The Church Climate Action: Identifying the Barriers and the Bridges

Abstract

For many decades, efforts are being channelled towards fostering effective robust church-based climate action across the globe. However, this desired action has unfortunately been in short supply. This has been attributed to some factors that serve as barriers to effective church-based climate action. In an extensive review, this article did not only identify these barriers but also the bridges or pathways out of these barriers/challenges. After a critical review of about 150 empirical studies with a few anecdotal literature, findings showed that beyond the theological barriers that are commonly referenced in many studies, the church also faces institutional barriers in their bid to address climate change. The biblical concept of stewardship, climate change awareness/knowledge creation, strategic communication and engagement, and strategic fundraising and mobilisation were found to be the bridges/pathways towards achieving a robust church-based climate action. Implications of findings for the church and research are discussed.

Keywords

Church-based climate action theological barriers bridges institutional barriers strategic communication stewardship

Introduction

Due largely to the futility of the several UN climate change conferences and other environmentalist efforts in securing the necessary political will and public engagement to fuel robust action on climate change (Nche, 2020a; Rudd, 2015; Wilkinson, 2012), many scholars and environmental experts have been exploring the potentials of religion in fostering the desired responses to climate change. In fact, many observers have criticised the global political response to climate change, which largely seeks to institutionalise scientific solutions to contemporary environmental problems (see Fromming and Reichel, 2012; Gerten, 2010; Moore and Nelson, 2010; Lestar and Böhm, 2020). They rather focus more on engaging the deeply held values and beliefs that both interpret and filter people’s perceptions as well as lead to and inspire direct action as a veritable option for remedy (Lestar and Böhm, 2020; Mastaler, 2014; Shehu and Molyneux-Hodgson, 2014). Nasr (1967) observes that the ecological crisis is fundamentally a crisis of values and that religions being the primary sources of values in any culture are hereby implicated in the decisions humans make regarding the environment. In this light, it has been suggested that the practical involvement of religion in tackling the global ecological crisis especially the challenge of climate change mitigation and adaptation may yield desired results (Corner, 2013; Coward and Hurka, 1993; Mastaler, 2014; Millais, 2006; Nche, 2012a; Posas, 2007; Stults, 2006 Tucker and Grim, 2001). This is largely because organised religions have fundamentally shaped human cultural and ethical values around the world (Kaplan, 2010). Faith communities, therefore, have spiritual resources or the unique ability to construct moral frameworks that can encourage human beings to protect the Earth (Bomberg and Hague, 2018; Morrison et al., 2015; Nche, 2020a; Tarakeshwar et al., 2001; Tucker, 2003).

However, Taylor (2010) has expressed doubts about whether faith communities can develop effective green theologies since there is little evidence of significant faith-based climate action especially in the United States despite over 20 years of efforts to create a religious response to climate change. In fact, it has been noted that almost half a century after the historian Lynn White Jr. indicted some Christian values for the crisis-state of the environment in 1967, polls showed that fewer than 50% of all US Protestants and Catholics believe the Earth is warming as a result of human actions (Bloomfield, 2019). Also, a survey of 1000 Protestant pastors found that 41% strongly disagreed with the statement: ‘I believe global warming is real and manmade’ (Hickman, 2011). There has not been a discernible ‘greening of Christianity’ among the American public as Christians including Catholic, Protestant and other Christian denominations tend to show less concern about the environment (Konisky, 2018; Roser-Renouf et al., 2016). Although there are notable exceptions, such as Pope Francis, who called for action to slow climate change in his 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ and an increasing number of Christians who are joining the Creation Care movement, as recently as early 2018, they were outnumbered by Christian climate sceptics (Bloomfield, 2019; Heikkinen, 2018). Similar findings have been made in other climes. In Nigeria, Nche et al. (2017) reported liturgical indifference and inaction of churches towards climate change in the country. Also, in a recent study on climate action among church leaders in Nigeria, Nche (2020a) reported poor climate action across Catholic, Anglican and Pentecostal participants in the study. All these suggest that there seem not to have been effective church climate actions in many societies across the globe. This is despite the growing incidences of severe climate change impacts in many societies especially in developing countries.

In an extensive review, this article therefore identified the barriers and the bridges to effective church climate action. The church in the context of this article is, despite its inherent complexity and internal contradiction, conceptualised as one all-embracing Christian church united by adhesion to the moralities and ethics suggested by biblical texts. In this sense, the church represents both an institution and a series of communities (Cloke et al., 2016). The church climate action refers to robust church-based collective activities and engagements towards mitigating and adapting to climate change, or/and mobilising and facilitating actions (political or social) on climate change. Although church climate action can be carried out on two main levels such as organisational/church and individual levels (see Nche, 2020a), the focus of this study is majorly on the organisational level. These barriers constitute the theological and doctrinal as well as the institutional factors that serve as setbacks in achieving conscious and effective church climate actions in many societies, while the bridges constitute the pathways to achieving effective church climate actions. The importance of this article lays in the fact that, despite the international climate change mitigation efforts, climate change scenarios are getting increasingly frightening as greenhouse gas emissions are on the increase (see Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 2019). It therefore becomes imperative that critical stakeholders like churches double efforts in addressing the phenomenon of climate change in their various capacities. To this end, identifying these barriers and bridges would help streamline efforts in achieving success in this regard.

Climate Change: Current Developments and Challenges

Climate change remains one of the greatest challenges facing the global community. It refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2011). This is largely occasioned by human activities (Stern and Kaufmann, 2014). For over centuries, especially from the era of industrial revolutions, humans have indulged in a culture of pollution, wastefulness and consumerism. Each year hundreds of millions of tons of waste are generated much of it non-degradable, highly toxic and radioactive, from homes and businesses, from construction and demolition sites, from clinical, electronic and industrial sources (Pope Francis, 2015). This has continued till date and further exacerbated by the phenomenal advance of science and technology (Gnanakan, 1999) without considerations of the limits to development. Recent reports show that greenhouse gas emission, which is the major driver of this change, has remained unabated. According to the 2019 United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP, 2019) 10th Emissions Gap Report, greenhouse gas emissions have risen by 1.5% per year over the last decade, with only a brief period of stabilisation between 2014 and 2016. Without immediate and sustained action, the report says, the planet could be 3.9 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer by the end of the century.

This has currently brought enormous impacts on many societies of the world. For instance, climate change has been reportedly responsible for crop failures and food scarcity, water crisis, increasing cases of diseases, economic downturn, infrastructural decay and dilapidation, mass displacement and migration, and death in many countries especially in developing societies or countries in Africa and Asia (see Asoanya, 2004; Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2016; Knox et al., 2012; Piao et al., 2010; Pope Francis, 2015; Schlenker and Lobell, 2010; Sultan, 2012; United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2016; World Health Organisation, 2008; Yohannes, 2016). Yet, these impacts have been projected to increase in the future if climate change continues unmitigated or unabated (see FAO, 2016; Romm, 2016). Therefore climate change mitigation and adaptation become imperative. One major way of addressing this current challenge of climate change, according to the 2019 UNEP Emission Gap Report, is for countries to increase their Paris Agreement commitments three-fold to keep warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, and five-fold to hit the 1.5 degree Celsius goal. This translates to reducing emissions by 2.7% per year (for 2 degree Celsius) or 7.6% per year (for 1.5 degree Celsius) starting from 2020. Indeed, the gap is so huge that governments, the private sector and communities need to switch into crisis mode, and to make their climate pledges more ambitious (Winkler, 2020).

However, the recently concluded 25th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP25) in Madrid has been found to be limited in its decisions as countries could not deliver a strong agreement on a framework for international carbon markets that would have environmental integrity at its core (Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 2019). To this end, Nche (2020a) observes that the remedy to climate change seems to have practically evaded the grip of laws and policies as arguably seen in the failure or the highly ‘politicized’ reports of the several UN climate change conferences. Despite environmentalists’ best efforts, the necessary political will and public engagement to fuel robust action on climate change remain in short supply (Wilkinson, 2012). Nevertheless, the response by religious groups especially churches can be an important element in supporting or challenging the authority of the government’s position on climate change (Ronan, 2017 ). This, according to Kearns (2007), is because such groups have the ability to use religion to reframe the issue from a new perspective enabling activists ‘to counter the frightening message of global warming with messages of hope, faith and concrete corporate action.

The Church Climate Responses: The Journey So Far

Following the increasing call for a global climate action, many responses have been recorded across different Christian denominations and eras. These responses have ranged from the emphasis on stewardship by church figures, the signing of climate change commitment pacts, to the establishments of church-based environmental organisations/movements across different Christian denominations.

For instance, several Popes have made significant contributions to the call for the preservation of the environment. While viewing the earth as a mother, Saint Francis of Assisi wrote thus: ‘Praise be to you, my lord, through our sister, mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruits with coloured flowers and herbs’ (Francis of Assisi, 1999 cited in Pope Francis, 2015). In 1971, Pope Paul VI condemned the ill-considered exploitation of nature, which puts humans at the receiving end (Pope Francis, 2015). Early in his Pontificate, John Paul II through his 1979 Encyclical letter warned that human beings frequently seem to see no other meaning in their natural environment than what serves for immediate use and consumption (Pope Francis, 2015). Pope Benedict also showed significant ecological concern. He earned the nickname ‘the green Pope’, in part because of the installation of solar panels above some Vatican buildings and in part because of the Vatican attempt, which proved ill-fated, to become the world’s first carbon-neutral nation. Beyond this however, Pope Benedict made tremendous contributions to environmental preservation through his teachings, most significantly his 2009 Encyclical Caritas in Veritate (nos. 48–52) and his 2010 message for the world day of peace. Pope Francis through his encyclical Laudato Si’ (Praise to You) in 2015 enjoined the world to care for the earth, which is our common home. This encyclical particularly laid out the attitudes that the world’s more than two billion Christians should have towards climate change. It speaks eloquently of stewardship of God’s creation and care for the poor, those already affected by the exacerbating impacts of climate change on droughts, floods, heat waves, hurricanes and other extreme weather (Hayhoe, 2015).

Aside these individual ecological reflections by these Roman Catholic figures, there are some ecologically/climate change-based organisations hosted by Catholic Church in several countries. These include Catholic Climate Covenant (CCC), The Global Catholic Climate Movement (GCCM), the Saint Kateri Tekakwitha Conservation Centre and the Catholic Rural Life. In Nigeria, there have been series of academic conferences, publications and workshops on climate change and ecology organised on the platform of the Roman Catholic Church in the country. Some of these conferences/workshops and publications include the 22nd conference of the CIWA theology week held in Port Harcourt on the theme ‘Theology for Sustainable Ecology in Africa’ and the African Journal of Contextual Theology, Vol. 2, published by the Spiritan International School of Theology, Attakwu, Enugu State Nigeria on the theme ‘Theology, Faith and Environment’. Furthermore, in September 2015, the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) released a communiqué at the end of the plenary meeting at the Pastoral Centre, Igwuruta, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria. This communiqué addressed the issue of climate crisis as espoused in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Francis, Laudato Si’.

The same themes of stewardship and care for the poor have been raised by the World Evangelical Alliance and the National Association of Evangelicals in recent years (Hayhoe, 2015). The World Evangelical Alliance, which produced the Cape Town Commitment in 2010, brought together 4200 evangelical leaders from 198 countries to Cape Town, South Africa, to discuss, among other issues, the challenge of climate change and the need for Christian action (see The Cape Town Commitment, 2011). Founded in 1942, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) on the other hand represents evangelical Christians in the United States, more than 45,000 local churches from 40 different denominations and serves a constituency of millions. In a NAE-supported publication titled ‘Loving the Least of These: Addressing a Changing Environment’, evangelicals are not only called to address climate change but to also cater for the victims of climate change-induced disasters (e.g. victims of Drought and famine in East Africa, landslides in Malaysia, and torrential rains in Nicaragua etc.) (Boorse, 2011). Furthermore, in 2006 the Evangelical Climate Initiative’s (ECI) programme titled ‘Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action’ was launched with the goal of recognising ‘human-induced climate change as a serious Christian issue’ (ECI, 2006). This initiative grew to include a group of over 300 senior evangelical leaders in the United States who are convinced it is time to help solve the problem of global warming (ECI, 2006; Ronan, 2017).

Among the Anglican Communion, environmental concern can be traced to its earliest divines, one of which was Richard Hooker who wrote that ‘God hath created nothing simply for itself, but each thing in all thing, and of everything each part in other have such interest, that in the whole world nothing is found whereunto anything created can say “I need thee not”’ (Garrett, 2015:111). The Church of England, for instance, has an explicit environmental programme, which is premised on the statement conspicuously displayed on its website: ‘We believe that responding to climate change is an essential part of our responsibility to safeguard God’s creation. Our environmental campaign exists to enable the whole church to address – in faith, practice and mission – the issue of climate change’ (The Church of England, n.d.). The Church of England has been running its Shrinking the Footprint campaign since 2007 and aims to cut the Church’s carbon emissions by 42% by 2020 (Donovan, n.d.). However, one of the leading figures of the modern Anglican climate change/environmental initiative is Desmond Tutu. Tutu is Archbishop emeritus of Cape Town and a Nobel Peace Laureate. He has been outstanding in the fight against climate change and for justice. According to him, ‘we fought apartheid. Now climate change is our global enemy. We therefore need an apartheid-style boycott to save the planet’ (Tutu, 2014a, b). Tutu runs an online petition, which has as of 10 September 2015 got 300,000 signatures. This petition called on the former US president Barack Obama and the former UN chief Ban Ki-Moon to help create a world running on 100% of renewable energy by 2050 (The Guardian, 10 September 2015).

Also, 17 Anglican Bishops from all six continents of the world on 30 March 2015 in South Africa made a climate change declaration under the leadership of Thabo Makgoba, the Archbishop of Cape Town and Primate of Southern Africa. This declaration commits the Bishops to specific actions such as promotion of energy conservation measures in church buildings, more renewable energy, nurturing biodiversity on church land, supporting sustainability in water, food, agriculture and land use, reviewing churches’ investment practices including a call for divestment and closer ecumenical and interfaith co-operation (Interfaith Power and Light, 2015). Again, the Anglican Church leaders, among whom were Thabo Makgoba, George Takeli, John Holder and more met at the Canterbury, England, on 3 October 2017. Among the issues discussed were the disappearing islands in the South Pacific and recent hurricanes in the Caribbean and food security in Africa (Anglican Communion News Service, 2017). Furthermore, a communiqué from the 12th General Synod of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) held from Monday, 18 to Friday, 22 September 2017, at St. Paul’s Cathedral Church Diobu, Port Harcourt Rivers State was released. Under the item ‘National Disasters’, the Synod, which was attended by 174 bishops, 264 clergymen and 244 members of the House of Laity, expressed serious concern over climate change and some natural disasters in Nigeria such as devastating flood in Benue State and the mass displacement that followed. The Synod went ahead to call for mitigation of the effects and assistance of victims of natural disaster.

Another important Anglican environmental climate change initiative is the Anglican Communion Environmental Network (ACEN). Guided by the fifth mark of mission (which reads ‘to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth’) as identified at the sixth meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in 1984 (ACC-6), the ACEN was founded in 1998 to, among other things, encourage Anglicans to support sustainable environmental practices as individuals and in the life of their communities (ACEN, 2017). There are other pro-environmental responses and commitments on the platforms of Interfaith and Interdenominational forums to which many church leaders have been part of (see Da Silva, 2017; World Council of Churches, 2014; The National Religious Coalition on Creation Care, 2014; The Episcopal Church, 2019). The National Religious Partnership for The Environment (NRPE), which represents a range of Judeo-Christian communities in the United States, is an example of interfaith collaborations that have an ecological purview. NRPE comprises four major organisations that together serve over 100 million Americans: the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the National Council of Churches of Christ (NCCC), the Coalition on Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL) and the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN). It also works to incorporate environmental concerns into the agendas of religion-based social agencies such as Catholic Charities USA, the United Jewish Appeal and the Association of Evangelical Relief and Development Agencies (Ronan, 2017). These and more suggest that the church is making some efforts in tackling the challenge of climate change.

These notwithstanding, robust practical and decisive climate change actions have been in short supply in many churches around the world. Rather, much of what seems to be very common are religious and interfaith statements, rhetorics and declarations on climate change without much corresponding actions. Taylor et al. (2016b) and Zaleha and Szasz (2015) have warned against the dangers of the assumptions in much extant literature that the pro-environmental statements and declarations by religious individuals or groups are significant reflections of the trends within the traditions these individuals or groups belong or represent. It is not usually the case. For instance, the Church of England, despite its pro-environmental statements, is yet to decide on the steps to change or reduce energy use in church buildings (Sherwood, 2020). The same applies to many churches whose buildings and activities are still contributing significantly to climate change. Also, many churches are yet to practically respond to the challenge of climate change through their routine liturgies (see Nche et al., 2017; Bianchi, 1998). For instance, a survey of 1000 Protestant pastors found that 52% of the pastors address the issue of the environment with their churches once a year or less, with evangelical pastors speaking less often on the environment than mainline pastors (Hickman, 2011). This is of course with exception to the Edmonds United Methodist Church and few other churches that have begun routine Sunday talks on climate change in their churches (see Ross, 2020). In fact, a recent research on climate action among church leaders in Nigeria showed that climate action is generally poor both on church and individual levels among the participants in the study (see Nche, 2020a). More so, studies have shown that Pentecostal churches are generally lagging behind or silent on the issue of climate change and the need for mitigation and adaptation (see Nche, 2020b; Clifton, 2006; Pepper and Powell, 2013a, b; Swoboda, 2014, 2011). The barriers to effective church-based climate action are therefore the focus of the next section of this study.

Methodology

The review employed a cross-disciplinary approach in the search for materials/literature on the barriers and bridges to effective church-based climate action. This entails that, in the attempt to identify these barriers and bridges, the researcher sought for information online from various empirical studies (qualitative and quantitative studies) in various areas of study or inquiry such as religion/spirituality and ecology/environmental behaviour research, non-governmental (nonprofit) organisation research and science/climate change communication research. Specifically, the search on the barriers was done using the following keywords: religion/spirituality and environment, ecology, nature; barriers/challenges/setbacks to environmentalism, environmental activism, church climate action; conservative Christians and climate change; challenges of faith-based environmental nonprofit organisation, biblical literalism and climate change; end-time belief and climate change; theological fatalism and climate change; dominion belief and climate change. The search on the bridges, on the other hand, was guided by the following keywords: climate change challenge and the way forward; concept of stewardship and ecological crisis; climate change communication strategies; and fundraising strategies for nonprofit organisations. Overall, there were about 130 empirical studies that were reviewed. These empirical studies were conducted among different participants/congregations/organisations in different societies and provided insights into the experiential barriers to effective church-based climate action and the possible way out. About 20 anecdotal literature were also useful in the article especially with respect to conceptual clarifications.

A critical review of the empirical studies informed the emergence of the themes or findings that formed the focus of the analysis in the article (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Summative presentation of findings.

Barriers		Bridges
Theological/Doctrinal Barriers		The Biblical concept of stewardship
Eschatological/end-time beliefs		Climate change awareness/knowledge creation
Dominion belief		Strategic communication and engagement
Theological fatalism		Strategic fundraising and mobilisation
Biblical literalism/inerrancy
	The Church Climate Action
Institutional/General Barriers
The activities of Church-based anti-environmentalism organisations
Lack of climate change knowledge
Lack of fund and other resources

The barriers were discussed under two major themes/categories: Theological/Doctrinal and Institutional/General Barriers. The end-time belief, dominion belief, theological fatalism and biblical literalism were identified as the theological barriers whereas the institutional barriers included the activities of church-based anti-climate action organisations, lack of climate change knowledge and lack of fund and other resources. The bridges, on the other hand, were identified to include the biblical concept of stewardship, climate change awareness/knowledge creation, strategic communication and engagement and strategic fundraising and mobilisation.

The Barriers

The identified barriers to effective church climate action are categorised under theological/doctrinal and institutional/general barriers.

Theological/Doctrinal Barriers

The following are some of the theological barriers that have been found by many empirical studies to discourage environmentally friendly dispositions and actions among Christians across many denominations.

Eschatological/End-Time-Belief

Many studies have found this belief to discourage pro-environmental concerns and actions among many participants across many Christian denominations especially the Pentecostals, the Anglicans and the conservative Evangelicals (e.g. Barker and Bearce, 2012; Carr, 2010; Hendrickx and Nicolaij, 2004; Hope and Jones, 2014; Nche, 2020b; Routhe, 2013; Zaleha and Szasz, 2015 etc.). Eschatological/end-time-belief refers to the belief about last things (Landes, 2016). It concerns both personal eschatological issues such as death and the intermediate state as well as themes with a more general or corporate focus. The latter would include such ideas as the return of Christ, resurrection, judgement, tribulation, the millennial kingdom and the eternal state (Herrick, 2004). The return of Christ or Parousia is the focal point of the end-time-belief for many Christian denominations. Christians believe that Christ rose from the dead, ascended to heaven and will certainly someday return (Herrick, 2004). Although the day is unknown, it is believed that this second coming will be heralded by some signs such as wars and rumours of wars (Matthew 24:6, NKJV), famines and earthquakes (Matthew 24: 7–8, NKJV) etc. (Bibleinfo, n.d.; Billy Graham Evangelistic Association [BGEA], 2017). Eschatological/end time beliefs discourage pro-environmental behaviours (Rosenau, 2015; Taylor et al., 2016b) in a sense that people who hold these beliefs see climate change alongside its impacts as a sign or fulfillment of end-time prophecies. To these people, therefore, there is no basis to worry or address it, they rather focus on improving their spiritual lives in preparation for the second coming (parousia) of Christ (Dowd and Hayhoe, 2015; Nche, 2020b).

Dominion Belief

The dominion belief is anchored on the Bible text, which reads

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth (Genesis 1: 26-28).

In 1967, Lynn White called out this dominion belief as the major belief responsible for Christians’ disregard and gratuitous exploitation of the environment. Although criticisms came from the likes of Hiers (1984) and Nash (1991), who questioned White’s theological interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as well as his historical interpretation of the relationship between religion and science, this belief stills emerges in some studies as one of the barriers to pro-environmental concern and action (see Brehm and Eisenhauer, 2006; Hand and Van Liere, 1984; Gladstone, 2014). For instance, in a study among church leaders in Nigeria, Nche (2020b) reported of a Catholic participant who insisted that the dominion mandate is clear about humans’ superiority and control of other creatures of the earth. Even though this participant, according to Nche, eventually expressed the desire to address climate change in the future, he generally performed poorly when told to report on his past and present climate actions. The same applies to some Shehu’s (2015) participants in the northeast Nigeria who endorsed the dominion over nature theologies. Another example involves one Apostle Lawrence Achudume of Victory Life Bible Church, Ogun State, Nigeria, who in his homily emphasised the need for Christians to exercise their God-given dominion over the earth. He cited the incidence in the Bible in which Jesus calmed the sea (Matthew 8:26) as well as that in which Jesus miraculously granted Simon Peter a great catch after he (Peter) had toiled all night searching for fish without any success (Luke 5:4) to demonstrate what constitutes dominions over the earth (Achudume, 2019). The dominion belief is also pronounced among the Cornwall Alliance, a prominent group of Evangelical thinkers who oppose climate change activism in the United States. According to this group as cited by Hickman (2011), ‘We humans are special creatures, in a class of our own, quite separate from, and superior to, trees and animals. . .’ With the belief that humankind has a duty to ‘fill and subdue the earth’ and ‘turn the wilderness into a garden’, this group strive to frustrate endeavors designed to address human-made climate change especially in the United States (Ronan, 2017; Spencer et al., 2005).

Theological Fatalism

The term ‘fatalism’ has been defined as an act of passively denying personal control over future events (Neff and Hoppe, 1993) or an attitude of resignation in the face of events that are thought to be inevitable (Powe and Johnson 1995; Rice, 2002; Xie et al., 2019). Therefore, theological fatalism is a religio-philosophical doctrine that emphasises the subjugation of all events or actions to divinely orchestrated destiny. This doctrine stresses human helplessness or resignation in the face of some future events which are thought to be inevitable (Nche, 2020b; Silvestre, 2016). This theological disposition has been emerging in many studies among Christians of different denominations in different societies (see Nche, 2020b; Shehu and Molyneux-Hodgson, 2014; Shehu, 2015; Schuman et al., 2018; Meyer and Smith, 2019; Taylor et al., 2016a, b). Meyer and Smith (2019) report that theological fatalistic belief is a major setback to effective behavioral and policy response to climate change.

Biblical Literalism/Inerrancy

Biblical literalism refers to literal interpretation or understanding of the Bible. It involves a strict adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense of biblical texts as against figurative or metaphorical interpretation. This is premised on the belief that the Bible is ‘God-breathed’ or the inspired word of God (Tomkins, 2011). And because it is God-breathed, its contents is believed and read or followed with absolutism. This is largely similar with the term ‘biblical inerrancy’ – the belief that Bible is an authority, error-free and infallible reference point (Nche, 2020b). This hermeneutical approach to the Bible is extensively used by fundamentalists or conservative evangelical Christians (see Tomkins, 2011; Wood, 2018; Jelen et al., 1990; Sydnor, 2016; Beale, 2011). It has also been found to influence climate change perceptions and actions among these Christians (Conti, 2017; Mooney, 2015).This theological disposition makes devotees sceptical of anthropogenic climate change and as such presents a significant barrier to being concerned about climate change or environmental protection (Rosenau, 2015; Taylor et al., 2016b).

Institutional/General Barriers

The institutional/general barriers are those that are not directly theological or doctrinal. They are rather general and dependent on or fuelled by the activities of other social or even religious institutions in societies. Some of these barriers include the following.

The Activities of Church-Based Anti-Environmentalism Organisations

While some affirmative climate responses are being recorded from some churches across the globe, some Christians and church-based organisations are withholding their supports or working tirelessly to stifle efforts towards addressing anthropogenic climate change. Some of the ways many Christians and church groups resist understandings typical of environmentalist perceptions and priorities have been examined by Taylor (2010), Zaleha and Szasz (2014, 2015) and Ronan (2017). For instance, when the Evangelical Climate Initiative’s (ECI) programme titled ‘Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action’ was launched in 2006 with the goal of recognising ‘human-induced climate change as a serious Christian issue’ (see ECI, 2006), the NAE did not officially back the ECI’s call to action. This was because the NAE believed that the ‘call to action’ did not represent the views of all evangelicals, many of whom rejected the idea of human caused climate change: ‘Since NAE represents a broad spectrum of evangelicals in the United States, they reasoned, it should not take a position on the controversy’ (Nazworth, 2012; Ronan, 2017: 4). In fact, Ronan (2017) reported that the Christian Right leaders reacted by singling out well-known evangelical climate champions and pressured signatories to withdraw their support of the ECI call to action. At the vanguard of this opposition was the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, a new coalition of conservative faith leaders who opposed action to fight climate change and environmental regulation that interfered with free markets. The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance is one of many such evangelical organisations that have sprouted up over the last decade coordinating concerted efforts to stymy and counter environmental efforts (Ronan, 2017).

Founded by E. Calvin Beisner, the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, which is currently called the Cornwall Alliance, is a prominent group of religious thinkers in the United States, which urges followers to 'resist the current environmentalism which it refers to as the Green Dragon’ (Hickman, 2011). It is coalition of notable theologians, pastors, ministry leaders, scientists, economists, policy experts and lay people (Ronan, 2017). Through several documents (e.g. ‘A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor’ and ‘An Evangelical Response to Global Warming; Resisting the Green Dragon: Dominion not Death’) and platforms (e.g. the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce; the White House Council on Environmental Policy) this organisation has sought to promote disbelief in man-made climate change, deflate the core assumptions of environmentalists and advocate for a free-market approach to care for the environment (see Ronan, 2017). Needless to say, these activities have not only severely impacted the church climate action initiatives but have also affected the political dispositions of the US government towards climate change. This is so because Sherkat and Ellison (2007) have shown how religious conservatism drives political conservatism, which in turn ‘influences environmental orientations mostly through calling into question the seriousness of environmental problems’ (p. 82). This religious conservatism–political conservatism connection is supported by Taylor, Van Wieren and Zaleha (2016b) and Ronan (2017).

Lack of Climate Change Knowledge

Climate change awareness/knowledge is said to be the first major step in achieving climate change mitigation and adaptation (see Morrison et al., 2015; Stehr and Grundmann, 2012; Ojomo et al., 2015). This follows to say that a lack of it will pose a significant barrier to achieving the desired climate response. Indeed, lack of climate change knowledge among church leaders and their congregations has been one of the major setbacks in achieving an effective church-based climate action especially in developing societies. For instance, Shehu and Molyneux-Hodgson (2014) and Shehu (2015) identified lack of knowledge of environmental principles as one of the major factors hindering religious environmentalism among religious leaders especially Christian leaders in the northeast Nigeria. Nche (2020a) also reported of poor climate change/environmental knowledge among a broader range of church leaders in Nigeria, a condition which affected or resulted in their poor climate action in the country. This lack of or inadequate climate change knowledge, according to Nche, is largely as a result of inadequate access to sources of climate change information in Nigeria.

Lack of Funds and Other Resources

Like their secular counterparts, churches or faith-based organisations need funds to effectively address climate change. Apart from the aspect of climate action that relies on spiritual resources such as traditions, rituals and symbols shaped by theology and doctrine (Bomberg and Hague, 2018), mobilisation for climate action and other tangible environmentally friendly actions are largely dependent on the availability of funds. For instance, churches need funds to organise environmental campaigns/protests or acquire environmentally friendly technologies (including renewable energies) (Nche, 2012b). However, unlike their secular counterparts (e.g. secular non-governmental organisations) that can easily access government grants and aids, church-based organisations are usually disadvantaged and under-funded. Using four church-based environmental organisations (e.g. Eco-Congregation Scotland, Operation Noah, Christian Aid and A Rocha), which receive limited funds from donations and grants as an example, Bomberg and Hague (2018) noted that generally ‘the material resources available to church groups hoping to engage in environmental activities are minimal in absolute terms and especially in comparison with NGOs who dedicate significant resources to such environmental campaigns’ (p.585). This lack of funds was also cited by church leaders in northeast Nigeria as a barrier to engaging in environmental conservation activities in the region (see Shehu and Molyneux-Hodgson, 2014; Shehu, 2015).

There are other resources that are usually in short supply for churches with respect to collective climate action. These resources include human capital or human resources, which refer to members’ expertise, skills, labour, leadership or experience and sophisticated formal networks, which refer to organisational strength, communication and interaction within groups and between groups and the wider public (Bomberg and Hague, 2018). In contrast, secular environmental organisations have these resources at their disposal.

The Bridges

The bridges/pathways to achieving robust church-based climate action are discussed below. It should be noted that some of these pathways are not restricted to churches in its application.

The Biblical Concept of Stewardship

The biblical idea of stewardship refers to the idea of utilising and managing all resources God provides for the glory of God and the betterment of His creation (Bugg, 1991). This is captured in the biblical text, which reads ‘The land must not be sold permanently; because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants’ (Leviticus 25:23). The same idea runs through other passages such as Revelation 22:13, Psalm 24:1, Deuteronomy 10:14, Job 41:11 etc. For years, the biblical concept of stewardship has been central to the campaigns for effective church-based climate action. It has been central to the various environmental statements and declarations by church leaders and organisations (Interfaith Power and Light, 2015; Pope Francis, 2015; The Cape Town Commitment, 2011; The National Religious Coalition on Creation Care, 2014 The South African Council of Churches, 2009; World Council of Churches, 2014). Many scholars have through their theological discourses recommended for Christians a stewardship disposition and approach to the current global ecological crisis (Beers et al., 2017; Chibuko, 2011; Diara and Nche, 2013; Gnanakan, 1999; Nche, 2012; Nche et al., 2017). Many empirical surveys have had a significant portion of their participants who expressed their beliefs in the concept of stewardship to show their willingness to address climate or environmental crisis (Carr, 2010; Nche, 2020a, b). However, while this concept has been common within Christendom, it has not translated to a robust church climate action in many societies. This suggests that more needs to be done aside just preaching and professing stewardship. To this end, some studies have offered some tips on how to foster more effective church climate action. Some of them are discussed below.

Climate Change Awareness/Knowledge Creation

The need for the creation of climate change awareness cannot be over-emphasised. This is because climate change awareness/knowledge remains the major step towards achieving effective climate action (see Morrison et al., 2015; Stehr and Grundmann, 2012; Ojomo et al., 2015). Despite the seriousness as well as the popularity of the phenomenon of climate change, many churches especially in the developing countries are still behind in terms of climate change knowledge (see Nche, 2020a; Shehu and Molyneux-Hodgson, 2014; Shehu, 2015). Nche (2020a) has blamed this largely on the lack of access to climate change information in these countries. Hence, studies have emphasised the need for the government and other stakeholders to create climate change knowledge especially among church leaders in developing countries. This, according to Nche (2020a), should particularly involve making available basic information on the scientific basis of climate change and its mitigation and adaptation processes for these church leaders. This would in turn, propel a church-led climate change awareness creation as these leaders will educate not only their congregations but also the general public. Already, Nche et al. (2017) categorised the church-led climate change awareness creation into two kinds: intimate and non-intimate awareness creations. While, the Intimate Awareness Creation (IAC) refers to awareness created on the basis of friendship and familiarity and meant for the members of the church or Christians generally, the Non-Intimate Awareness Creation (NIAC) is meant for nonmembers of the church or the general public.

Strategic Communication and Engagement

While it is important to talk to people about climate change or create climate change awareness, it is, as some studies have shown, more important to be strategic and tactical in such engagements. In fact, it has been observed that the reason why many people do not feel concerned about climate change is significantly connected to how climate change is being communicated (Greco, 2019). Being strategic, for these studies, is more likely to get the desired affirmative climate responses from people. For instance, based on her study of three religious organisations (the Cornwall Alliance, the Acton Institute, and the Evangelical Environmental Network), Bloomfield (2019) identified three categories of Christians with respect to their beliefs about climate change. These are the separators (those who believe that faith and the environment are at odds), the bargainers (those who adopt some aspects of environmentalism, but reject or modify others like the belief that climate change is natural and nothing needs to be done to address it) and the harmonisers (those who see environmentalism as an important part of being a good Christian but may or may not actively engage in the environmental movement). Bloomfield recommended that while climate change conversations with separators and bargainers should focus on changing environmental beliefs, discussions with harmonisers should encourage them to take more environmental actions.

Aside from these, however, Bloomfield recommended three major strategies that should guide communications/conversations on climate change with all categories of Christians. These include: treating conversations as dialogues, locating common values, and avoiding relying on science. The need to avoid too much scientific facts during conversations on climate change has also been emphasised by many studies (Corner et al., 2018; Greco, 2019; Hendricks, 2017). For these authors, while communicating climate change, the focus should be on the frame, not just scientific facts. This is because, as Bloomfield (2019) observed, too much science can lead to a boomerang effect (that is a situation in which exposure to scientific facts causes people to double down on their previously held beliefs) especially when these scientific facts ‘contradict some groups’ values’ (Hendricks, 2017). Focusing on the frame could, according to Corner et al. (2018), entail talking about the real world, not abstract ideas, connecting with what matters to your audience and telling a story during conversations on climate change.

Furthermore, focusing on hope and redemption as against the focus on apocalyptic imagery and messages during climate change conversations can, according to Bomberg and Hague (2018), provide potent motivations for church groups or congregations to take actions on climate change. This is because the enormity of the climate challenge, as research (e.g. Marshall, 2014; Moser, 2016) has shown, can stymie action. Whereas fear may paralyse, hope can empower when a challenge is daunting (Bomberg and Hague, 2018).

Strategic Fund Raising and Mobilisation

Lack of funds is one of the major setbacks to effective church-driven climate action. In fact, Lu, Shon and Zhang (2020) have demonstrated how lack of funds substantially contributes to the dissolution of nonprofit organisations of which church-based environmental organisations are part. However, there are some strategic ways churches or church-based environmental organisations can raise funds and mobilise other resources. One is revenue diversification. Lu, Shon and Zhang (2020) have suggested that nonprofits should diversify sources of revenue on the basis that revenue diversification has the potential of providing a sustainable financial base for nonprofit organisations and has a favourable effects on the organisations’ survival prospects. What this means for church-based environmental organisations is that instead of relying solely on financial contributions from congregations to carry out climate initiatives, churches or church-based environmental organisations could seek for grants or financial aids from the governments and other agencies. Exploring the opportunities offered by the social media in seeking for free-will donations is another important strategy for fundraising. Many studies (e.g. Dixon and Keyes. 2013; Slovic et al., 2017; Lacetera et al., 2016; Saxton and Wang, 2014; Bhati and McDonnell, 2019) have already shown the relevance of social media to fundraising for nonprofit organisations especially through a crowd-funding approach (i.e. soliciting large numbers of small donations [e.g. less than US$10] from a wide network of donors). Accordingly, Nche et al. (2017) encouraged churches to explore online fundraising approach to enable them execute climate initiatives as well as to cater for climate change victims in vulnerable communities.

Partnering with secular environmental organisations in seeking for funds from the governments and other donor agencies is another way to address the financial setbacks usually experienced by churches. Although studies (e.g. Nche, 2020; Bomberg and Hague, 2018; Goldsmith et al., 2006) have reported that church-based organisations are usually reluctant in exploring partnership possibilities with their secular counterparts due to the belief that religion is central to their mission and to the services they provide, suggesting that they may be unwilling to compromise with secular partners for fear of compromising their principles, partnerships can beyond providing access to grants, provide churches with other human resources (such as expertise, skills, labour, leadership) with which to effectively execute climate initiatives.

Implications and Conclusion

This review has revealed that a large-scale robust church-based climate action is still in short supply. This reinforces the conclusions of Taylor et al. (2016a, b), who after comprehensive reviews, did not find any support for the greening of religion hypothesis. This suggests that faith communities, especially churches and other stakeholders, would need to do things differently with respect to addressing climate change. Nevertheless, it is against this backdrop that this article identified the barriers to an effective church-based climate action and the bridges/possible way out. These barriers were categorised into theological and institutional barriers. The end-time belief, dominion belief, theological fatalism and biblical literalism were identified as the theological barriers whereas the institutional barriers included the activities of church-based anti-climate action organisations, lack of climate change knowledge and lack of funds and other resources. The bridges, on the other hand, were identified to include the biblical concept of stewardship, climate change awareness/knowledge creation, strategic communication and engagement and strategic fundraising and mobilisation.

In all, the identification of these barriers, especially the institutional ones, reveals the experiential challenges faced by churches or religious communities in their bid to address climate change both at the local and international levels. It also suggests that for environmentalists and other stakeholders to successfully bring churches/church-based organisations on board in the fight against climate change, they may need to address these challenges/barriers (theological and institutional). Furthermore, the identification of these barriers has some research implications. First, there seems to be an underlining assumption especially in anecdotal literature that churches have all it takes to address climate change. This explains the enthusiasm often expressed by the authors of these literature in their calls for churches to intervene in the global environmental crisis. The identification of these barriers, therefore, puts the expectations people/researchers have of churches in check. Second, it also helps to narrow the focus of future researchers and environmentalists on what seems to be more important, which is how to address these barriers to effective church climate action.

The identification of the bridges or pathways to achieving an effective church climate action, on the other hand, provides the effective ways to address the barriers to robust church climate action. It also suggests that the dominant approach that focuses majorly on preaching ‘stewardship of God’s creation’ without attention to other important tips like how best to communicate the call for stewardship has failed to achieve the desired results. While it is important to preach stewardship, it is also important to ensure that faith communities are first of all strategically and properly enlightened on the phenomenon of climate change and the need to act. It is also important to pay attention to the need to source for funds and other resources critical to environmental protection and stewardship. In fact, the identification of these pathways suggests that for churches and environmentalists to achieve a robust church-based climate action, there is need to combine these bridges/strategies, which include the preaching of the biblical concept of stewardship, climate change awareness/knowledge creation, strategic communication and engagement and strategic fundraising and mobilisation. Future studies could also examine how best to achieve or combine these strategies.

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

George C Nche

Author biography

George C Nche is a Lecturer and holds a PhD in religion and society at the Department of Religion and Cultural Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. He is currently a post doctoral fellow in the Department of Religion Studies, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. His research foci are religion and ecology, security, and conflict.

References

Achudume

(2019) The dominion mandate – Part 1. The Guardian. Available at: https://guardian.ng/sunday-magazine/ibru-ecumenical-centre/the-dominion-mandate-part-1/ (accessed 23 February 2020).

Anglican Communion Environmental Network (ACEN) (2017) Available at: cen.anglicancommunion.org (accessed 16 November 2017).

Anglican Communion News Service (ACNS) (6th October, 2017). Anglican primates discuss action on climate change. Available at: www.anglicannews.org/news/2017/10/ (accessed 16 November 2017).

Asoanya

(2004) The Ecological Crisis in Africa as a Challenge to Lasting Cultural and Sustainable Development: A Theological Approach. New York: European University Studies, Peter Lang.

Barker

Bearce

(2012) End-times theology, the shadow of the future, and public resistance to addressing global climate change. Political Research Quarterly 66(2): 267–279.

Beale

(2011) Can the bible be completely inspired by god and yet still contain errors? A response to some recent ‘Evangelical’ proposals. Westminster Theological Journal 73(1): 1–22.

Beers

Hittinger

Lamb

, et al. (2017) The Catholic Church and Stewardship. Action institute. Available at: https://action.org/public-policy/environmental-stewardhiptheology-e/catholic-church-and-stewardship-creation (accessed 13 January 2020).

Bhati

McDonnell

(2019) Success in an online giving day: the role of social media in fundraising. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 49(1): 74–92.

Bianchi

(1998) The ecological challenge to Christianity. New Theology Review 11(1): 67–79.

10.

Bibleinfo (n.d.). Signs of Jesus’ second coming. Available at: https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/topics/signs-jesus-coming (accessed 21 February 2020).

11.

Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) (2017) Signs of the end of the world? Biblical wisdom from Billy Graham & Franklin Graham. Available at: https://billygraham.org/story/signs-of-the-end-of-the-world (accessed 21 February 2020).

12.

Bloomfield

(2019) Understanding Christians’ climate views can lead to better conversations about the environment. TheConversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com (accessed 20 January 2020).

13.

Bomberg

Hague

(2018) Faith-based climate action in Christian congregations: mobilisation and spiritual resources. Local Environment 23(5): 582–596.

14.

Boorse

(2011) Loving the least of these: addressing a changing environment. Available at: http://www.nae.net (accessed 25 January 2020).

15.

Brehm

Eisenhauer

(2006) Environmental concern in the Mormon culture region. Society & Natural Resources 19(5): 393–410.

16.

Bugg

(1991) Stewardship. In: TC Butler (ed) Holman Bible Dictionary. Tennessee: Holman, pp. 1303–1304.

17.

Carr

(2010) The faithful skeptics: conservative Christian religious beliefs and perceptions of climate change. MA Thesis, Society and Conservation, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT.

18.

Chibuko

(2011) Ecological liturgy: an unquestionable option for the church in Africa. In: Ferdinand

(ed.) Theology for sustainable ecology in Africa: The earth as God’s gift. Proceedings of the Conference of the 22nd CIWA Theology Week held on 21st -25th March 2011in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

19.

Clifton

(2006) Pentecostals and ecology. Pentecostal discussions, the faculty of Southern cross College. Available at: scc.typepad.com (accessed 20 February 2020).

20.

Cloke

Sutherland

Williams

(2016) Postsecularity, political resistance and protest in the Occupy movement. Antipode 48(3): 497–523.

21.

Conti

(2017) The fundamentalists holding us back from a climate change solution. Vice. Available at: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qv4w8b/christian-fundamentalists-are-fueling-climate-change-denialism (accessed 10 March 2020).

22.

Corner

(2013) Christianity and climate change: the relationship between god and green. The Guardian Newspaper. Available at: www.theguardian.com (accessed 25 March 2016).

23.

Corner

Shaw

Clarke

(2018) Principles for Effective Communication and Public Engagement on Climate Change: A Handbook for IPCC Authors. Oxford: Climate Outreach.

24.

Coward

Hurka

(eds) (1993) Ethics and Climate Change: The Greenhouse Effect. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier Press.

25.

Da Silva

(2017) Religious leaders commit to protecting the planet and combating climate change. LIFEGATE. Available at: www.lifegate.com (accessed 27 January 2020).

26.

Diara

Nche

(2013) Theology of climate change mitigation and adaptation: the Place of the church. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 2(13): 85. Available at: http://www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/ajis/article/view/2304

27.

Dixon

Keyes

(2013, Winter). The permanent disruption of social media. Stanford Social Innovation Review 11(1): 24–29.

28.

Donovan

(n.d). How the church is tackling climate change on the ground? Catholic social teaching: faith in a better world. Available at: www.catholicsocialteaching.org.uk (accessed 27 January 2020).

29.

Dowd

Hayhoe

(2015) Michael Dowd interview of Katharine Hayhoe. Available at: https://www.entheos.com/The-Future-is-Calling-Us-to-Greatness/entheos

30.

ECI (2006) Climate change: an evangelical call to action. the evangelical climate initiative. Available at http://www.npr.org/documents/2006/feb/evangelical/calltoaction.pdf (accessed 22 March 2020).

31.

Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) (2019) News release: U.N. climate negotiations conclude with mixed results: U.S. sub-national action provides glimmer of hope. Available at: alaporte@eesi.org (accessed 25 January 2020).

32.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (2016) The state of food and agriculture: climate change, agriculture and food security. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome.

33.

Fromming

Reichel

(2012) Vulnerable coastal regions: indigenous people under climate change. In: Gerten

Bergmann

(eds) Religion in Environmental and Climate Change. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 215–235.

34.

Garrett

(2015) My Church is Not Dying: Episcopalian in the 21st century. New York: Morehouse Publishing.

35.

Gerten

(2010) Adapting to climatic and hydrologic change: variegated function of religion. In: Bergmann

Gerten

(eds) Religion and Dangerous Environmental Change: A Transdisciplinary Perspective. LIT, 39–56.

36.

Gladstone

(2014) Dogs in heaven? Pope Francis leaves pearly gates open. The New York Times, 12 December. A1, A. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com

37.

Gnanakan

(1999) God’s World: A Theology of the Environment. Britain: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Goldsmith

Eimicke

Pineda

(2006) Faith-based organizations versus their secular counterparts: a primer for local officials. Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

39.

Greco

(2019) What’s wrong with the way we communicate climate change? Environmental and Energy Study Institute. Available at: https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/whats-wrong-with-the-way-we-communicate-climate-change (accessed 10 March 2020).

40.

Hand

Van Liere

(1984) Religion, mastery-over-nature, and environmental concern. Social Forces 63(2): 555–570.

41.

Hayhoe

(2015) Science and faith can solve climate change together: moral conviction, backed by facts, could finally inspire global action. Scientific American. Available at: www.scientificamerican.com (accessed 25 January 2020).

42.

Heikkinen

(2018) Climate wire: Christianity is not getting greener: U.S. Christians’ concerns about the environment have not shifted much in the past two decades. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/christianity-is-not-getting-greener1/ (accessed 23 February 2020).

43.

Hendricks

(2017) Communicating climate change: focus on the framing, not just the facts. TheConversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com (accessed 20 January 2020).

44.

Hendrickx

Nicolay

(2004) Temporal discounting and environmental risks: the role of ethical and loss-related concerns. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(4): 409–422.

45.

Herrick

(2004) An introduction to Christian belief: a layman's guide: eschatology: end times. Available at: https://bible.org/seriespage/eschatology-end-times (accessed 20 February 2020).

46.

Hickman

(2011) The US evangelicals who believe environmentalism is a ‘native evil’: the Cornwall Alliance, a prominent group of religious thinkers in the US, explains why it urges followers to 'resist the Green Dragon'. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/may/05/evangelical-christian-environmentalism-green-dragon (accessed 23 February 2020).

47.

Hiers

(1984) Ecology, biblical theology, and methodology: biblical perspectives on the environment. Zygon 19(1): 43–59.

48.

Hope

ALB

Jones

(2014) The impact of religious faith on attitudes to environmental issues and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies: a mixed methods study. Technology in Society 38: 48–59.

49.

Interfaith Power & Light. (2015) 17 Anglican bishops from all six continents have call for urgent prayer and actions on the “unprecedented” climate crisis. Interfaith Power and Light. Available at: www.interfaithpowerandlight.org (accessed 13 November 2017).

50.

Jelen

Wilcox

Smidt

(1990) Biblical literalism and inerrancy: a methodological investigation. Sociological Analysis 51(3): 307–313.

51.

Kaplan

(2010) Will religions guide us on our dangerous journey? In: Moore

Nelson

(eds) Moral Ground: Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril. San Antonio: Trinity University Press.

52.

Kearns

(2007) Cooking the truth: faith, science, the market and global warming. In: Kearns

Keller

(eds) Ecospirit: Religions and Philosophies for the Earth. New York: Fordham University Press, 97–124.

53.

Knox

Hess

Daccache

, et al. (2012) Climate change impacts on crop productivity in Africa and South Asia. Environmental Research Letters 7(3): 1–8. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034032

54.

Konisky

(2018) The greening of Christianity? A study of environmental attitudes over time. Environmental Politics 27(2): 267–291.

55.

Lacetera

Macis

Mele

(2016) Viral altruism? Charitable giving and social contagion in online networks. Sociological Science 3(11): 202–238.

56.

Landes

(2016) Eschatology. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/eschatology (accessed 20 February 2020).

57.

Lestar

Böhm

(2020) Ecospirituality and sustainability transitions: agency towards degrowth. Religion, State and Society 48(1): 56–73.

58.

Shon

Zhang

(2020) Understanding the dissolution of nonprofit organizations: a financial management perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 49(1): 29–52.

59.

Marshall

(2014) Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains are Wired to Ignore Climate Change. New York: Bloomsbury.

60.

Mastaler

(2014) The role of Christian ethics, religious leaders, and people of faith at a time of ecological and climate crisis. New Theology Rev 26(2): 43–48.

61.

Mayer

Smith

(2019) Unstoppable climate change? The influence of fatalistic beliefs about climate change on behavioural change and willingness to pay cross-nationally. Climate Policy 19(4): 511–523. DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2018.1532872

62.

Millais

(ed.) (2006) Common Belief: Australia’s Faith Communities on Climate Change. Sydney: Climate Institute.

63.

Mooney

(2015) New study reaffirms the link between conservative religious faith and climate change doubt. The Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com (accessed 10 March 2020).

64.

Moore

Nelson

(2010) Introduction. In: Moore

Nelson

(eds) Moral Ground: Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, xv–xxix.

65.

Morrison

Duncan

Parton

(2015) Religion does matter for climate change attitudes and behavior. PLoS ONE 10(8): e0134868. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134868

66.

Moser

(2016) Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 7(3): 345–369.

67.

Nash

(1991) Loving Nature: Ecological Integrity and Christian Responsibility. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

68.

Nasr

(1967) Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis in Modern Man. Chicago: Kazi Publishers.

69.

Nazworth

(2012) Evangelicals and climate change: global warming activists. Pt. 2. The Christian Post, June 7. Available at: http://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-and-climate-change-globalwarming-activists-pt-2-75939/ (accessed 2 March 2020).

70.

Nche

(2012a) Challenges of climate change: the role of Christian religious leaders. J Educ Soc Res 2(10): 73–80.

71.

Nche

(2012b) Challenges of eco-sustainability campaign and environmentalism in Nigeria: the way forward. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 3(13): 165–173.

72.

Nche

(2020a) Beyond spiritual focus: climate change awareness, role perception and action among church leaders in Nigeria. Weather Climate & Society 12(1): 149–169.

73.

Nche

(2020b) The religion-environment (climate change) connection: evidence from Nigeria. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture and Ecology 24(1): 81–115.

74.

Nche

Achunike

Okoli

, et al. (2017) Challenges of climate change and the culpability of churches: towards an effective church climate change action in Nigeria. Missionalia 45(2): 168–187. https://doi.org/10.7832/45-2-183

75.

Neff

Hoppe

(1993) Race/ethnicity, acculturation, and psychological distress: Fatalism and religiosity as cultural resources. Journal of Community Psychology 21(1): 3–20.

76.

Ojomo

Elliot

Amjad

, et al. (2015) Climate change preparedness: a knowledge and attitudes study in southern Nigeria. Environments 2: 435–448.

77.

Pepper

Powell

(2013a) Environmental activities in local churches. NCLS Research Occasional Paper 20.

78.

Pepper

Powell

(2013b) Senior local church leaders’ environmental views and actions. NCLS Research Occasional Paper 21, 7 pp.

79.

Piao

Ciais

Huang

, et al. (2010) The impacts of climate change on water resources and agriculture in China. Nature 467: 43–51. DOI: 10.1038/nature09364

80.

Pope Francis

(2015) Laudato Si’: Encyclical Letter of the Holy Father Francis on Care for Our Common Home. Nairobi: Paulines Publications Africa.

81.

Posas

(2007) Roles of religion and ethics in addressing climate change. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 31–49. DOI: 10.3354/esep00080

82.

Powe

Johnson

(1995) Fatalism as a barrier to cancer screening among African-Americans: philosophical perspectives. Journal of Religion and Health 34(2): 119–126.

83.

Rice

(2002) Fatalism. In: Zalta

(ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/

84.

Romm

(2016) Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press.

85.

Ronan

(2017) Religion and the environment: twenty-First century American Evangelicalism and the Anthropocene. Humanities 6(92): 1–15.

86.

Roser-Renouf

Maibach

Leiserowitz

, et al. (2016) Faith, morality and the environment: portraits of global warming’s six Americas. Yale University Program on Climate Change Communication and George. Mason University, New Haven, CT. Available at: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/faithmorality-environment/

87.

Rosenau

(2015) Evolution, the Environment, and Religion. Oakland, CA: National Center for Science Education. Available at: http://ncse.com/blog/2015/05/evolution-environment-religion0016359.

88.

Ross

(2020) Edmonds Church looks to bridge gap between climate change and religion. KiroRadio. Available at: https://mynorthweststaff.com (accessed 27 January 2020).

89.

Routhe

(2013) Religion’s Influence on environmental concern: U.S. evangelicals’ construction of climate change perception. PhD Thesis, University of Tennessee.

90.

Rudd

(2015) Paris can’t be another Copenhagen. New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/opinion/kevin-rudd-paris-cant-be-anothercopenhagen.html (accessed 10 February 2020).

91.

Saxton

Wang

(2014) The social network effect: the determinants of giving through social media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(5): 850–868.

92.

Schlenker

Lobell

(2010) Robust negative impacts of climate change on African agriculture. Environmental Research Letters 5(1): 1–8. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014010

93.

Schuman

Dokken

van Niekerk

, et al. (2018) Religious beliefs and climate change adaptation: a study of three rural South African communities. Jamba (Potchefstroom, South Africa) 10(1): 509. DOI: 10.4102/jamba.v10i1.509

94.

Shehu

(2015) Religion and the environment in Northeast Nigeria: Dominion, stewardship, fatalism and agency. PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield.

95.

Shehu

Molyneux-Hodgson

(2014) Faith communities and environmental degradation in northeast Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental Sustainability 10(1): 27–40.

96.

Sherkat

Ellison

(2007) Structuring the religion-environment connection: identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46(1): 71–85.

97.

Sherwood

(2020) Church of England could stop heating cathedrals to hit 2045 emissions target: general Synod to debate motion that could radically change energy use in church buildings. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/ (accessed 20 February 2020).

98.

Silvestre

(2016) Karma theory, determinism, fatalism and freedom of will. Logica Universalis 11(1): 35–60.

99.

Slovic

Västfjäll

Erlandsson

, et al. (2017) Iconic photographs and the ebb and flow of empathic response to humanitarian disasters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(4): 640–644.

100.

Spencer

Driessen

Beisner

(2005) An Examination of the Scientific, Ethical and Theological Implications of Climate Change Policy. Burke: Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. Available at: http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/an-examination-of-the-scientific-ethical-and-theologicalimplications-of-climate-change-policy.pdf (accessed 22 February 2020).

101.

Stehr

Grundmann

(2012) How does knowledge relate to political action? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 25(1): 29–44.

102.

Stern

Kaufmann

(2014) Anthropogenic and natural causes of climate change. Climate Change 122: 257–269.

103.

Stults

(2006) Religious groups becoming a factor in climate policy debate, 24 Feb 2006. Climate Institute.

104.

Sultan

(2012) Global warming threatens agricultural productivity in Africa and South Asia. Environmental Research Letters 7(4): 1–31. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/041001

105.

Swoboda

(ed.) (2014) Blood Cries Out: Pentecostals, Ecology, and the Groans of Creation. Eugene, OR: Pickwick.

106.

Swoboda

(2011) Tongues and trees: towards a green Pentecostal pneumatology. PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham.

107.

Sydnor

(2016) Christ was not an Inerrantist, so Christians should not be either: how Jesus read his bible. Open Theology 2(1): 744–758.

108.

Taylor

(2010) Dark Green Religion: Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

109.

Taylor

Van Wieren

Zaleha

(2016a) The greening of religion hypothesis (Part Two): assessing the data from Lynn White, Jr, to Pope Francis. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture 10(3): 306–378.

110.

Taylor

Van Wieren

Zaleha

(2016b) Lynn White Jr. and the greening-of-religion hypothesis. Conservation Biology 30(5): 1000–1009.

111.

The Cape Town Commitment (2011) A confession of faith and a call to action. Available at: www.lausanne.org (accessed 26 January 2020).

112.

The Church of England (n.d). The environment and climate change. Available at: www.churchofengland.org (accessed 27 January 2020).

113.

The Episcopal Church, The Public Affairs Office (2019) Episcopal Church, the Evanagelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Church of Sweden (Lutheran) renew commitment to “join in the care of creation”. Available at: https://episcopalchurch.org (accessed 27 January 2020).

114.

The National Religious Coalition on Creation Care (NRCCC) (2014) Religious declaration of unprecedented human emergency. Available at: http://nrccc.org (accessed 27 January 2020).

115.

The South African Council of Churches (2009) Climate Change – A Challenge to the Churches in South Africa. Stellenbosch: SUN Media.

116.

Tarakeshwar

Swank

Pargament

, et al. (2001) The sanctification of nature and theological conservatism: a study of opposing religious correlates of environmentalism. Review of Religious Research 42(4): 387–404, https://doi.org/10.2307/3512131.

117.

Tomkins

(2011) How biblical literalism took root. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/21/biblical-literalism-biblechristians (accessed 11 March 2020).

118.

Tucker

Grim

(2001) The emerging alliance of world religions and ecology. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 130(4): 1–22.

119.

Tucker

(2003) Worldly wonder: religions enter their ecological phase. Open Court, Chicago.

120.

Tutu

(2014a) We need an apartheid-style boycott to save the planet. The Guardian. Available at: www.theguardian.com (accessed 22 February 2020).

121.

Tutu

(2014b) Desmond Tutu: We fought apartheid. Now climate change is our global enemy. The Guardian. Available at: www.theguardian.com (accessed 22 February 2020).

122.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2019) Emissions gap report 2019. Available at: www.unenvironemnt.org (accessed 20 January 2020)

123.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011) Fact Sheet: climate change science-the status of climate change science today. Available at: https://unfccc.int (accessed 9 March 2020).

124.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2016) Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.epa.gov (accessed 04 January 2017).

125.

Wilkinson

(2012) Between God and Green: How Evangelicals are Cultivating a Middle Ground on Climate Change. Oxford University Press.

126.

Winkler

(2020) Global emissions are way off target: what needs to happen. The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com (accessed 22 February 2020).

127.

Wood

(2018) Theology as History and Hermeneutics: A Post-Critical Conversation with Contemporary Theology. Lexington, USA: Emeth Press.

128.

World Council of Churches (WCC) (2014) Interfaith statement on climate change: climate, faith and hope: Faith traditions together for a common future. Available at: www.oikoumene.org (accessed 27 January 2020).

129.

World Health Organisation (WHO) (2008) Climate change and health, South-East Asian Advisory Committee Meeting (ACM), 1/7, 2(Rev.1), viewed 20 July 2016, Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/126809/1/SEA_ACM_Meet.%201_7.2%20%28Rev.1%29.pdf

130.

Xie

Fowler-Dawson

Tvauri

(2019) Revealing the relationship between rational fatalism and the online privacy paradox. Behaviour & Information Technology 38(7): 742–759.

131.

Yohannes

(2016) A review on relationship between climate change and agriculture. Journal of Earth Science & Climate Change 7(2): 335.

132.

Zaleha

Szasz

(2014) Keep Christianity brown! Climate denial on the Christian right in the United States: In: Szasz

Haluza-Delay (eds) How the World’s Religions Are Responding to Climate Change: Social Scientific Investigations. London, New York: Routledge, pp. 209–228. DOI: 10.1177/0096340215599789

133.

Zaleha

Szasz

(2015) Why conservative Christians don’t believe in climate change. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(5): 19–30.