ethics. Primavera Press,
Leichhardt, NSW.
Nasr, S.H. (1996). Religion and the order of Nature. The 1994 Edward Cadbury Lectures at the
University of Birmingham. Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford.
Norden, M. (2004). "Recycling the spiel." Online Catholics 14 (August).
Northcott, M.S. (1996). The environment and Christian ethics. New studies in Christian ethics.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.
Nurnberger, K. (1996). "Is the human being a profit and pleasure maximiser?" Religion and
Theology 3 (3).
O'Dwyer, J. (2000). "The Federal Government and the Catholic Church conspire to oppose IVF
for single and lesbian women". On Line Opinion.
www.onlineopinion.com.au/2000/Nov00/O'Dwyer.htm
O'Farrell, P. (1982). The cultural ambivalence of Australian religion. In: Studies in Australian
cultural history. pp.6-8, Canberra.
O'Grady, D. (2005). Pope singles out 'faithless' Australia. The Age, 22nd August, Melbourne,
p5.
Oelschlaeger, M. (1994). Caring for Creation: an ecumenical approach to the environmental
crisis. Vail-Ballou Press, Binghamton, NY.
Palmer, J.A. (1998). Spiritual ideas, environmental concerns and educational practice. In: Spirit
of the environment: religion, value and environmental concern. D. E. Cooper & J. A.
Palmer, Eds. Routledge, London and New York.
Palmer, M. (1992). Dancing to Armageddon. Aquarian / Thorsons, London.
Palmer, M. (1993). Living Christianity. Element Books, Milton, QLD.
Passmore, J.A. (1974). Man's responsibility for Nature: ecological problems and Western
traditions. Scribner, New York.
Passmore, J.A. (1975). Attitudes towards Nature. In: Nature and conduct. R. S. Peters, Ed.
Macmillan, New York.
Patriarch Bartholomew (2002). "Protocol 756 (statement on the environment)". Ecumenical
Patriarchate of Constantinople, Constantinople.
Patriarch Bartholomew (2003). "Speech at the inauguration of the International Interfaith
Investment Group (3iG) on Heybiliada Island, Turkey". Alliance of Religions &
Conservation, London.
254
Pearson, C. (1998). "Towards an Australian ecotheology." Uniting Church Studies 4 (1).
Peterson, A.L. (2001). Being human: ethics, environment, and our place in the world.
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Plumwood, V. (2002). Environmental culture: the ecological crisis of reason. Routledge,
London.
Pope John Paul II (1990). "Peace with God the Creator, peace with all Creation". New Year
Message. The Vatican, Vatican City.
Preston, N. (2002). "Exploring eco-justice: reframing ethics and spirituality in an era of
globalisation". The 2002 Felix Arnott Memorial Lecture. Occasional Paper No. 15. St.
Francis Theological College, Milton, Qld.
Quinn, P.F. (1940). "Agrarianism and the Jeffersonian Philosophy." The Review of Politics 2 (1,
January): 88-104.
Randers, J. (1972). Ethical limitations and human responsibilities. In: To create a different
future: religious hope and technological planning. K. Vaux, Ed. Friendship Press, New
York.
Rasmussen, L.L. (1993). "Cosmology and ethics." Worldviews: Environment, Culture and
Religion 37 (2): 173-180.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford Press, New York.
Rescher, N. (2002). Process Philosophy. In: The Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy. N.
Zalta, Ed. The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Stanford University Stanford, CA.
Rifkin, J. (1992). Biosphere Politics: a new consciousness for a new century. HarperCollins,
London.
Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J., Eds. (2004). Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science
students and researchers. Sage Publications, London.
Robinson, G. (2007). Confronting power and sex in the Catholic Church: reclaiming the spirit
of Jesus. John Garratt Publishing, Mulgrave, Vic.
Robottom, I. and Hart, P. (1993). Research in environmental education: engaging the debate.
Deakin University Press, Geelong.
Rose, S. (2001). "Is the term 'spirituality' a word that everybody uses, but nobody knows what
anyone means by it?" Journal of Contemporary Religion 16 (2): 193-207.
Ross, J. (2005). "Back through the front door: newcomers to New Zealand Presbyterian and
United Churches." Australian Religion Studies Review 18 (1): 93-110.
Rue, C. (1996). "Promoting Catholic ecological action." Compass: a review of topical theology
30 (1).
Rue, C. (2003). GM foods and Catholic teaching. Connections: the newsletter of the Columban
Centre for Peace, Ecology and Justice. September. p3.
Rue, C. (2006). Catholics and Nature: two hundred years of environmental attitudes in
Australia. Catholic Social Justice Series: 57. Australian Catholic Social Justice
Council, Sydney.
255
Ruether, R.R. (1993). Gaia & God: an ecofeminist theology of Earth healing. SCM Press,
London.
Ruether, R.R. (2000). Conclusion: Eco-justice at the center of the Church's mission. In:
Christianity & ecology. D. T. Hessel & R. R. Ruether, Eds. Religions of the world and
ecology, Harvard University Press on behalf of the Harvard Center for the Study of
World Religion, Cambridge, MA.
Rush, E.L. (2004). Consume with care: Ethics, economics and over-consumption in the
industrialised world. PhD thesis. Philosophy Department and Centre for Applied
Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Russell, J.Y. (2007). A framework for the development of critical human ecology. PhD thesis.
Human Ecology Program, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian
National University, Canberra.
Rutledge, D. (2005). "Faith, works and industrial relations". The Religion Report - Radio
National, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Sabini, M., Ed. (2002). The Earth has a soul: the nature writings of C.G. Jung. North Atlantic
Books, Berkeley, California.
Sagan, C. (1990). "Guest Comment: Preserving and cherishing the Earth - an appeal for joint
commitment in science and religion." American Journal of Physics 58 (7): 615-617.
Santmire, H.P. (1985). The travail of Nature: the ambiguous ecological promise of Christian
theology. Fortress Press, Minneapolis MN.
Scharper, S.B. (1997). Redeeming the time: a political theology of the environment. Continuum,
New York.
Scheitle, C.P. (2005). "The symbolic and social boundaries of congregations: an analysis of
Website links." Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 1 (Article 6).
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books,
New York.
Sessions, G. (1993). "Deep ecology as worldview." Worldviews: Environment, Culture and
Religion 37 (2): 207-227.
Shelby-Spong, J. (2001). A new Christianity for a new world. Harper Collins, San Francisco.
Sherrard, P. (2003). The desanctification of nature. In: Seeing God everywhere: essays on
Nature and the sacred. B. McDonald, Ed. pp.109-130, World Wisdom Inc.,
Bloomington, IN.
Skolimowski, H. (1994). The participatory mind: a new theory of knowledge and of the
universe. Arkana (Penguin Group), London.
Smith, S. (1996). "The ecological conversation: should religious women and men make a
contribution?" Compass: a review of topical theology 30 (4): 40-45.
Spuler, M. (2000). "Characteristics of Buddhism in Australia." Journal of Contemporary
Religion 15 (1): 29-44.
256
Stapp, W.B. (1970). A strategy for curriculum development and implementation in
environmental education at the elementary and secondary levels. In: Education and the
environmental crisis (a conference). J. Evans & S. Boyden, Eds., Canberra, Report
Number 13: pp.23-37, Australian Academy of Science.
Stringer, R. (2000). Uniting faith and justice: a bibliographic essay - 21 years of the Uniting
Church in Australia's social justice and human rights: 1977-1998. Melbourne.
Suzuki, D. and McConnell, A. (1999). The sacred balance. Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW,
Australia.
Tabart, J. (1997). What I know now. In: Marking twenty years: the Uniting Church in Australia
1977-1997. W. Emilsen & S. Emilsen, Eds. United Theological College Publications,
North Parramatta (NSW).
Tacey, D. (1995). Edge of the sacred: Transformation in Australia. HarperCollins Publishers,
North Blackburn, Victoria, Australia.
Tacey, D. (2000). Re-enchantment: the new Australian spirituality. Harper Collins, Sydney.
Tacey, D. (2003). The spiritual revolution: the emergence of contemporary spirituality. Harper
Collins, Sydney.
Tacey, D. (2007). "Religion versus spirituality as a spiritual problem." The Mix (Journal of
Catalyst for Renewal Incorporated) 12 (5): 4-5.
Taylor, B. (2004). "A green future for religion?" Futures 36 (9): 991-1008.
Taylor, B., Ed. (2005). The encyclopedia of religion and nature. Continuum International,
London & New York.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1959). The phenomenon of man. Collins, London.
Thomas, A. (1995). Only fellow-voyagers: creation stories as guides for the journey.
Swarthmore Lecture. Britain Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
(Quakers), London.
Thompson, R.C. (2002). Religion in Australia: a history. Oxford University Press, South
Melbourne.
Tillich, P. (1949). The depth of existence. In: The shaking of foundations. pp.52-63, SCM Press,
London.
Tillich, P. (1955). The new being. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
Torry, M. (2005). Managing God's business: religious and faith-based organisations and their
management. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot.
Tucker, M.E. and Grim, J. (2000). Series foreword. In: Christianity & ecology. D. T. Hessel &
R. R. Ruether, Eds. pp.xv-xxxii, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
Uniting Church of Australia (1988). Bearers of hope. Kyogle, NSW.
Uniting Church of Australia National Assembly (2002). World Environment Day Liturgy: "Give
Earth a chance". National Social Responsibility & Justice, UCA National Assembly,
Sydney.
257
Van Dyke, F., Mahan, D.C., Sheldon, J.K. and Brand, R.H. (1996). Redeeming Creation: The
biblical basis for environmental stewardship. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
Varela, F., J. (1990). On the conceptual skeleton of current cognitive science. In: Beobachter:
Konvergenz der Erkenntnistheorien. N. Luhmann, H. Maturana, M. Namiki, V. Redder
& F. Varela, Eds. Wilhelm Fink Verlag, München.
Wadsworth, Y. (1984). Do it yourself research. Victorian Council of Social Service,
Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.
Walker, C. (2005a). "Introduction: faith & ecology." Chain Reaction (Friends of the Earth
Australia) 94 Faith & ecology (July).
Walker, C. (2005b). "Religion, politics and nature." Chain Reaction (Friends of the Earth
Australia) 94 Faith & ecology (July).
Wallis, J. (2005). God's politics: why the right gets it wrong and the left doesn't get it.
HarperCollins, New York.
Wals, A. (1993). Critical phenomenology in environmental education research. In: Alternative
paradigms in environmental education research. R. Mzarek, Ed. North American
Association for Environmental Education, Ohio.
Wansbrough, A. (1994a). Environmental issues - review of UCA policy and action. May 3.
Uniting Church of Australia Assembly / NSW Synod Environmental Task Group,
Sydney
Wansbrough, A. (1994b). Making a difference - What can the Australian Churches learn from
the New Zealand Heads of Churches 1993 program, Making Choices: Social Justice for
our Times. Churches' Agency on Social Issues (CASI) On-line articles. Wellington, NZ.
Wansbrough, A. (1996). Environment and compassion - caring for our Earth: strategic
thinking. Diakonia on-line. Sydney.
Wansbrough, A. (1997). Environment and compassion - caring for our Earth: strategies for
thinking about environment issues. In: NSW Synod of the Uniting Church of Australia,
January. Sydney pp.6-7, Board of Social Responsibility.
Wansbrough, A. and Cooper, N. (2004). "Recognising all members: the place of people with
disabilities in the Uniting Church in Australia." Journal of Religion, Disability &
Health 8 (1/2): 145-165.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning & identity. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Weyler, R. (undated). Waves of compassion: The founders of Greenpeace. Where are they now?
Understanding the next evolution (UTNE). On-line archive at
http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_archives/articles/2246-1.html.
Whelan, M. (2006a). Living creatively within the Catholic Church. In: Issues for Church and
society in Australia. M. Whelan, Ed. St Pauls Publications, Strathfield NSW.
Whelan, M., Ed. (2006b). Issues for Church and society in Australia The Aquinas Academy
Jubilee Lectures 2005. St Pauls Publications, Strathfield NSW.
White Jr., L. (1967). "The historical roots of our ecologic crisis." Science 155 (3767).
258
White Jr., L. (1973). Continuing the conversation. In: Western man and environmental ethics. I.
G. Barbour, Ed. pp.61, Reading, Massachusetts.
Whitehead, A.N. (1926). Science and the modern world. Macmillan, New York.
Whitehead, A.N., Ed. (1929). Process and reality. Macmillan, London & New York.
Wilber, K. (1990). Eye to eye: the quest for the new paradigm. Shambhala, Boston, MA.
Wilber, K. (2000a). A brief history of everything. Shambhala Publications, Boston, MA.
Wilber, K. (2000b). Sex, ecology, spirituality: the spirit of evolution. Shambhala Publications,
Boston, MA.
Wilber, K. (2001). A theory of everything: an integral vision for business, politics, science and
spirituality. Shambhala Publications, Boston, MA.
Williams, R. (2005). "Ecology & Economy". Lecture at the University of Kent, UK.
Archdiocese of Canterbury.
Wilson, D.C. (1996). The Critical Human Ecology of the Lake Victoria fishing industry. PhD
thesis. Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Wiseman, R. (1993). The interpretive approach. In: Issues and methods in research: study
guide. H. Connole, B. Smith & R. Wiseman, Eds. 2nd, University of South Australia,
Adelaide.
Wojceichowski, J.A. (2001). Ecology of knowledge. The Council for Research in Values and
Philosophy, Washington.
Wright, J. (1975). Because I was invited. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Yeffeth, G., Ed. (2003). Taking the red pill: science, philosophy and religion in The Matrix.
BenBella Books, Dallas TX.
Yorque, R., Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Gunderson, L.H., Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R. and Brock,
W.A. (2002). Toward an integrative synthesis. In: Panarchy: understanding
transformations in human and natural systems. L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling, Eds.
Island Press, Washington DC.
259
Appendix 1: National & State-level
ecumenical & multifaith policies
A1.1 Introduction
In this appendix, I present and discuss the range of national and state/territory level bodies
that form part of the ecological policy-making context for the mainstream Churches. I first
address the national scale, dealing with organisational structures between and within the
denominations. The national perspective includes reference to and analysis of policies
formulated or at least recognised at the national multi-faith, interdenominational, and
ecumenical level.
I then address the state/territory-based structures and related interdenominational policies.
Only a small number of entities such as state councils of churches exist, and even fewer of them
had any ecological policies available on-line. The latter is likely to be due in part to the national
and regional structure of the dominant Catholic and Anglican traditions. All three
denominations have state-based structures but they are only of major administrative import in
the relatively small Uniting Church.
I have not presented this material in the main body of the thesis because it is not specific to
the three subject denominations.
A1.2 National ecumenical & multi-faith responses
Whilst the three largest denominations are independent of each other, along with other
Christian denominations, they collaborate on national issues and for the purpose of representing
an Australian Christian view298. This has conventionally occurred through the National Council
of Churches and its predecessor organisations, though the Catholic Church is only a relatively
recent full member of the Council (discussed later in this section). The now obvious social
justice issues associated with the consequences and causes of global climate change have begun
to bridge the gap between the Churches’ established concern for social justice and its more
recent interest in ecological justice.
Given the generalised decline in and aging of the membership of the mainstream Christian
denominations, and their need to rapidly become literate in ecological policy matters,
298 The next largest scale of ecumenism is the World Council of Churches, which I do not specifically
address in this thesis as the case study focuses on the three subject denominations in Australia.
260
collaboration through ecumenical and interfaith organisations is likely to be an increasingly
significant part of their pursuit of ecojustice. Indeed, it is a multi-faith policy rather than an
ecumenical policy that is arguably the most significant ecological policy statement that all three
denominations contributed to at the national scale. I discuss that statement below.
A1.2.1 ‘Common belief: Australia’s faith communities on
climate change’
‘Common belief’ was produced and organised by The Climate Institute299, a not-for-profit
body funded by a five million dollar grant from the Poola Foundation, a private philanthropic
body. Released in December 2006, ‘Common belief’ includes contributions from sixteen faith
communities. These include several Christian denominations including the four largest, plus the
Australian Christian Lobby (a political body primarily associated with the conservative
Evangelical movement), and other faiths including Buddhism, Islam, Baha’i, Judaism,
Hinduism, Sikhism, and Australian Aboriginal. A representative of each faith tradition presents
an official position on climate change over 1 to 2 pages. The statements from the three largest
Christian denominations come from Fr Charles Rue and Colin Brown, respectively a senior
member and the former CEO of Catholic Earthcare Australia; Bishop George Browning, Chair
of the global Anglican Communion Environment Network (ACEN); and Rev. Elenie Poulos,
National Director of UnitingJustice.
The document’s formulation was perhaps influenced by the pivotal role of Bishop
Browning, who is the only religious leader on the Advisory Council of The Climate Institute.
Bishop Browning has been a prominent and strong advocate of faith-based action to address
climate change. However, it is also likely that Dr Clive Hamilton, Chair of the Board of
Directors of the Climate Institute and Director of The Australia Institute300, was also a key
proponent of the document as this would be consistent with his public view that faiths have a
significant role in addressing the ecosocial crisis (Hamilton, 2006b, a, 2007b).
In the introduction to the document, Corin Millais, then CEO of The Climate Institute
provides the following explanation as to why the Institute sought to collate and publish the
views of faith communities in climate change:
“The climate change debate has tended to be dominated by the language of
science. The recent 2006 Stern Report from the UK began to extend the
discussion to the economic effects of global warming.
299 http://www.climateinstitute.org.au
300 http://www.tai.org.au
261
But for most of us, the fate of the planet as a result of global warming is
really a moral issue. Climate change is ultimately about what it means for
people — especially children — and the whole creation.
It was our hope that Australia’s faith communities could aid the broader
dialogue on climate change by speaking the language of morality and of
faith itself.
Australia’s religions responded enthusiastically. Here, for believers by
believers, is the beginning of a dialogue on the morality of climate change.
The Climate Institute encourages this new and vital focus on morality and
spirituality in the environmental conversation. We hope the moral dialogue
may bring greater light into the debate” (Millais, 2006).
‘Common belief’ moves beyond both the science and economics-based discourse,
extending into the realm of morality, faith and spirituality. The Climate Institute, and apparently
the contributors to ‘Common belief’ see this latter dimension as pivotal in promoting the
realisation that the whole of society needs to take effective action with respect to climate
change. ‘Common belief’ reveals an emerging bridge between secular and religious
environmentalism, a phenomenon identified as vital by writers including Gardner, 2002, 2003,
2006; Gottlieb, 2006, 2007.
I see this emergent common ground of morality between secular and religious
environmentalism as important for several reasons:
• it revitalises the arguably suppressed spiritual and/or moral dimension of much of the
mainstream environmental movement;
• it provides a basis for faith-based environmentalism (even though some forms remain
deeply anthropocentric and ecologically naïve);
• it may promote greater exchange between the religious and the secular environmental
movements to the benefit of both;
• it can act synergistically to increase the reach and effectiveness of environmentalism in the
broad sense; and
• it begins to reveal and break-down false dichotomies, most notably that of ‘science’ and
‘religion’. This in turn may start to heal societal, institutional and personal divisions that
are a significant factor in the ecological crisis and its associated spiritual crisis (or in other
words, the profound dilemma of what it is to be fully human in today’s world including the
question of how to respond to the moral dilemmas presented by the ecosocial crisis).
262
Millais, 2006, is saying, in effect, that scientific and more recent economic arguments to
address global warming have not been sufficient to drive the necessary responses. This is
obvious enough, but to move beyond the view that science and economics should be sufficient
to drive such change is quite an epistemological leap. The socially privileged knowledge
systems of science and economics clearly have not been adequate in the context of global
warming because the problem is not wholly within their scope.
The growing recognition of the ecological crisis as a ‘moral’ crisis could be termed the
‘moral turn’ of later environmentalism, or at least the re(emergence) of the moral dimension as a
key element of environmentalism. This ‘moral turn’ may have arisen from frustration with the
lack of progress derived from increasingly tired and inadequate scientific and economic
arguments301, but it is effectively a revelation that is occurring at individual, institutional,
societal and global scales.
The logic is simple enough: the ecological crisis is not essentially a technological,
economic or administrative crisis but is instead a moral crisis (Wright, 1975) because at its root
are profound questions of ethics, the rights and responsibilities of humanity, the place of
humans in Nature (or what Pearson, 1998, terms “being human”), and the nature of Nature, etc.
It is ultimately about values (in the ethical sense) rather than simply about facts (in the empirical
sense), though it is not a case of one or the other. It could also be, and increasingly is seen as a
spiritual crisis (Pearson, 1998).
As a moral crisis, the views of religion have an entry to the debate that they conventionally
have not had on matters seen as ‘scientific’. As White Jr., 1967, noted: “…since the roots [of the
ecological crisis] are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether
we call it that or not. We must rethink and refeel our nature and destiny”. The scientific and
economic problems and partial solutions to the ecological crisis are increasingly been seen as
subsidiary to the ultimately moral/spiritual/religious302 nature of the crisis and its ultimate
solution.
301 The profile of the World Spiritual Forum to be held in Brazil in December 2007 addresses this: “The
solution to our problems certainly does not rest on the refinement of our economic, scientific and political
institutions but in the blossoming of new ways of acting based on new paradigms: solidarity as the base of
human relationships; effective action; behaviour coherent with one’s ethical values; concern for nature
and life on the planet; valuing diversity without sectarianism.”
http://www.forumespiritualmundial.org.br/Ingles/oQueE_apresentacao.asp
302 Different authors use these terms in much the same way because they are not necessarily clearly
defined, mean different things to different audiences/readerships, and arguably overlap or at least can
overlap.
263
The ecological crisis could be seen as a philosophical crisis in the common conception of
‘philosophical’. The ‘environmental philosophy’ field has certainly seen the crisis in
philosophical terms but has often missed the ‘elephant in the room’ – that of spirituality.
Skolimowski, 1994, dismisses academic philosophy as a part of the solution to the crisis,
writing, “It has become unreadable to ordinary persons and even well educated ones. It stands
out as a curious marred monument abounding in intellectual labour and yet leaving us totally
dry and uninspired. This philo-sophia (love of wisdom) has renounced all claims to sophia.”
This thesis does not address the history or views of academic environmental philosophy.
However, I sense that much of academic environmental philosophy fails to escape the realms of
dry intellect – to emerge from the disconnected Western ‘head’ and recognise that a key
problem underpinning the crisis is the psychological, arguably psycho-spiritual schism that
(after Skolimowski, 1994 and Milton, 2002) pits mind or ‘rationality’ against emotion.
The ecological crisis is better described as a moral crisis because morality is not confined
by academic philosophy and it is not about the ‘love of wisdom’. It is much more practical and
arguably goes deeper – closer to the heart of the crisis i.e. the need to heal the multitude of
falsely constructed schisms, mainly dichotomies, that cause us as individuals and as a global
society (in general) to misunderstand the nature of our interconnected and interdependent
reality.
To some extent, the ‘moral turn’ is a response to desperate times. The modern tools of
science and economics have not been enough to motivate and sustain the magnitude of the
values, attitudes and behavioural changes necessary at an appropriate scale to address the
ecological crisis. So the response for some is to turn (perhaps turn back?) to religion and/or
spirituality as a realm from which answers might come as to how to achieve the reforms
necessary to address the ecological crisis, or more specifically, the part of the crisis specifically
associated with global warming/climate change.
Part of the growth in religio-spiritual interest in the ecological crisis and part of the growth
in people seeing the crisis in religio-spiritual terms also appears to be related to the need for
hope in what are arguably fearful times. This was very evident during my attendance at the
inaugural Catholic Earthcare Australia national conference on climate change. It was also
evident in my interactions with members of a local Uniting Church congregation who were in
the process of formulating their parish’s ecological policy. As we increasingly hear that climate
change is not only real but also occurring faster than many earlier predictions, there is evidence
that many people feel increasingly helpless and hopeless in the face of such a seemingly
intractable and complex global problem (see following references). It is unsurprising that this
scenario, coupled to measured increases in personal and societal stress and decreased levels of
trust in political, judicial, and religious institutions (see for example Tacey, 2000; Hughes,
264
2004a; Mackay, 2004a; Bouma, 2006), would promote increased interest in matters spiritual as
a source of explanation and hope for what looks like an increasingly grim future.
I don’t see that the ‘moral turn’ of environmentalism and the associated decision to include
religions in the debate about resolving the ecological crisis is indicative of a resurgence in the
influence of mainstream religion. The secular environmental movement is not collaborating
with religions in a way that even hints at a call for people to join or rejoin faith traditions as part
of the response to the ecological crisis. The movement is simply acknowledging, as per Millais,
2006, that there is a need to add “the language of morality” to the call for action.
In Australia, the Churches and increasingly other faiths are still the primary source of that
language – a situation largely a result of the virtual linkage of morality to religion as part of the
twin dualism of ‘secular’ ‘rationality’ in opposition to ‘religious’ ‘emotion’. Whilst a growing
number of people adopt a spirituality that isn’t religious (after Tacey, 2000), the very nature of
that phenomenon means that there aren’t substantial and representative organisations, let alone
institutions, that can readily be consulted and liaised with. This sees organisational interactions
between the secular environmental movement and the institutional religions leaving a gap
through which people who are more ecologically aware and ‘spiritual but not religious’ at least
partially fall through.
A1.2.2 National Council of Churches in Australia
I accessed the website of the National Council of Churches in Australia (NCCA)303 on
23/06/05. The NCCA formed in 1994 as a reworking of its predecessor entity, the Australian
Council of Churches. It represents 15 Christian denominations including all three of the most
populous: Roman Catholic, Anglican and Uniting Churches, with the former being a relatively
recent full member304. It is a member of the World Council of Churches and works with
equivalent state-based Ecumenical Councils. It is a substantial entity, and one that is potentially
significant in understanding ecumenical relations on ecological policy matters and from this,
how it and its members might interact with secular environmentalist organisations.
303 http://www.ncca.org.au/about_us/ncca_story
304 The Roman Catholic Church chooses to remain outside the World Council of Churches.
265
A1.2.2.1 Social Justice Network
The NCCA deals with ecological concerns through its Social Justice Network (SJN),
which it established in 1996 and mandated to:
“provide a means by which member churches inform each other of work
done, work under way and work in prospect, and help each other to a deeper
understanding of the methodologies they use in seeking to explicate the
implications of the gospel for the concern for social justice in Australia;
facilitate co-operation between the churches, and where appropriate their
joint action, as they seek to give prophetic leadership to each other and the
Australian community through their commitment to promoting justice, peace
and the integrity of creation; to advise the NCCA on actions which might
appropriately be taken by the Council and/or severally by the member
churches.”
I accessed the website of the SJN305 on 13/03/06. The NCCA’s use of its SJN as the body
with carriage of ecological policy matters is likely to be a result of social justice concerns being
a far more established policy area for the Churches, with ecological concerns often being added
as a more recent feature. It may also indicate the operation of an ecojustice paradigm in which
the NCCA deliberately keep social and ecological policy matters together in recognition of their
interconnectedness. However, were this the case, one might expect that the SJN would have
been renamed to reflect an ecojustice orientation. The NCCA does not appear to use the term
‘ecojustice’, but certainly makes statements that have the same effect. The term and the concept
remain sufficiently vague that a composite body such as the NCCA is able to adopt them in
some form, without causing problems for some of its more anthropocentric and generally
conservative member Churches.
The SJN has at least one senior ecological policy offer, Dr Ann Wansborough, who has
also played a significant role in ecological policy development within the Uniting Church and
its NSW Synod. The decision of the NCCA to place ecological policy within the SJN rather
than either establishing a separate and specific entity, or renaming the SJN to reflect its
inclusion of ecological policy is consistent with the approach taken by the Uniting Church. The
UCA also combines social and ecological policy but renamed this body ‘UnitingJustice’ to
reflect the fact that it is no longer restricted to social justice concerns. The use of the name,
‘Justice Network’ or ‘Ecojustice Network’ by the NCCA would more accurately reflect the
current role of the SJN and would remove the obvious anthropocentrism associated with the
SJN’s name.
305 http://www.ncca.org.au/departments/social_justice_network
266
The NCCA’s ecological policies reveal a mix of anthropocentric environmentalism and a
more egalitarian environmentalism that recognises the inherent worth and moral considerability
of all life/Creation. There can be some confusion in the latter view as to whether all of Creation
is at issue or only the components that we recognise as living. This lack of ecotheological clarity
muddies the subsequent ground on which the NCCA builds its ecological policies. Evidence of
ecotheological confusion or perhaps diversity is to be expected given that within each
denomination, there remains considerable debate on ecotheological matters. So as an
ecumenical body, the NCCA can be expected to inherent a cumulative confusion and
considerable potential for ecotheological conflict. This is perhaps a factor in the variable
ecotheology that it presents – a covering of all bases in an attempt not to offend any particular
member denomination.
The NCCA website contained ecological policy content in several locations. As of 13th
March 2006, the home page did not have any ecological content. This could be obtained via
links through “Departments” – “Social Justice Network” – then to either “NCCA Official
Statements” – “Environment” or “Social Justice Issues” – “Publications & Resources”. The link
to “Social Justice Issues” also contained a subsection entitled “The Environment” that had a link
to the NCCA’s ‘Sustaining Creation’ statement, and to the ‘Sustaining Creation resource
package’ (via the UCA website) as discussed below. It did not have a link to the ‘Changing
Climate, Changing Creation’ brochure. It also provided three links to statements by some of the
member churches. These were to “Orthodox Ecological Activities”, “Catholic Earthcare”, and
“Religious Society of Friends Statement on Climate Change”. There were no links to Anglican
or UCA policy statements, or to international ecumenical or multifaith positions on ecological
issues.
A1.2.2.1.1 ‘Changing Climate, Changing Creation’
In 1996, the SJN produced ‘Turning the Tide - Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Stopping
Climate Change’. The key motivator for this statement was apparently the welfare of Pacific
Island nations that risk cataclysmic inundation with relatively small increases in sea level that
are already being seen as a result of the greenhouse effect. Since then, NCCA ecological policy
has broadened further as discussed below.
As of June 2005, the NCCA website featured perhaps the first overt and specific instance
of policy collaboration between it and the nominally secular environmental movement,
represented in this instance by the Australian Conservation Foundation. This took the form of a
267
brochure entitled ‘Changing Climate, Changing Creation’306, which was designed for launch on
World Environment Day, June 5th 2005. I discuss the brochure as an NCCA policy rather than
as a policy of the contributing denominations because the NCCA represents a higher level of
policy formulation. It is notable that the NCCA website describes the document as having been
“produced by the Australian Conservation Foundation” (ACF).
The brochure targets an audience of Christians who are:
“concerned by the growing impact of human induced climate change on our
planet, its inhabitants and ecosystems - God’s creation - and by the need for
justice for those people and environments that are most vulnerable to the
adverse effects of climate change”.
The brochure quotes from various key ecological policies of the contributing organisations
such as Catholic Earthcare (an extract from ‘Let the many coastlands be glad’), the National
Assembly of the Uniting Church (an extract from ‘The rights of Nature and the rights of future
generations’), the NCCA (an extract from ‘Sustaining Creation’), and from ACF President, Ian
Lowe. In contrast to some of the NCCA’s earlier policies, the quotes used in this publication
reflect an ecotheology that is not anthropoexclusive or necessarily anthropocentric. It clearly
recognises the value of life other than in human form, and uses much broader terms such as
‘Creation’ and ‘environments’. This is reinforced in the liturgical statements on the second page
of the brochure, which include the comment that “We have thought of ourselves as the pinnacle
of creation. But we do not, cannot, exist without all that has come before”.
‘Changing Climate, Changing Creation’ provides background information that argues for
Christian concern about anthropogenic climate change and its consequences, and for action to
mitigate it. Some of this information comes from key Church policy statements, and some is
more technically oriented. It encourages readers to lobby their local politicians and ask what
they are doing to address climate change; to become informed about how they can reduce their
domestic impact on climate change (link provided to ACF website and free-call phone info-
line); and to take action within the church and associated groups (links provided to prayer and
liturgical resources from the three contributing Christian bodies). It encourages action by
government via signing the Kyoto Protocol, increasing the proportional use of renewable
energy, and investing to encourage more walking, cycling and the use of public transport.
The brochure does not challenge common lifestyle assumptions. However, some of the
literature to which it supplies links addresses issues such as the rates and types of consumption,
going beyond simple matters such as the need to use public transport more. It does not advocate
306 http://www.ncca.org.au__data/page/107/05_WED_flyer.pdf
268
joining an environmental group, nor engaging in protests or boycotts. However, the brochure is
a very brief promotional document, and it does contain links to some material that addresses
environmental problems and some suggested responses much more thoroughly.
Perhaps the greatest significance of this document is that it demonstrates positive
collaboration between the Churches, the NCCA, and the ACF. In doing so, it works against
views within some of the more conservative denominations that secular environmentalism is
dangerous and not to be engaged with307. It also provides an opportunity to demonstrate to the
nominally secular and, from my experience, sceptical environmental community, that at least
some aspects of some denominations are advocating positive policies and actions. The
document may prove to be a catalyst for further such collaborative productions as have occurred
in the UK and USA (see for example, Gardner, 2002).
Notably, the ‘Changing Climate, Changing Creation’ brochure displays not just the icons
of the ACF and the NCCA, but also those of Catholic Earthcare and UnitingJustice. The
brochure states that it is an initiative of UnitingJustice, Catholic Earthcare and the ACF,
supported by the NCCA. This is significant in identifying both the driving organisations and
which potentially key bodies were not involved.
Given its numerical and historical significance, it is notable that the Anglican Church is not
listed as a specific contributor to this brochure. At the time that the brochure was being
compiled, the Anglican Church lacked both an equivalent organisation to Catholic Earthcare
and a body with a substantial environmentalist focus equivalent to the UCA’s UnitingJustice. It
did not, and as of February 2007, does not have an operational ‘front desk’ for ecological policy
and collaborative engagement.
The ACF staff involved in the ‘Changing Climate, Changing Creation’ project indicated
that they were not aware that the Anglican Church had any ecological interests and they did not
know who or which part of the organisation to contact. I supplied the contact details for Bishop
Browning who chairs the Church’s National Environment Working Group and the international
ACEN. ACF staff were keen to engage with Bishop Browning and the Church on future
collaborative projects.
307 I have heard such a view expressed in Anglican and Baptist circles. In addition, some of the Anglican
literature that can be viewed on the Church’s national website reveals deep concern about the “political”
nature of debate about “the environment”. It is clear from such concerns that there is a view that
environmentalism is inherently political and that the Church is not supposed to get involved in political
matters (part of the notional separation of Church and State, and the notion of religion as beyond politics).
Yet the same Church has a history of speaking out on equally politically sensitive social justice matters.
269
I note that the Anglican Church’s National Environment Working Group is apparently not
empowered to make any policy decisions on its own but at least it can act as a conduit for
engaging with the Anglican hierarchy to determine whether the Church will participate in any
future public statements on ecological matters. Given that the Church-proper isn’t listed as the
contributor to the Anglican section of the ‘Common belief’ document discussed earlier in this
appendix, it appears that is still largely reliant on the input of Bishop Browning who wrote that
section not as the chair of the Environment Working Group but as the Chair of ACEN.
A1.2.2.1.2 ‘Sustaining Creation’
I accessed the ‘Sustaining Creation’ web page308 on 14/03/06 and found that it was
relatively brief. ‘Sustaining Creation’ is effectively the policy pillar on which the NCCA bases
its ecological stance. It is evidently worded to portray a clear ecumenical position in support of
ecological concern and action. What it does not do is represent the fact that the depth of this
ecumenical policy is highly variable and that in some instances, it is largely superficial and
lacking in institutional support. John, 2003, also points out that it is an internally conflicted
document that mixes anthropocentric stewardship models with more biocentric ‘web of life’
models.
‘Sustaining Creation’ is very much a public document and a political one, being
substantially targeted towards government. It emphasises calling for various actions by Federal
and State governments, though the wider community is also included in a broader call for
action. Most notably, the statement commits to “do all in our power through the Churches to act
in ways that will assist in the achievement of these goals.” This latter statement suggests an
institutional commitment to ecological reform. Yet there is relatively little evidence of this in
the three largest denominations, and the policy portrayed in ‘Sustaining Creation’ remains
primarily symbolic. This is a situation consistent with the views of various writers who claim
that most of Churches’ response to the ecological crisis is symbolic and rhetorical, for example,
McDonagh, 1990; Mische, 2000; McDonagh, 2001; Collins, 2004.
A1.2.2.1.3 ‘Sustaining Creation ecumenical resource kit’
This body of information was an outcome of the above Social Justice Sunday 2002
‘Sustaining Creation’ project. It is discussed here as a national response because it was prepared
by the national social and ecological justice bodies of the three subject denominations. It is not
primarily a policy document so much as an education resource, though aspects of
denominational policy or at least ecotheology are addressed. There is not room in this thesis to
provide a detailed analysis of the various parts of the ‘Sustaining Creation’ project, which is
308 Link to 'Sustaining Creation'
270
quite substantial. I provide only an overview to offer some additional context for the Chapters 8,
9 and 10.
The kit contains a message from the heads of the three denominations; an ‘Action
Resource Kit’ of educational material and links to other literature with topics of food, forests,
population, water, energy and climate change; a set of ecumenical resources; and group of
policy, theology and liturgical resource for each denomination. The material is provided as A4
printed pages which are noted as being printed on 100% recycled paper and board (for the
enclosing folder) using soy inks.
The message from the three heads of Churches contains some significant concepts. These
include an acknowledgement that much harm has been done and continues to be done to “the
environment”. It also notes that the resources provided in the package are intended to “help us
focus on the role each of us must play in repairing and sustaining the natural environment”. It
states, “Human beings were not created separate from the natural world – our connection with
God connects us also with the environment309. We have a responsibility to act as good and
faithful stewards of God’s creation” (Carnley et al., 2002).
A particularly significant sentence in the heads of Churches’ message is that which states
that the ‘Sustaining Creation’ resource kit is intended to “assist congregations, small groups and
individuals… and to encourage them to take action for the well-being of the planet.” This is
consistent with a general tendency of the Churches to encourage members to change their ways,
whilst simultaneously doing little or nothing as institutions to change their organisational
behaviour.
I acknowledge that the ‘Sustaining Creation’ statement discussed earlier mentions a
commitment by the heads of the Churches to “do all in our power through the Churches to act in
ways that will assist in the achievement of these goals.” However, that view is not reflected
anywhere else in the ‘Sustaining Creation’ materials and it is arguably drowned-out by an
overall emphasis on ‘grass roots’ voluntary action.
The final sentence of the message from the heads of the three Churches states: “We
encourage all members of our Churches to use this kit on Social Justice Sunday and as a basis
for ongoing action and reflection.” This is a stance characteristic of the denominations’ policy
309 This is a rather odd concept and not one that I have encountered in my extensive reading of Christian
ecotheology. I suspect that it is an expression that is a result of the three heads of Churches having to
come up with language and a concept that conveys the essence of their meaning without offending too
many of their more conservative members. The concept is also highly problematic because it maintains
the separation between ‘Man’ and Creation that is widely acknowledged as a problem in much Christian
and Western philosophy and society.
271
response to ecological concerns, i.e. education and reflection to encourage action by members –
again with little, or more often, no attention given to action at an institutional level. Whilst
associated theological and liturgical content can include quite direct language as to Christian
obligations to ‘care for Creation’, there is no mention of what the Churches as institutions will
actually be doing to comply with the advice that they provide to their followers. It is essentially
a case of ‘do as I say, not as I do’.
Overall, the ‘Sustaining Creation’ resource kit is commendable in terms of the extent and
quality of advice that it provides to its readership so that they might reduce their ecological
impacts and understand the need to do so from a Christian perspective. It is a valuable
educational resource and has clearly been produced by some well-informed ecojustice advocates
and experienced educators. I did not specifically explore how effective the kit has been in
achieving its stated aims, though I note that it was very rarely mentioned in any of the many
conversations and emails I had with Christians from the relevant denominations, including some
of those who were significant contributors to the project. It was also not mentioned during
several workshop sessions in which I participated with a local Uniting Church congregation that
was seeking to formulate its parish’s ecological policy.
A1.2.2.1.4 ‘Overcoming ecological violence’
‘Overcoming violence’ was part of the World Council of Churches ‘Decade to Overcome
Violence’ (DOV) initiative. It was listed under the NCCA’s ‘Special Projects’ link. The
program included a section on ‘ecological violence’. The NCCA’s webpage on this topic310 only
mentioned ecological aspects of the program in the listing of objectives. These include “to act in
solidarity with all struggling for justice, peace, and the integrity of creation.” The ‘Resources’
link included a list of DOV publications, though these did not include any ecologically related
material. ‘Overcoming violence’ was produced as a CD-ROM, approximately one quarter of
which is allocated to ‘overcoming ecological violence’ and is dominated by material from
CEA’s ‘The garden planet’ video, as reviewed in Chapter 8. As of March 2006, the NCCA
website does not mention the CD-ROM or provide any links for obtaining it.
A1.2.2.1.5 The Australian Collaboration
The NCCA’s website had a link to ‘partnerships’ which included mention of The
Australian Collaboration311. The NCCA is the Churches’ representative on this national body
that brings together a range of social and ecological justice interests. The Collaboration’s
website notes, “The overall objective of the Australian Collaboration is to help to achieve a new
310 http://www.ncca.org.au/dov/key_issues/ecological_links
311 http://www.ncca.org.au/special_projects/partnerships/community_partners/australian_collaboration
272
and sustainable balance between social, cultural, environmental and economic policies and
activities in Australia”312. The ACF is also represented in the Collaboration.
As of early 2006, The Australian Collaboration had prepared three reports: ‘A Just and
Sustainable Australia’; ‘Where are we going?: comprehensive social, cultural, environmental
and economic reporting’; and ‘Success in Aboriginal Communities: A Pilot Study’. It also
produces ‘The Public Interest Series’ of short books “written by prominent Australians. The
themes will include international policy, aspects of democracy, the environment and Indigenous
issues.”
A small number of state-based versions of the Australian Collaboration exist, for example,
the WA Collaboration313, and because of input from member Church groups, can produce
practical cooperative material such as the Sustainable Christmas campaign. However, I have not
addressed such policy and praxis in this chapter because it is not Church policy.
A1.3 State & Territory ecumenical responses
Various state/territory-level ecumenical councils exist and at least one of these in each
jurisdiction is an affiliate of the NCCA. However they are not all called ‘ecumenical councils’
or a ‘council of churches’ and in some cases there is more than one ecumenical body in each
state. For example, there is a NSW Ecumenical Council and a NSW Council of Churches, both
of which are discussed in a review produced for the 1994 Anglican Synod of NSW314. Both
bodies had an on-line presence in 2006. The NSW Ecumenical Council315 is an affiliate of the
NCCA and has a focus on interdenominational co-operation and understanding. It has the same
15 denominational members, as does the NCCA. In contrast, and despite its name, the NSW
Council of Churches316 is not a subordinate arm of the NCCA, and has a much narrower
membership, with a more conservative and evangelical orientation. Its website specifically notes
that it is not an affiliate of the NCCA but has “friendly links (with the NCCA and the NSW
Ecumenical Council), with each council having an observer with the other, and cooperation
where appropriate”. The situation is slightly different in other states and the Northern Territory.
For example, the Victorian Council of Churches317 is an affiliate of the NCCA and has the same
denominational membership. The ACT is represented within the NSW Ecumenical Council.
312 http://www.australiancollaboration.com.au/
313 http://www.wacollaboration.org.au/
314 http://www.sydney.anglican.asn.au/synod/reports/ecumenical.htm
315 http://www.nswec.org.au/
316 http://www.nswchurches.com/
317 http://www.vcc.org.au/About%20us.htm
273
The state/territory ecumenical councils do not appear to have a substantial policy
production role. However, of those that have websites, some provide evidence of ecumenical
ecological policy being promoted or adopted, as well as links to relevant ecological content.
Only the NSW Ecumenical Council had a significant ecological policy element on its website
and I discuss this over page.
Some of the other ecumenical councils only have ecological policy content to the extent
that concern for ‘the integrity of Creation’ or similar environmentalist sentiment is expressed in
the body’s or a subordinate body’s mission statement. However, my investigation of ecumenical
council’s is largely limited to searching their websites, and thus, they may have a greater role in
ecological policy and praxis than is evident on-line. The Tasmanian Council of Churches and
the Northern Territory Council of Churches did not have websites as of March 2006.
A1.3.1 NSW Council of Churches
As of March 2006, this organisation’s website did not contain any ecological content. This
is to be expected given that the organisation is primarily evangelical in orientation and has a
conservative membership. It appears to exist only because its more conservative membership
does not approve of or find adequate the NSW Ecumenical Council. Despite its name, this
group is not representative of all or even the mainstream of NSW Churches.
A1.3.2 NSW Ecumenical Council
When reviewed in 2005-6, the Council’s website included an archives section in which
two key ecological policy statements were provided318. The first is a letter to government and
the broader community entitled ‘Sustaining Creation’, which has been discussed earlier in this
appendix. The second is a letter to NSW and ACT churches, also arising from the ‘Sustaining
Creation’ theme of Social Justice Sunday 2002. Both texts are useful in indicating the policy
stance and orientation of the Council in two key areas: its stance towards the role of government
and the wider community in addressing ecological issues; and its stance towards the Churches’
role. The documents were also provided on the NSW319 and the national Uniting Church320
websites. I discuss the letter to NSW and ACT churches over page.
318 http://www.nswec.org.au/archives.htm#SCGC
319 http://nsw.uca.org.au/news/2002/ecumenical-council_s-j-sunday.htm
320 http://nat.uca.org.au/nsrj/sjs/2002/index.htm
274
A1.3.2.1 ‘Urgent call to focus on environment’
The NSW Ecumenical Council’s letter to NSW and ACT Churches, entitled ‘Urgent call to
focus on environment’. Some key features of the letter include:
• acknowledging that the ecological crisis is severe and that it is due to human activities;
• using scientific opinion to back this view;
• noting that addressing the crisis is “a political issue…(but that ultimately) it is a profound
moral and religious issue… a spiritual crisis”;
• that ecological and social problems are interrelated;
• that “Both individuals and decision-making bodies of the churches at all levels need to be
actively involved in addressing these problems”;
• there is a need to bring ecojustice concerns and actions “to the forefront of public
worship… as well as private and corporate reflections…”;
• “to encourage leaders – in both Church and community to place this crisis at the highest
level of their concerns”;
• “to promote training and educational programs regarding the planetary crisis”; and
• “to demonstrate simplicity of lifestyle in our patterns of consumption to counteract greed
and over-consumption”.
‘Urgent call to focus on environment’ is one of the most strongly worded documents of
this kind, and it is notable for its overt inclusion of the need for institutional change within the
Churches, and for its call to place ecojustice concerns at the “highest level”. If the Council’s call
was heard and the associated challenges met, churches in NSW and the ACT, and quite likely
more broadly, would be very different to what they have been in the past and what they largely
remain today.
‘Urgent call to focus on environment’ is primarily intended for internal distribution, is up-
front about not only the severity of the ecological crisis, but that the Churches’ position of
concern includes the political and economic aspects, and is based on the view that the crisis has
moral and spiritual origins. This position is perhaps a hallmark trait of Christian
environmentalism in that it goes beyond the scientific evidence of the crisis, adds the human
dimension in the form of the interconnection between poverty and ecological harm, then brings
these together to argue that the overall crisis is fundamentally a spiritual or at least a moral one.
The sentence, “Both individuals and decision-making bodies of the churches at all levels
need to be actively involved in addressing these (ecojustice) problems” is particularly relevant
275
to this thesis. Along with a later reference to “all aspects of the Church’s life and mission”;
“corporate reflections”; “highest level of their concerns”; and “promote training and educational
programs”, it indicates an awareness of the need for a comprehensive and consistent
institutional approach inclusive of praxis.
The most significant statement is “We undertake to do all in our power through the
Churches to act in ways that will assist in the achievement of these (ecological) goals”. This is
consistent with the awareness of the need for internal change that is evident in the letter to other
Churches. However, since the statement was issued in 2002, as revealed in Chapters 8-11,
relatively little appears to have changed in the way that the three largest mainstream
denominations conduct their operations. Some denominations have made more progress than
others. The differences range from the relatively substantial developments of CEA, through to
that apparent absence of meaningful institutional change within the Anglican Church. There are
certainly individuals and parts of the Churches who have apparently heeded the call of the NSW
Ecumenical Council or other sources promoting a similar approach, but none of the three largest
denominations has made substantial positive progress on this at an institutional level.
It is notable that the Council’s meeting produced two statements: one directed at member
churches, and the other at government and the broader public. This is arguably indicative of the
fact that the ecological conversion of Christendom is by no means complete – indeed it is
perhaps at least as much a ‘work in progress’ as the broader agenda of societal ecological
reform.
Whilst the Catholic, Anglican and Uniting Churches in Australia have ecological policies
or at least relevant public statements, these are primarily top-down in origin and are not
necessarily representative of the views of their broader membership. The relatively
undemocratic nature of the Catholic and Anglican Churches means that top-down policies need
not have any ‘grass roots’ support. This is perhaps one reason why the NSW Ecumenical
Council felt the need to call on member Churches to improve their ecological conduct. Church
ecological policies have largely been driven by a small number of keen individuals able to gain
sufficient influence in the upper echelons of institutional decision-making. Some of those
individuals are part of the elite, for example, bishops, whilst others are very much at the ‘grass
roots’ end of the spectrum. This leaves a potentially substantial gap between the policies coming
from the top of the Churches, and the views of the majority of members.
The second document produced by the Council as part of the ‘Sustaining Creation’ theme
is an open letter to government and the wider community. It follows on from the position of the
‘Urgent call to focus on environment’ but is slightly more prescriptive. Notably it goes beyond
the earlier ecumenical call for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, recognising the need for
“stronger measures”. Overall, it takes a fairly broad and conventional line in favour of
276
“ecological sustainability” whilst being overt about the associated social justice issues. The
issue of materialism and consumerism is raised in the context of a call to “act consistently” with
an orientation that values all of Creation in the context of intergenerational stewardship.
A1.3.2.2 2007 NSW Election Statement
During the 2007 State election, the NSW Ecumenical Council published an advisory
statement addressing, amongst other electorally contentious matters, ecological concerns:
Media release: 3 vital issues for the electorate321.
“Recognising care of the environment as a key issue of our time, the Council
calls for a desperately needed change of spirit. All life is inter-related.
Development cannot be defined in economic terms alone, and is not
sustainable if it steals from the present and future generations. In particular,
the Council urges those seeking election to be committed to increasing
renewable energy targets and to improving incentive schemes.”…
The environment is one of the key issues of our time!
“All of us are aware that for the state of our planet’s health and vitality
things are going badly wrong. Climate change, flooding, drought, habitat
destruction, desertification, pollution, urban expansion, and famine have all
played their part.
Every problem facing the world community is interrelated. Exploitation and
greed, the consequent poverty of human communities, displacement of
people, environmental degradation all impact on each other. It is not possible
to tackle one without attempting to tackle another.
Certainly, these matters are political issues. They are economic issues. But at
a deeper level, they are much more. They constitute a profound moral and
religious issue. At its core, this is a spiritual crisis, touching all that we hold
sacred.
We desperately need a change of spirit. Sustainable development is one of
the most urgent moral issues of our time. It begins in sustainable values that
recognise the inter-relatedness of all life. Sustainable development cannot be
defined in economic terms alone, but must begin in a commitment to care for
the poor, the marginalised, and the voiceless. Therefore it is sustainable
community that we seek.
321 http://nsw.uca.org.au/news/2007/nsw-election-nswec_22-02-07.htm
277
Speaking out of our Christian faith convictions, we call upon the political
parties and all candidates in the election:
• to recognise that development is not sustainable if it steals from the
present and future generations
• to recognise that poverty and environmental degradation are
interwoven, and that it is the poor who suffer most from this
degradation
• to be committed to policies that enhance the quality of the rivers and
the land, the sea and the air and protect endangered species and all
forms of life, specifically by
• increasing renewable energy targets as part of a comprehensive strategy
to address climate change
• ensuring energy policies and decisions are consistent with a serious
response to the threat of global warming
• improving incentive schemes for public participation in local water
capture and recycling and solar power generation
• strengthening environmental planning controls, and actually enforcing
them.”
Given such a relatively strong environmentalist and broader ecojustice stance, it is little
wonder that the NSW Ecumenical Council is not supported by the far more conservative
member denominations that operate the NSW Council of Churches.
The Council’s website also contains a selection of archived news items, newsletters and
lectures that I did not investigate.
A1.3.3 Victorian Council of Churches
As of March 2006, the VCC website contained only one item of ecological policy in the
form of the ‘Renewing Creation’ ecumenical bible study for Lent 2004322. The VCC publishes a
newsletter, however only the current issue was available on-line. The February 2006 edition did
not contain any ecological content.
322 http://www.vcc.org.au/Resources.htm
278
A1.3.4 Council of Churches of Western Australia
The Council’s website homepage323 lists the organisation’s mission as:
“The CCWA gathers those churches and Christian communities which
confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour as witnessed to in the
scriptures and the life of the Church. The CCWA calls on such groups to
deepen their relationships and their commitment to their common calling
through dialogue, prayer, witness, service and action in the cause of peace,
justice and the preservation of the environment” (my italics).
The ‘Resources’ page includes a link to the WA Collaboration’s ‘Sustainable Christmas’
website324 which provides access to download a small brochure on this theme. In essence, the
‘Sustainable Christmas’ concept is similar to some schemes operated by international aid groups
in which users can purchase ethically sound gifts that provide assistance to people in
‘developing’ countries. For example, rather than buying your relative a conventional material
gift, websites such as ‘Sustainable Christmas’ allow you to buy them a card which notes that
your gift in their name, entailed the purchase of a water filter for a tribe in Ghana or a milking
goat for a family in East Timor, etc.
In March 2006, the Council’s News page included a paragraph about an event promoting
the adoption of the ecumenical liturgy package, ‘Season of Creation’, intended for
ecotheological teachings during September.
A1.3.5 Queensland Churches Together
As of March 2006, this site325 did not have any ecological content.
A1.3.6 South Australian Council of Churches
This organisation’s website included a page that describes its ‘Vision’326, which includes
the sentence: “Encourage and enable member churches and communities in the light of the
Gospel to give leadership to each other and the wider community on issues of justice, peace,
creation and the shared use of the world’s resources”. The Council had a number of Task
323 http://www.churcheswa.com.au/
324 http://www.wacollaboration.org.au/index.cfm?objectid=2C3F0B80-65BF-EBC1-
23527F93C20E82AA
325 http://www.qld-churches.asn.au/index.htm
326 http://www.sacc.asn.au/members.html
279
Groups, which included one entitled the Justice, Peace and Creation Commission327. Its
webpage was very small but noted that:
“The focus of the Commission is: ‘to Help Australian churches work
towards a mutual commitment to justice, peace and the integrity of creation.’
JPCC is doing this through:
• Challenging unjust social structures that result in poverty and
oppression;
• Promoting the responsible and sustainable use of the earth's resources.
To achieve these goals, we are:
• Studying contemporary theological and ecological understandings of
the connection between justice, peace and the health of the
environment. In this way we are promoting an ‘earth theology’;
• Researching the challenge to develop a new social order which
promotes the common good of all peoples;
• Fostering networks which encourage environmental care and a
responsible understanding of the connections between theology, liturgy
and community.
The membership of the Commission is: a Chairperson and up to three
persons from each denomination.”
The website also contains a list of publications for purchase328, one of which is entitled
‘The Earth is the Lord’s.’ It is described as “a collection of notes from One World Forums in
1998 and cartoons from New Times from 1997-99” and that “it is intended for use in churches
to help us be active, questioning Christians. We are hoping to stimulate dialogue about the
interaction between economy, ecology and Christian faith.” I did not investigate the document,
as it was more of an educational resource rather than a policy.
The website had an Events page, which noted that 2006 was the International Year of
Deserts and Desertification. The list of events included World Environment Day, which is
consistent with this event being recognised and celebrated by at least the major denominations.
The site also had an Archives page, which noted that in 2002, the Council participated in
the Earth Charter Initiative, which is a major international project in which religions have
played a formal and significant role329. This was described very briefly with four dot-points and
a quote from the preamble to the Earth Charter. No details of the Council’s participation were
provided.
327 http://www.sacc.asn.au/Commissions/jp&cc.html
328 http://www.sacc.asn.au/Publications/publications.html
329 See for e.g. http://www.green.net.au/hope/docs/earthcharter_doc.pdf
280
A1.4 Summary of national & state ecumenical &
multifaith responses
There are some substantial national and state ecumenical responses to the ecological crisis,
for example, the ‘Sustaining Creation’ statements and resource kit, and the related statements by
the NSW Ecumenical Council. There is at least one significant multifaith response that includes
the mainstream Christian denominations, namely ‘Common belief’, although this is a relatively
recent initiative and it was driven by The Climate Institute, a secular environmental group. The
Institute employed a ‘Faith & Climate Officer’ during mid-2007. None of the subject
denominations has an equivalent employee at national or State levels as of 2007.
The Churches’ ecological policies and responses are patchily distributed at the State and
Territory level and can be inconsistent, reflecting, at least amongst the major denominations, the
degree of variability in their position on and commitment to ecological matters.
Most of the national and state ecumenical and multifaith organisations are not strongly
connected to policy-making within the denominations, thus most of what they have produced is
symbolic because it has no operational authority within the organisations. For example, the
National Council of Churches has no power to determine the ecological operations of the
Anglican Church. It can only formulate and publicise policy statements or, in the case of the
‘Sustaining Creation’ materials, it can include agreed-upon educational resources for
distribution. It is notable that in the latter instance, the majority of the ‘Sustaining Creation’
resource kit comprised material provided by each denomination, rather than there being a single
package of information on which they could all agree. These denominational differences appear
to continue to undermine the establishment of a consistent ecological policy, let alone praxis,
between the denominations. Nonetheless, the sometimes-strong statements and open letters
produced by ecumenical bodies in support of ecojustice issues is a positive contribution to the
‘greening’ of the Church and to the environmentalist cause in general.
Whilst the ecological policies and calls for action produced by ecumenical bodies are
largely symbolic, they reflect a positive, if not actually productive engagement with ecojustice
concerns. In some of these bodies, this engagement is becoming more strident and vigorous, yet
others appear disengaged or constrained by conservative agendas.
281
I do not dismiss symbolic policies as meaningless or ineffectual. They are significant in
indicating what the Churches are prepared to ‘say’ publicly, even if they are not united in this
position or in their willingness and ability to put such policies into action within their own
organisations. Symbolic policies may simply represent a stage in the process of institutional
change. At the very least, they serve an internal function of validating, refreshing and
reinforcing the pro-environmentalism or pro-ecojustice views and praxis of those within the
Churches who are prepared to do what they can to address the ecological crisis.
Some of the ecumenical bodies examined for this appendix did not appear to have an
ecological policy position and/or did not have an on-line presence as of March 2006 when the
latter stage of research for this section was completed. Given rates of change seen elsewhere in
this field, it is possible that some or all such bodies now have websites and ecological policies.