Science and faith may be a good combination when dealing with environmental problems, and also as part of the message broadcasted by our lifestyle.
Science focuses on finding facts and explanations but often remains at a theoretical level. At least in the sense that knowing some facts or explanations do not necessarily change your actions.
Faith is not just knowing something you believe, it includes the idea of living according to what you believe. If you ‘believe’ in something but the belief does not become visible in your life and actions, we can suspect that the so called ‘faith’ is dead.
If a person has faith and knowledge obtained by the inspection of Gods’ world (science), knowing transforms into actions and lifestyle. If it does not, there is a need to think where the problem is.
Does the person have wrong information (misleading teaching, differing opinions about the relative importance of various needs)?
Is there some kind of gap between knowledge and faith, so that knowledge is not connected to faith?
Are there ‘two masters’ in the play, in the sense that actions are guided by another motive than faith in God?
Is the so called ‘faith’ dead?
What do you think about this reasoning and the alternatives?
Yes, I think that faith must lead to action, as described in James 2. And yes, science will be essential to our efforts to deal with damage we have caused to the environment. But knowledge without actions coming from faith is not enough.
It would be great to see the church leading the way on environmental stewardship, and I do see some churches trying to do this. But sadly not others.
It seems to me that the good news of Jesus Christ is much more easily accepted when people are helped with environmental stewardship so they can live sustainably from the land or sea. Conversely, when the gospel is brought with policies that degrade or destroy the environment, it doesn’t seem like such good news.
I read a local newspaper (in SW Finland) this morning and there was a short story about farmers in Fulton, Missouri. The topic was fight against solar plants. Solar plants cover large areas of land so they are visible elements. Two reasons for the opposition were given in the story: the scenery would change much, and the identity of the farmers would break. Those opposing gave the first reason, a researcher told the second one. The possibility to rent lands to solar plants has been economically tempting because the profit of the farmer may increase much as the promised yearly rent is 1000 $ per acre, with a 2% yearly increase.
What connected that story to religion was that those opposing the solar plant rely on the group force of similarly thinking people in a Babtist church. The impression given was that saving the old American life style and the identity of old-fashioned farmers was more important than getting new carbon-free energy. The readers of the local newspaper are secular people and many are concerned about climate change. This kind of news give to those people the impression that again a Christian group is against actions to fight climate change.
This kind of news are not positive evangelism, although the worries that wide solar plants cover agricultural landscapes are real. In our northern climate, it has been estimated that for each MW the plant can produce, the panels will cover a hectare of land. In our environment, a 100 MW solar power plant covers 100 ha (one km2) which is a problem. For the readers that are not experts, the apparent message was not that the wide areas demanded by solar plants are a problem, the problem was those against the solar power and supported by people in a Baptist church. Stubborn Americans and believers again…
It will take much work before environmental evangelism breaks through in this kind of cultures.
One in eight – that’s the number I remember from sociology class that it takes to change the behavior of large institutions, one in eight people demanding things be different.
It actually took less than that to change the behavior of many U.S. corporations doing business in China.
I was just wondering yesterday if such a thing exists!
Though my reason had to do with my conservation work, specifically dune-building: I’ve learned that burying dog waste along with grass clippings (those provide helpful bacteria) a few feet from a clump of the European beach grass here can result in an increase of the size of that clump of beach grass of 500% over the course of Spring, and over the summer that clump will also send out runners that sprout up into new beach grass clumps in four directions (it always fascinates me that the runners go out at right angles to each other). So compostable dog waste bags could really boost dune growth and thus beach stabilization.
There’s a fair-sized town near that I almost moved to that composts all its solid human waste. People have been trying to get them to take animal waste as well, but so far they’ve been studying the matter for about eight years. Part of the issue is making sure the intake stream is all compostable.
Fulton has the right climate for farmers to have it both ways: there are crops that can be grown in the shade of solar arrays; some thrive with the shade, others tolerate it. A number of those can have two crops a year in Missouri.
The church should offer its roof as a spot for solar power, including roofing over its parking area, and ask other churches to do the same. That would constitute two actions fighting climate change: generating solar power, and changing the reflectivity of their facilities.