He has been a co-chair of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Scientific Assessment Panel, and played a critical role in pioneering much of the now established knowledge on the state of the climate. He has contributed to research and public policy in the UK and the United Nations. Prior to his role with the IPCC, he was Office Director General of the British Meteorology Office (MET).

Today, Sir Houghton is the President of the John Ray Initiative, a charity that links the environment, science and Christianity, and is also a vice-president of Christians in Science. For the full story, you can read his autobiography, In the Eye of the Storm.

Sir Houghton is a prolific writer and has given a great deal of his time to writing and speaking on the causes and effect of our changing climate. He has also written widely on Christianity and the environment, and many of his published works speak to the heart of the science and religion debate. For Sir Houghton, it has never been a question of one or the other, but rather he uses one to understand the other and vice versa.

For example, he connects the fundamentals of a relationship with God in the act of prayer, with the science of climate and weather forecasting.

Prayer is a very important Christian activity because it is the way that you keep in touch with God, which is obviously a very important thing to do. People often asked me when I was in the MET office, ‘How about praying for weather? Can we pray for sunshine or rain?’  My answer to that has always been of course we can pray, because God wants us to ask him for things and He wants to know our needs.

Then people would say ‘Then doesn’t that mean that you don’t really believe that the science is all important in determining the weather if God can tweak it a little?’ And I’d say no, I think the science is entirely right, we should keep on with the science, because the science is telling us how God does it.

But we can also go to God and tell him our needs as well, and God is clever enough to take both into account. This is because the laws of nature are, after all, God’s laws. He made them, and as far as we can see He by-and-large abides by them, and that is the way that he does it. Because that’s all they are, they are His laws. If God is someone who works according to His laws and listens to our prayers at the same time, there should be no conflict between the science story and the Christian belief story, because the belief story tells us that God is in control of not just the scientific part, but that he is also very interested in the actions of free human beings.

He is equally passionate about Christians (and all people) responding to the challenge of climate change.

The warning is now urgent. The science is now robust, time is moving on, and humankind is responding far too slowly. God has granted us stewardship of this planet. It is a creation full of wonder and we must do everything in our power to keep it so.

It’s a wonderful vision of people of faith trusting in and calling on God as they take action to care for God’s creation. We are thankful for Sir John’s work in exploring the physical science behind the climate system and his advocacy for prayer-filled action to respond to climate change. By making a commitment to pray about and take action on climate change and for those affected by it, we’re asking God to make partners of us in His work of protecting and preserving His world.

About the author: Erin-Lea Brown is an Honours Student at the University of Wollongong

The Seminary Stewardship Alliance (SSA) recognises this. The SSA is a group of seminaries and bible colleges dedicated to reconnecting Christians with the biblical call to care for God’s creation. Their aim is to equip member seminaries and bible colleges so that they can teach, preach, live, inspire and hold each other accountable for good stewardship practices. The vision is to equip future pastors to lead their churches in caring for God’s creation.

The SSA works in a number of ways. It helps seminaries to implement sustainable practices by assisting them in developing creation care teams and carrying out environmental audits, as well as providing them with models of good stewardship practices. It works at advancing teaching in creation care by gathering resources, research, and scholars, developing creation care courses, and providing research grants. It encourages dialogue within and between seminaries through a leadership program, forums, and connection with other institutions.

The SSA started in the USA but a number of colleges in Australia have now also jumped on board. The first to join was Tabor Adelaide, and since joining the SSA in 2013many changes have already taken place. They have set up a sustainability committee, developed a sustainability policy, installed 102 solar panels, reduced their waste, improved energy efficiency and recycling practices.

Tabor Adelaide also hosted an art exhibition featuring artwork inspired by creation care and will be hosting an international conference on creation care in 2015.

Rev. Dr. Graham Buxton from Tabor Adelaide says he thinks institutions need to help people understand how important creation care is and how important it is they get involved:

The gospel is all about physicality. It’s about living in God’s good creation. I hope that we can help churches to understand the riches and the scope of the gospel. That it means living out God’s life in God’s good creation and making it real in all that we do, and all that we are.

Whether as individuals or as institutions, the gospel should shape our lives in every aspect. God instructs us to look after His creation and to also love our neighbours, many of whom are suffering from the effects of environmental degradation and climate change. Faithful and creative stewardship is part of that. As part of God’s church, we are part of God’s story and have an amazing privilege in partnering with God as we look towards the final achievement of His kingdom in all creation. And on the road to that destination, we have to walk in active love. 1 John 3:18 says “Little children, we must not love with word or speech, but with truth and action.”

The Seminary Stewardship Alliance challenges bible colleges to love God’s creation not only in words but also in action. It’s a challenge, too, for all of us to live out the gospel in all that we do and put it the centre of all that we are.

So the idea that climate change might cause planet-wide disruption and harm many of God’s creatures might seem to threaten these ideas about God’s faithfulness and blessing. Surely, we ask, God will act before things get too bad.

But at the same time, we recognise that many people do not experience blessings of health and material prosperity, security or freedom. Through no fault of their own more than a billion people live in conditions of excruciating poverty, denied their rights, opportunity and hope. Things are already bad for many people, and climate change is making things worse.

Just as I – a white Australian with material prosperity and a world of opportunity – did not deserve to be born into privilege  so, too, nobody deserves to be born into violence or oppression or poverty. This is God’s world, but poverty, violence and oppression are not God’s will.

For this reason, I am not permitted to hoard my blessings and defend my privilege nor am I allowed to ignore or rationalise away the violence, oppression and poverty experienced by so many others who are made in God’s image.

God, in fact, works by His Spirit to overturn human greed and self-centredness so that “the one who has much” does not have too much and “the one who has little” does not have too little (2 Corinthians 8:13–15). Every blessing from God is given so that we can “share abundantly in every good work” (2 Corinthians 9:8).

My concern is that when Christians say that God won’t let climate change get too bad, that He will act somehow to protect us from our actions, to preserve our material comfort, our livelihoods and even our lives, we are justifying (instead of sharing) our privilege and wealth and ignoring or rationalising away the very real risks and harms that climate change is causing for the poorest people and will increasingly cause for everybody.

I worry that we have become like the priests and prophets of Jeremiah’s day, who proclaimed “peace, peace, where there is no peace” (Jeremiah 6:14). Proclaiming God’s blessing while ignoring the disaster that was about to strike the land.

Paul – the apostle of grace – knew that there was no room for this kind of complacency in the Christian life. Secure in the knowledge that nothing can “separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:35–38), he still understood that believers will face terrible, even deadly traumas, not just on a personal level but traumas that threaten cities and even civilisations: “hardship, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, sword…” (Romans 8:35). God has not taken away those terrible, life-threatening blights.

So what is a truly Christian response in the face of suffering and harm? If we are part of the problem – as we are in the case of climate change – we must repent and change. “Love does no wrong to a neighbour” (Romans 13:10). We must also stand with those who suffer, even at risk and cost to ourselves.

Rodney Stark in his book, The Rise of Christianity, tells a fascinating story of Christian love and sacrificial commitment in the early days of the movement. In 165 AD an epidemic spread across the Roman Empire, killing perhaps one-third of the population in just 15 years. A similar outbreak of disease ravaged the Empire in 251 AD. In the midst of this, Christians did not flee the cities or abandon the sick, but rather exposed themselves to disease and death to care for those who were suffering. Alexandrian bishop, Dionysus, described the response of Christians who risked their lives to care for the sick and suffering:

Most of our brother Christians showed unbounded love and loy­alty, never sparing themselves and thinking only of one another. Heedless of danger, they took charge of the sick, attending to their every need and ministering to them in Christ, and with them departed this life serenely happy; for they were infected by others with the disease, drawing on themselves the sickness of their neighbours and cheerfully accepting their pains. Many, in nursing and curing others, transferred their death to themselves and died in their stead… The best of our brothers lost their lives in this manner, a number of presbyters, deacons, and lay­ men winning high commendation so that death in this form, the result of great piety and strong faith, seems in every way the equal of martyrdom.

Stark argues that the self-sacrificing love of Christians (both men and women, despite Dionysus’ language which reflects the sexist assumptions of his time) made a huge contribution to the progress of Christianity in the Roman Empire – as people saw the hope that Christians had, experienced the love that they shared, and were drawn to the God they worshipped.

Ultimately, we don’t know how bad things will get in response to global warming, though we have good reason to be concerned. The most informed evidence suggests that we are on a path to a difficult and dangerous future in which the survival of many of God’s people and creatures are threatened. Various tipping points may bring disruptive climate change on us faster than we can prepare for. The poorest and most vulnerable people suffer earliest and worst.

What we know for sure, though, is what a truly Christ-like response to climate change looks like. It is good to pray that God will act to heal the hurting, to save the vulnerable, and to convict the powerful. It is right to pray, but we still need to act in other ways too.

A truly Christ-like response to climate change will exhibit the same courage and grace shown by those early Christians in the plague-struck Roman Empire. Where people are suffering the effects of climate change, Christians will be there at the front-line – supporting communities and helping the hurting. We will support Australians whose homes have been destroyed or damaged in more frequent and severe bushfires, Pacific Islanders whose fresh water and land are being submerged beneath rising seas, and nomadic herders of Niger whose lives are put at risk by increasingly severe droughts.

We will also faithfully and courageously tackle the causes of climate change – reducing emissions, supporting renewable energy, seeking to live with more simplicity and sharing, addressing the denial and delay which we are all prone to.

We will do this because, secure in Christ’s love, we are blessed and empowered to share and show that same love.

Other posts in our Climate Theology FAQs series include:

Word of God vs. Word of Scientists?
Does God’s sovereignty mean human beings can’t change the climate
Is it sinful pride to say human beings are changing the climate?
Why care for creation if God is going to destroy it?
Didn’t God promise not to destroy the world?
Should we act when climate science seems uncertain?

About the author: Ben Thurley is coordinator of Hope for Creation.

Shouldn’t we wait until everything seems completely clear before acting?

How do you make decisions? If you are married, what led you to decide if he or she was “the one”? Do you look at all of the specs before buying a new car, reading Choice, Royal Auto and the car section of the newspaper? In most of life, we tend to make decisions that are under-supported by the evidence we have. We make the best decision we can, follow our gut, guestimate.

Sometimes this is enough. Sometimes we are wrong and the consequences are small. At other times they can be fatal.

When we are considering massively re-tooling our economy to replace coal and other fossil fuels we want to be certain it is worth the investment in time, energy and money. Why change if you don’t have to? What’s wrong with business as usual?

This attitude and these questions seem entirely reasonable. They are also related to an important aspect of human psychology. We feel the pain of loss much more acutely than we feel the pleasure of gain. We are, in the jargon of psychologists and economists, “loss averse.” So “risking” our economic growth, our material comforts, our dominant energy sources and our ability to keep emitting greenhouse gases with a clear conscience feels like a big gamble, one that many people are not inclined to take.

Sometimes you will hear that “the science is unsettled”, and hence we shouldn’t act on climate change just yet until we know more. Funny though, what is considered unsettled in certain sections of the media is almost completely settled in the climate science world. There have been a couple of published studies looking at the scientific consensus that humans are warming the planet and changing the climate. One by historian of science Naomi Oreskes (see her brilliant Ted talk on why we should trust the science) found that out of 928 published peer-reviewed abstracts, not one rejected the consensus position. A more recent study examined looked at over 12,000 published peer-reviewed abstracts and found that 97% agreed with the consensus.

The basic science of greenhouse gases is over 150 years old and founded on some very fundamental physics. Direct observations since the late 1950s have shown greenhouse gas concentrations are rising. A multitude of different observations demonstrate the planet is warming. Only when the computer models take human-caused greenhouse gases into account (as well as natural drivers of warming and cooling) are they able to correctly reproduce global temperatures over the past century.

The basics are very clear. The world is getting hotter. Humans are the dominant cause. And the consequences will, largely, be negative. There are some details which may still be uncertain – how much, how quickly, and how widespread various impacts will be felt – but even this uncertainty doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t act. Due to the risk of triggering various tipping points or feedback loops which rapidly accelerate warming, we should be acting even more urgently, rather than using uncertainty as an excuse to delay.

One way to overcome our “loss aversion” is to focus on what we gain by taking urgent and ambitious action to cut greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change. Climate action as an investment in a better world.

If we fail to act and the world warms by 4° C or more, coastal cities will be inundated by rises of at least one metre and probably more over time. Pacific Island nations disappear. Southeastern Australia continues to dry. The Great Barrier Reef is lost. Global crop yields decline. Glaciers melt and deny hundreds of millions of people valuable water. And people die.

In light of this, Christians cannot stand on the sidelines or fall back on “uncertainty.” Love does no harm to a neighbour (Romans 13:10)!

Acting to tackle climate change means investing in a world that is more just and sustainable for all. Where energy is not in the hands of a few powerful and wealthy companies, but of ordinary people. In which new jobs and businesses are created to build and service clean energy and transport systems. It means investing in a world where millions of people aren’t harmed or die prematurely because of coal pollution. It means keeping water for drinking and farming uncontaminated by fracking. It means protecting the forests that clean our air and water, help regulate the local climate, and are home to abundant plant varieties and wildlife. No longer will our oceans and coasts suffer massive oil spills which destroy fisheries and eco-tourism. It will be a world in which we are forced to become less wasteful and more conscious of what we consume. In which people become more connected with God’s creation.

Many of these benefits come regardless of our opinion about climate change – they come simply as we move away from fossil fuels and invest in renewable energy, sustainable food production, healthier communities and the protection and nurture of God’s creation. We might not know exactly what paths we will need to take to achieve this more sustainable and just world, but we know enough to know that starting the journey is necessary and urgent. Like Abraham, Christians can step out in faith – trusting that God will lead us as we travel on a path to a world more in line with God’s heart.

The fact of the matter is, the consensus about climate change is strong, the threat is real, the cause is human idolatry, sin and hubris, and we need to act now. For a Christian, acting on climate change is an act of repentance and faith, hoping to save lives and God’s good creation. It’s not a lack of faith in God; it’s an expression of our faithfulness.

About the author: Mick Pope is a lecturer in meteorology and climate and works as contributor and editor with Ethos: EA Centre for Christianity and Society.

In Genesis 1, we read an account of how God created order out of a watery chaos. As scholars such as John Walton and Peter Enns have pointed out, we have an account that breathes the same air as other Ancient Near Eastern creation stories, but with none of the pagan overtones. There may be effort, but there are no great battle scenes or struggles with other gods so typical of these stories in other Ancient Near Eastern cultures.

The implication of this is that we are free to learn theology from the creation account – the God of Israel alone exists and created everything that is. But we don’t need to be concerned to justify the ancient ‘science’. It’s not a science textbook and doesn’t aim to be a how-to guide to creating a universe (just as a science textbook isn’t the Bible and doesn’t aim to share life-saving stories about God’s involvement with His world.) So let’s read the story as it stands and see what we can learn from it.

Genesis 1 teaches us there is a solid firmament between the waters above and waters below (verses 6-8). After separating waters from waters on day 2, the land is separated from the waters on day 3 (verses 9-10). On days 5 and 6, the sky, water and land are filled.

So when we read about the flood in Genesis 7, we see an act of uncreation, an undoing of all that God made. It is a return to chaos as the dry land disappears and the heavens flood the earth. What is noteworthy is that this act of uncreation is accompanied by salvation in form of the ark – salvation for both humans and non-humans. When we read about the destruction of the earth in 2 Peter 3, the parallel between the purification by fire and the purification by flood should be clear – God is not seeking complete destruction, but transformation.

Back to climate change; as the planet warms, sea water expands and ice and glaciers melt. Back some 40 million years ago, 5°C of warming meant around 70 metres of sea level rise above present levels. Such a rise would happen slowly; it must be remembered that sea level rise projections by the IPCC are for the end of the century. In a warmer world, ice sheets take a long time to melt. However, once the great ice-sheets and glaciers have begun to melt, there might be nothing that can be done to stop them disappearing entirely. This would be catastrophic for humanity, but the world itself would not be destroyed. It isn’t the same as the Genesis flood, but there are parallels.

What happened in the flood was that human sin had consequences in the non-human world; as Michael Northcott notes in his A Political Theology of Climate Change, there is a connection between nature and culture. How we live our lives has an impact because God lets us bear the consequences. In Romans 1:18-31, we read that humanity’s chief error is idolatry, and surely climate change should force us to recognise that modern people have their idols – greed, worship of Mammon and technology, nationalism, and a Baal-like worship of fossil fuels. The consequence of idolatry is being given over to sin, and its consequences. Climate change is therefore a judgment on our whole way of life.

This is not the same as God pressing the smite button, or to say that somehow climate change is good because it brings about God’s judgement.

There is a natural order that God has put in place, and transgressing it has its own consequences. For example, in a world before fertilisers, God instituted a Sabbath rest of the land, lest it become exhausted and collapse. Modern society knows little rest, and hence much exhaustion and imminent collapse.

So how does this work theologically? In Romans 8, Paul informs us that all things work together for the good of those who live him, but not that all things are good. Likewise, the story of Joseph shows how God can use evil, but not that evil is good. This is how God could use Assyria to judge Israel in Isaiah 10, yet because the Assyrians did not have God’s good purposes in mind, he could still judge them as well.

It is important to note, too, “God will destroy those who destroy the earth” (Rev 11:18). That’s how much He seeks to protect and preserve what He has made.

The sum of all of this is that human actions are unleashing climate chaos, and while it won’t utterly cover the earth as in the days of Noah, it is a sign to us. It is a sign of God’s judgment on human sin, human hubris, human idolatry and rejection of God’s ways of living more lightly on the earth. Yet as in the days of Jonah, repentance might yet avoid the worst of this judgement.

About the author: Mick Pope is a lecturer in meteorology and climate and works as contributor and editor with Ethos: EA Centre for Christianity and Society.

In some forms it is the “heaven when we die” point of view, that says that only the “spiritual” matters. Physical and earthly things are of no importance. This is a form of Gnosticism, an ancient heresy. Some Christians are functional Gnostics in saying that issues like creation care, justice and so on aren’t important – or certainly of no lasting significance compared to “sharing the gospel”. I’ll say more on that later.

Another form of destructionism is to recognise that there is a new heavens and earth, but to insist there is no continuity with the present earth. Yes, God will “make things new”, but only after destroying this world. This too is very wrong.

But even before we get to all of this, it’s worth asking, “So what if creation is to be destroyed?” Would that justify damaging it or allowing it to come to harm through inaction?

Imagine being given a goldfish by a grandparent. Does its short life mean that it isn’t worth caring for? Apart from its welfare (and fish do experience pain), what about the fact it is a gift from someone we love? Change goldfish to puppy and there is an extra element of responsibility and of relationship.

The creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 give us a sense of both the giftedness of creation to us, but more than that our responsibility – as made in the image of God – to represent God to the world and care for it. We share in its blessing with the animals, and so our subduing of the land for agriculture has its limits. So even if the world does have an end, that does not release us from our responsibilities until it does.

A close reading of Genesis 1 and Psalm 104 also show us that God has a great interest in what he has made. It is good, indeed with humans fulfilling their role it is very good. God is the God of biodiversity who delights in his creation (Ps 104:31). We also learn that creation has value for its own sake, and not just for ours. It has what ecologists call “existence rights” (e.g. Gen 1:20-22). Finally, creation reminds us of the vapid nature of our hubris; God is in charge and can tame creatures we in our weakness can only destroy (Job 38–39).

But it is clear that the earth has a future. Romans 8:19-23 makes it clear that the present groaning of the earth are its birth pains. Paul could see deforestation in Rome and the spread of malaria. The ancients were familiar with times of famine and land losing its productivity. The poet Horace claimed that “Your age, O Caesar, has restored plenteous crops to the fields”, yet Paul responds with a groaning creation that awaits its own Exodus from slavery to human misrule. Its future is tied in with that of the children of God at the resurrection. Just as Israel were given rules on how to care for their promised land, so the church should care for creation now. While we will never rule perfectly now, we will at the resurrection. Time to get in some practice.

Some might respond with 2 Peter 3 and ask, isn’t it all going to be burnt up? In answer to this, there are a few things to consider.

The first is the biblical use of apocalyptic, highly metaphorical language to describe momentous events. We see this in Mark 13, speaking of the destruction of the temple for example. Secondly, verse 10 of Peter 3 can read “burned up”, or “uncovered” or “discovered”. Regardless of the precise translation, the key for the passage is “the earth and its works”, and “a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (verse 13). The careful reader will harken back to 1 Peter 1:7 and the testing of faith by fire. This is the refining of Malachi, not the destructive fire of Greek Stoicism or so much dualistic Christian eschatology.

It’s also worth noting the comparison in 2 Peter 3 to the flood, something I’ll return to in another post. For now, it is clear that there is both discontinuity in an act of uncreation in the flood, and continuity of creatures and persons, but also the earth being uncovered from the waters in a new act of creation.

There are other passages we might consider, like Revelation 20–21 where the New Jerusalem descends to earth, or how the so-called rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4 really describes Christians ascending to greet Christ and then accompany him back to Earth.

The point of all this is: that which God declared very good in the beginning has a future in his plans. We are not at liberty to write creation off or ignore our responsibilities for it. Part of what it means to be made in God’s image, an image being renewed in Christ, is to be people who care for creation.

About the author: Mick Pope is a lecturer in meteorology and climate and works as contributor and editor with Ethos: EA Centre for Christianity and Society.

The point is so obvious that it scarcely requires making. From the first prohibition in Eden, through commands to individuals like Noah and Abraham… human responsibility is presupposed.

Of course, it is not only that human beings bear responsibility for our choices and actions, but also a question of whether we have the power to change the climate. Many people don’t invoke God to assert that humans can’t change the climate. They simply assert that human influence is insignificant compared to the supposed influence of unspecified “natural cycles”.

One American TV Anchor, Joe Kernen of CNBC, asserts that there is no way that “puny, gnawing little humans” could change the climate in “70 years”. Leaving aside the fact that there are no “natural cycles” that explain how the climate is changing without taking into account human activity, there’s definitely an implicit theology at work in Kernen’s view. Human beings are seen as tiny and insignificant in the grand scheme of things (compared to God or “natural cycles”). We are, according to Kernen, as puny and gnawing as insects. It almost sounds Biblical.

However, the evidence shows that it is realism, not arrogance, which says that human beings can change – and are changing! – the climate. In saying this, we are not usurping the place of God (or “natural cycles”). Rather, we are taking very seriously God’s creation mandate to human beings to “be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28).

Even tiny insects can have influence far beyond their size – as anyone who has ever had to deal with a termite infestation can attest. Given time and numbers, even the most puny, gnawing creature can have a big impact. How much more, then, in the case of human beings – who God has made just “a little lower than the angels” (Psalm 8:5)?

God has created human beings capable of wonders and terrors. We have landed people on the moon and sent spacecraft beyond the furthest limits of the solar system.

We have eliminated some diseases from the face of the earth and expanded food production to feed billions more people in just a few decades.

We have also created and used nuclear weapons and still retain more than enough of them to destroy life as we know it.

We have used all the powers of government, bureaucracy and industry to undertake mass slaughter and genocide – more than once.

Should it come as a surprise that we have been able to have leave our mark on the face of the planet? God has given human beings a mandate to fill and subdue the earth. Having “dominion” over creation – filling and subduing the earth – does not mean doing whatever we like and exploiting every last resource for our own benefit. The story of Adam and Eve’s disobedience makes clear that there are limits placed on human exploitation of the good gifts of creation and consequences for exceeding these limits.

However, we should not be surprised to find that we are fufilling God’s creation mandate for human beings. Human beings – all 7 billion of us, and counting – are filling and subduing, affecting land, atmosphere and oceans in unprecedented ways. Every part of the Earth bears some sign of human activity – from the highest mountain to the deepest ocean.

Equally, though, we should not be surprised to find that – since the Fall – this mandate no longer brings blessing for all creatures but rather difficulty and danger. Since the Fall, we no longer exercise our dominion in line with the loving and nurturing wisdom of God, but rather in line with the greed, exploitation and abuse of human sinfulness. We have cut down around half of all the mature tropical forest that existed around the world in 1950 and have hunted or “un-homed” whole species to extinction. We have burned billions of tonnes of coal, oil and gas to power cities, vehicles and industries – pumping extra heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as we do so.

Global warming and climate change is not simply “the will of God.” Nor is it the result of “natural cycles.” Rather, it is the result of fallen human beings abusing our God-given power and responsibility – harming ourselves and all of creation in the process. It is not arrogance to say that human beings can change the climate. It is arrogance to refuse to repent for doing so.

About the author: Ben Thurley is coordinator of Hope for Creation.

But this view does not preserve a space for God’s sovereignty; rather it diminishes it. It makes God smaller, not larger; weaker, not more powerful.

It does seems to make sense that if God is sovereign – truly in control – then the regular ordering of seasons and natural cycles, along with the wild extremities of weather and natural calamities, would be God’s to command. And maybe even God’s alone to control and influence.

The Bible abounds with images and examples of God controlling the vast “natural” forces of the earth – wind and wave, storm and flood, earthquake and tremor. It pictures God speaking creation into being (Genesis 1), commanding storm and wind (Psalm 104:4), and guaranteeing the regular ordering of “seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night” (Genesis 8:22). We see Jesus – with the power of the one through whom and for whom all things were created – cursing a fig tree and rebuking a storm.

Our God is the Lord of creation. The Scriptures say it everywhere and the people of God sing and shout it

Yet it doesn’t follow that God’s place as sovereign over creation is undermined or threatened if human beings are able to change the climate and are now doing so. God’s sovereignty does not mean that nothing and nobody else can affect or change the atmosphere and oceans – even on a massive scale.

Cordoning off parts of creation that only the existence of God can explain, or that only God can control, has a long – but not very distinguished – history in Christian thought. Christian thinkers who saw problems with this kind of thinking called it the “God of the gaps” view of the world.

On this view, gaps in our scientific knowledge are regarded as occasions for asserting the existence of God. It’s a simple and seemingly powerful line of argument. You pick a currently unexplained or poorly understood phenomenon, and assert, “Only the existence of God can explain it.” The trouble with this God-of-the-gaps is that he is constantly threatened and diminished by increases in human knowledge.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it this way in his Letters and Papers from Prison,

…how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat.

Just as the God-of-the-gaps is invoked to explain what human beings currently can’t explain, so too the God-of-the-climate-gaps is invoked to explain what human beings supposedly can’t influence or control. Only God, on this line of thinking, is large enough and powerful enough to change the climate. But rather than making God larger or more powerful, this view actually diminishes God. God’s sphere of sovereignty is reduced to what God alone knows that human beings don’t, and to what God alone controls or influences that human beings don’t.

One US Senator, James Inhofe, invoked the God-of-the-climate-gaps when he responded to a radio talkshow caller who stated, “I believe that the world is just changing like it usually does.” Inhofe replied, “I think he’s right. I think what he’s saying is God’s still up there. We’re going through these cycles.”

Inhofe is wrong about “these cycles.” Without the extra heat being contributed by humans burning fossil fuels, the sun’s activity along with the Earth’s orbit and tilt would all naturally be contributing to global cooling.

But he is more disturbingly wrong about God. God is not the explanation for things we don’t (currently) understand, nor the power behind things we don’t (currently) control. God is the cause and power of all things, who in His grace creates and gives all other causes and powers their contingent existence and strength (e.g. Psalm 82). God is the One in whom we, and all other creatures, “live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).

God’s sovereignty, wisdom, creativity and faithfulness don’t replace – and aren’t displaced by – human knowledge. Rather, they are the source of our knowledge and, indeed, our ability to know anything in the first place. God’s sovereignty, wisdom, creativity and faithfulness don’t replace – and aren’t displaced by – human activity and influence. Rather, they are the source of our human capacity and responsibility to use our knowledge and power in ways that are pleasing to Him

God’s sovereignty is not threatened by the dangerous planet-sized experiment we are currently undertaking – to burn fossil fuels and emit greenhouse gases at unprecedented speed and scale.

God’s sovereignty is not threatened by the risks and harms this radical experiment is causing and will increasingly cause to ourselves and to other creatures on His good earth.

God’s sovereignty is not threatened by these things. But we are.

About the author: Ben Thurley is coordinator of Hope for Creation.

Early this year the Catalyst group conducted a survey to establish how our church family related to different social justice issues in terms of being informed and actively involved. Over 60% of people who participated in the survey  expressed an interest in climate change and environmental justice and 67% of participants said they knew little or nothing about climate change. For that reason, the church decided to challenge itself to learn more and find ways to respond.

Ben Thurley, the Hope for Creation coordinator for Micah Challenge, preached at both the morning and evening services. His message was focused on the hospitality of God – in creation, and in care for the vulnerable and inclusion of the poor. He spoke from Genesis chapter 1 to highlight that creation is an act of God’s hospitality and linked it with the parable of the great banquet in Luke chapter 14 to emphasise that God’s heart and hospitality includes justice and inclusion for the poor and vulnerable. Seeking justice for the poor and caring for creation is not  an optional extra for Christian faith – it is central to our spiritual identity and purpose: “It is part of who we are.”

Ben spoke about the science of climate change and environmental degradation and how these are affecting the vulnerable and the poor – making hard lives even harder. We all need to think reflectively, theologically and critically about the choices we make every day and the direct impact of climate change on poor and vulnerable people throughout the world. As Christians and advocates for social justice we are called to reflect the image of our Creator.

We are called to worship a loving and hospitable God, to raise our voices prayerfully and powerfully by responding to the needs of others and following the example of Jesus to seek justice.

Christians have always been called to live in loving response to the hospitable and gracious God. In the 21st Century, our love for God and our love for our neighbours in the global village must take into account a disrupted climate and the human capacity to do both harm and good on a global scale.

About the author: Tanya Benton is a member of the Catalyst group at Baulkham Hills Baptist Church

In recent times, CBM Australia has been consulting on environmental issues with Self-Help Groups of people with disabilities and their families, together with other development organisations. In both Cambodia and India, the poor, rural people who generously gave us their time all described similar issues.

There are more extreme weather conditions, with longer periods of drought and very hot days. When the rains do come, they often come with very intense storms causing flooding, washing away crops, livestock and good farming soil, and destroying homes and infrastructure.

Clean water for drinking and washing is becoming scarce, with water tables dropping to very low levels, not seen in the lifetimes of the old people.

Many community members are being forced to move to ‘low income settlements’ in the cities, because their land is no longer productive.

Unfortunately the issues described by these Self-Help Groups of people with disabilities are similar to those occurring in many parts of the world. These changing weather patterns and extremes are consistent with observed climate change.

The Self-Help Groups also described many other environmental issues. People with disabilities and their communities lack toilet facilities, and this creates hardship and poor security especially for women and girls going out for toileting in the bush at night.  They also lack firewood and other fuels for cooking, and at night many families don’t have any form of lighting, meaning that children can’t do their homework and advance at school.

Through Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR) programs CBM Australia (and internationally) works with people with disabilities and their communities so they can access innovative farming and gardening programs, helping them adapt to climate change and improving their food security and incomes. They encourage advocacy aimed at improving access to clean water and safe toilet facilities, with hygiene activities. These activities also help in preventing diseases which lead to disability.

Responding to and reducing the risk of disasters is also an essential part of responding to climate change. CBM Australia works to ensure that people with disabilities are included in ‘disaster risk reduction’ activities, so that communities are better prepared for severe weather events.

At a global level, CBM Australia wants to ensure that people with disabilities are fully included in international programs seeking environmentally sustainable development. It is also seeking to be a good organisational steward of the world’s resources and has joined global efforts by many organisations, groups, communities and churches aimed at tackling climate change, and protecting and enhancing the beautiful environment we have been given.

We have a world with enough to meet the needs of all people for food, water, energy and a happy family life. Our shared challenge is to ensure that these gifts are shared, and that all people are included.

A version of this blog post originally appeared on CBM’s blog.