A tentative anatomy of Christian responses to anthropogenic climate change

Abstract

This pilot study addresses the differences in responses to anthropogenic climate change expressed in published normative statements for a cross section of Christian denominations and groupings from the UK and USA as well as international groupings. Grid-group cultural theory is tentatively employed to better understand these differences. Because the cosmologies identified by grid-group theory have as their basis the metaphor of the body, this is in effect a tentative anatomy of Christian responses to anthropogenic climate change. As a test case, this paper explores whether or not it is fruitful to attempt to challenge a given cosmological outlook to better communicate climate change and how this might be achieved or whether to speak to that cosmological perspective and how this might be achieved. In addition, this paper explores how each distinctive cosmology might contribute helpfully in responding to anthropogenic climate change. Finally, avenues of further work to expand this approach are explored.

Introduction and background

There is a considerable Christian theological literature addressing anthropogenic climate change (for a review see [1]). Alongside academic literature are reports from Christian charities working on the ground to address necessary mitigation and adaptation measures and to lobby governments to reduce emissions (e.g. [2]). Significantly, the leadership of the Catholic Church has written powerfully on the need to address the integral ecology of the human relationship with our planet [3, 4]. However, some official denominational responses also attempt to relativize and even dismiss the science behind our understanding of climate change [5].

In his wide-ranging study, Haluza-Delay has pointed to the complexity of religious engagement with anthropogenic climate change [6]:

‘Religion is practiced, not just believed; it consists of a number of characteristics—such as cosmology, values, social organization, and lived experience symbolically interpreted—that vary among and within religious traditions; religion scales from individual adherents through congregations, communities, institutional bodies, and transhistorical and transnational traditions.’

An online survey of 1927 Australians found that religious affiliation had a substantive effect on responses to anthropogenic climate change that could not be explained by socio-demographics, environmental attitudes, or environmental knowledge alone [7]. Differences also exist within religious affiliations and Curry proposed three major factors that influence Christian responses to anthropogenic climate change namely views of the future, ‘levels of integration in theological constructs of the relationship among humans, nature, and God’ and attitudes to social responsibilities [8].

Hornsey et al. carried out an analysis of attitudes to climate change and found that these corresponded closely with the politics, ideology and worldview of individuals rather than their level of education [9]. By considering her experiences communicating anthropogenic climate change to audiences with a wide range of worldviews, the evangelical Christian and climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe argues that we must address people where they are rather than expect them to change their fundamental beliefs [10].

The two terms ‘worldview’ and ‘cosmology’ will be used regularly throughout this paper. For the purpose of this study the definition of ‘worldview’ is taken from the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘a set of fundamental beliefs, values, etc, determining or constituting a comprehensive outlook on the world’. The closely related term ‘cosmology’ is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘the world view and belief system of a community based upon their understanding of order in the universe’. Although used interchangeably, the distinction in the definitions is that cosmology is a perspective based upon a fundamental understanding of the order of the universe whereas worldview is a description of that perspective. This study will consider the normative cosmology of a range of Christian groups. Here ‘normative’ refers to the officially stated understanding of a given Christian group [11].

The social anthropologist Mary Douglas has proposed a qualitative model which might explain at least some of these differences between Christian denominations and groupings [12]. In the years since the publication of her original model, it has been redefined, laying the foundations of Cultural Theory and becoming known as the ‘grid-group model’ [13, 14]. The basis of the model is the thesis that human cosmologies are inevitably framed by our most fundamental metaphor, our bodies and how our bodies relate to the world around us [15]. Douglas also explores how these understandings might change or be challenged in the evolving social contexts of the time [16]. Smith and Leiserowitz have drawn on grid-group cultural theory to interpret the results of their multiple regression analysis of American evangelical attitudes to anthropogenic climate change and found that grid-group cultural theory is an important predictor of differing attitudes among American evangelicals [17]. Dake and Thompson have used the grid-group model to understand the different approaches to sustainable development employed across the grid-group plane [18]. Taken together these two studies indicate that a more focussed pilot study exploring the potential of the grid-group model to better understand Christian responses to anthropogenic climate change is merited.

Cosmology was the original focus of the grid-group model, and it is cosmology which is the focus of the present study [12]. This pilot study uses published documents from the USA and UK as well as international organizations to examine how the cosmology of different Christian groups affects their normative response to climate change using the grid-group model. In this way the grid-group model might help us to improve the communication of climate science to groups with differing cosmological perspectives. As a test case, this pilot study seeks tentative answers to the following questions ‘in what cases does demanding change to a given normative cosmology explain resistance to accepting anthropogenic climate change?’ and ‘in communicating anthropogenic climate change is it better to seek to change a given normative cosmology or seek to speak to it?’. These questions generate a synthesizing question ‘might there be valuable responses to the challenges presented by anthropogenic climate change from the perspective of these different normative cosmologies?’

Mary Douglas’ grid-group model and the cosmology of the body

The model

The background to Douglas’ original model is her own anthropological field work among numerous indigenous and distinct communities around the world and her reading of the similar work of others [19]. Distinctive to Douglas’ own work is her examination of the purity laws in the Torah and in particular the book of Leviticus [20]. Based on this lifetime’s work, Douglas sought to create a model to explain her observations [12].

The model consists of two dimensions [21]. The first axis is ‘group’, which defines how closely aligned individuals within a group are aligned to the group, whether inside or out. In the case of this study the ‘group’ is the Christian denomination or grouping under consideration. The second axis is ‘grid’. The grid axis defines how an individual within a group relates to their position or role within that group. Position or role within the group is defined by their claim to the group and their obligation and privilege within the group. In the case of this study, grid can be understood as the strength of hierarchy and roles within the denomination and the strength of rules guiding behaviour and belief. These two axes extend from weakest to strongest in both dimensions to form the four quadrants which Douglas proposes explain the various observed cosmologies she cites as examples (Fig. 1a) [21]. The two axes form the common name for the grid-group model.

Observed cosmological types on the grid-group plane

Based on her own detailed observations of tens of different cultures in distinct settings around the world and those of other anthropologists, Douglas drew the following conclusions regarding the group and grid axes respectively [12]. The weakest group association is ‘dominated by impersonal powers and principles’ [22]. Its adherents are not strongly regulated by moral codes of conduct; their sense of self is celebrated and there is an emphasis on personal freedom [22]. For the strongest group association, ‘the powers that control the universe are modelled on human figures’ and ‘social control is built into the cosmos’ [22]. There is less emphasis on personal freedom and the ‘sense of self is regulated by strong moral codes of conduct’ [22].

The grid axis extends from the affirmation of spiritual and ascetic value to the affirmation of material things [22]. For weaker grid positions, human fellowship tends to be valued above material things and there may be a rejection of material wealth [22]. For strong grid positions, the ‘external manifestations of life are positively valued’ and ‘wealth and pomp are justified as symbolic expressions or as good in themselves’ [22].

Observed attitudes to the cosmos and the fifth type

In the present study, one additional set of observations is of particular interest. The work of Holling and Timmerman applied the grid-group model in the context of ecosystem management approaches across different cultures and contexts [23–25]. These authors drew conclusions regarding ecosystem management for each of the four cosmologies which can be illustrated by a ball on different types of relief (Fig. 1 and Table 1). This adaptation is of particular interest in understanding responses to changes in the world and approaches to risk [26].

A fifth cosmological type is sometimes distinguished in the centre of the grid-group plain, which is described as home to autonomous individuals sometimes labelled ‘hermits’ and known for contemplative, situation-dependent responses [18]. However, the simple analysis presented here is not able to resolve the subtleties of this fifth type and so we follow others in ignoring it [18]. Should this study inspire further work, the inclusion of religious orders and contemplative denominations such as the Quakers might prove fruitful in populating this fifth cosmological type. The grid-group context for such groups is that of self-awareness of the grid-group dynamic, leading to a balance of the four cosmological types so that groups such as Quakers have neither particularly weak nor strong group or grid traits [27].

The principal application here is within the sphere of cosmology, ritual and religion, which form the basis for the original model along with the adaptation to ecological management [23–24]. For a more complete explanation of the model see Mamadouh and Douglas [13–14].

Methodology

This work is intended as a pilot study with limited scope in order to assess the potential of the grid-group model in understanding Christian responses to climate change more generally. It should therefore be read as an exploratory and heuristic study, rather than a precise application of the grid-group model (see for example Mamadouh for heuristic versus more calculated applications of the model [14]). The approach taken is to plot different Christian denominations and groupings on the grid-group plane. Once these positions on the grid-group place are identified, published statements from each denomination and grouping on anthropogenic climate change are compared with the characteristic cosmologies implied by the grid-group model and expressed in Fig. 1, Table 1 and in the description of the grid-group model above.

The term denomination distinguishes between historical differences in theological understanding for example between Roman Catholic and the Church of England. The Christian charity Christian Aid extends across denominational lines and is also considered here and will be referred to as a Christian grouping. The examples which will be explored are given in Table 2. The Christian denominations and groupings used in this study will henceforth be referred to using the codes listed in Table 2 and shown in Fig. 2.

There are therefore two aspects that need describing in the methodology of the present study. First the approach to determine the relative positions of each denomination and grouping on the grid-group plane and second the sampling of documents used to represent the responses of denominations and groupings.

Plotting Christian denominations and groupings on the grid-group plane

In order to plot these denominations and groupings on the grid-group plane, relative positions on each axis need to be defined independently of the documents which are used to explore the responses of each denomination or grouping to anthropogenic climate change. Dake and Thompson used surveys in an attempt to quantify relative grid-group positions but this is beyond the scope of the present exploratory and heuristic study [18]. In the present work, grid-group positions are defined using commonly available knowledge and/or publicly available information regarding the constitutions of each church or grouping. Positions on the grid-group plane are given relative to other denominations or groupings. For example, RC and CE both have clearly defined roles and hierarchies. For RC this is almost exclusively controlled by the clergy but for CE, Parochial Church Councils and local, Diocesan and National Synods give significant control to the laity. Therefore, RC has a very strong grid while CE has a strong grid. Inevitably there is some subjectivity in such judgments but in a relative sense, this seems a reasonable and workable approach which allows adequate differentiation between denominations for this pilot study. This information, the relative grid-group placement and the reasoning behind it are given in Table 2 for each denomination and grouping.

Relating the grid-group model to published responses to anthropogenic climate change

It hardly needs saying that Christianity is expressed in very different socio-economic and cultural contexts around the world [6]. Given the drivers behind different religious attitudes to a range of subjects explored in Douglas’ work [12], it is not surprising that there are significant differences in the responses to anthropogenic climate change between different Christian denominations and groupings. The presenting question is therefore how to explore examples.

Theological understanding has a breadth of expression. Cameron et al. describes the ‘four voices’ which are often expressed in theology [11]. The espoused voice expresses what people say they believe. The operant voice expresses what people’s actions suggest they really believe. The normative voice expresses what the denomination or grouping officially teaches. Finally is the formal voice, which is what the work of theological scholars contributes. Previous work using the grid-group model considered the attitudes of national cultures in an attempt to elicit attitudes to the environment and employed detailed surveys in order to consider detailed responses to more sustainable life styles [18]. Here the interest is not in fine-scale differences in lifestyle but the broad cosmologies which encourage either responses ranging from climate denial to urgent action. In this pilot study, examples are taken from specific publicly available and representative documents and official resolutions. This necessarily limits this study to the normative voice of more organized denominations and groupings, which may nevertheless give some indication of attitudes in more loosely associated congregational churches.

Scope and limitations of the present study

This study is a tentative exploration of the use of the grid-group model to better understand the normative response of Christian denominations and groupings to anthropogenic climate change. In order to construct a feasible study, a number of pragmatic choices have been made to limit the size and complexity of the study and to retain a clear focus.

Haluza-Delay has shown the complexity of attempts to categorize the responses of religious groups to climate change [6]. Differences in responses to anthropogenic climate change also exist within denominations, for example in the USA 73% of Hispanic Catholics are either somewhat or very concerned about climate change, while only 41% of White Catholics are concerned [36]. Similarly, in the USA 58% of Black Protestants are either somewhat or very concerned about climate change, while only 43% of White Mainline Protestants and 35% of Evangelical Protestants are concerned [36]. Although such complexities may in future be addressed in a more comprehensive study, the current study is intended to be a tentative and exploratory study of the application of the grid-group model to Christian responses to anthropogenic climate change. The first and most significant simplification made therefore is to consider the normative voice by considering formal published responses of each denomination or grouping [11].

An effort has been made to seek out normative statements, which represent the current responses of each denomination. However, some statements are several years old and so may not represent recent changes in outlook. During this period of cultural shift regarding anthropogenic climate change, the cosmological outlook of these denominations may also be challenged and so this study should be understood as a snapshot in time rather than offering a more dynamic understanding [6].

Normative statements regarding anthropogenic climate change are available for almost all of the denominations or groupings (Table 1). The AG document is an article in an official AG published magazine from a single author and therefore represents a response which is acceptable within that denomination but not a formal response [34]. An ongoing search for a more definitive AG statement has not provided an official response and so conclusions regarding the AG are tentative.

Given the potentially vast scope of a fully comprehensive study, the number of denominations considered is limited to a selection chosen to represent different areas of the grid-group plane. No Eastern Catholic churches, Methodist, Lutheran or Orthodox denominations are included, although it is anticipated that they would follow a similar pattern to the CE and RC given the similarities in corporate structuresto these denominations (see Table 2). Baptist, Presbyterian, or other Reformed churches are not included in this analysis and but vary slightly from the examples provided because of their different corporate structures and their inclusion in future studies may prove helpful. Churches within these denominations tend to appoint local elders and have more local and congregational autonomy than CE and RC churches. They would therefore be characterized as having quite strong group and quite weak grid characteristics.

The intention of this study is not to seek comprehensive representation of as many denominations as possible but rather to seek a qualitative comparison of normative responses across examples which represent the four quartiles of grid-group space [11]. Only denominations and groupings whose position on grid-group space can be defined using publicly available information regarding corporate structures and group identity are sampled. For example, groups such as the World Council of Churches, the international evangelical Lausanne Movement and other similar national and international ‘umbrella organisations’ are excluded. On the other hand, information regarding corporate structure and normative voice is available for CA and so this aid organization is included (Table 2). The denominations sampled represent a reasonable coverage on the grid-group plane of responses to anthropogenic climate change between Christian groupings and denominations in the normative voice (Fig. 1). This reduces the complexity of the study and places clear limits on its scope. This approach allows a tentative exploration of the use of the grid-group model in better understanding the responses of Christian groupings and denominations, potentially paving the way for more extensive studies exploring the espoused, operant and formal theological voices in response to anthropogenic climate change [11].

In summary, the strength of the simplifications made in this study is that they allow a focus on the large-scale differences in responses to anthropogenic climate change between Christian denominations and groupings. The weakness of the study is the lack of finer detail permitted by this approach. This is therefore a study of ‘the woods and not the trees’ of the responses to anthropogenic climate change from different Christian denominations and groupings.

Results

The results from the analysis of denominations and groupings described in Table 2 are plotted on the grid-group plain in Fig. 2, which can be compared with Fig. 1 and Table 1. Although a limited survey, all four cosmologies on the grid-group plain are represented and so a reasonable cross section of responses has been achieved. Across these cosmologies, the character of the responses varies significantly.

The weakest statement on anthropogenic climate change is from the SB, which verges on denial but by implying an unscientific uncertainty in climate science, equally implies no certainty in denial. There is a superficial paradox implied by finding the SB within type A (Fig. 2) because the observations of Douglas, Holling and Timmerman indicate that type A cosmologies perceive the universe as capricious (Fig. 1a) [21–26]. Based on their stated theology, the SB believe that there is purpose behind and within the universe [5]. Indeed, aspects of the cited statement indicate this stated belief in the scriptural calling for the stewardship of creation [5]. The grid-group model suggests two explanations for this apparent paradox.

The first possible explanation for the paradox is around the competitive leadership patterns associated with type A cosmologies, which Douglas describes as a ‘competitive cosmology’ [21]. Otherwise stated, although individual leaders believe in a universe created with purpose, there is competition among the leaders as to what that purpose is and the result is a sense of caprice in the understanding of the cosmos across the group. Climate change science represents an authoritative voice from outside of the agreed leadership structure of the SB and is therefore just another competing voice in this ‘competitive cosmology’. Supporting this argument are multiple lines of evidence, including the attempt in the SB statement to undermine the authoritative voice of climate science by suggesting strong disagreement among climate scientists. Additional evidence that competitive leadership affects the response of the SB to climate change comes from the attempt to create a competing position statement for the SB from the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative (SBECI) (available in [37]). The SBECI statement was authored by a seminary student named Jonathan Merritt, the son of James Merritt, a former president of the SB. The competing statement was signed by some forty senior SB leaders, including the SBC president at that time, Johnny Hunt, and three former SB executives Frank Page, Jack Graham, and James Merritt [37]. The statement is considerably more constructive in its response to anthropogenic climate change: ‘Though the claims of science are neither infallible nor unanimous, they are substantial and cannot be dismissed out of hand on either scientific or theological grounds,’ [37].

The second means to reconcile this apparent paradox is in the syncretism that Douglas has observed in this cosmology (Table 1 and Fig. 1) [21]. The president of the SB theological seminary Albert Mohler has published a podcast on climate change in the light of President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change [38]. Note that although expressing an individual opinion, Mohler is president of the SB theological seminary and a highly influential figure in the movement. Mohler’s sceptical, if not cynical, perspective is important within a type A cosmology which places a high value on such leadership. As Veldman states in her book The Gospel of Climate Skepticism, such skepticism is ‘not simply what happened when evangelicals considered the issue in light of scripture, but in part the result of certain evangelical leaders and pundits having an interest in portraying skepticism as the scriptural view’ [39]. In his podcast, Mohler equates climate science to political environmentalism and ‘the left’, which he states is predicated on a worldview that undervalues humanity and its contribution to society and is not biblical. In contrast to his critique equating climate science to political environmentalism and ‘the left’, Mohler celebrates market economics and technological progress without explicitly acknowledging its unintended consequences. As Hayhoe puts it, ‘respect for the free market has been elevated by many to the status of a doctrine’ [40]. Superficially the podcast claims a biblical worldview, while at the same time syncretising a sociological position strongly influenced by modern, monetarist and technological concepts of human progress in place of a theological and biblical concept of salvation for the repentance of sins [38]. In other words, much as the stated position of the SB is that the world is orderly, Mohler, the president of the SB theological seminary, acts as if it is capricious.

No paradox is present for the more explicitly hierarchical and less individualist denominations. The grid-group model predicts the attitudes and assumptions expressed in the documents from the RC and CE based on observations from Douglas, Holling and Timmerman (Fig. 1 and Table 1) [22–26]. Most interestingly perhaps is the calling for ‘integral ecology’ expressed by Pope Francis in his papal encyclical Laudato Si’ [3]. As well as human and non-human planetary and ecological systems operating effectively in dynamic equilibrium, this sense of ecology suggests all things being in their proper place. In this sense ‘integral ecology’ and the type C cosmology might suggest ‘right ordering’ rather than simply a top-down hierarchy. Dake and Thompson call such a position ‘hierarchical solidarity’, which is typical for type C cosmologies [18]. To illustrate in ecological terms, human beings should be good stewards of the forests but the forests in turn help draw down carbon and provide fresh air. Human beings and forests should be in ‘right order’ with each other in order to mutually thrive according to the type C cosmology.

Within the type B cosmology fall the two Pentecostal charismatic denominations represented in this survey. There is a greater differentiation in attitude to anthropogenic climate change between these two otherwise similar denominations than between the groupings falling under the type C cosmology. The difference here comes down to differences in outlook. The only AG document available on their website concerning climate change considers ways to engage with Generation Z, though even in this case, is reluctant ‘to agree on every detail’:

‘Climate change at the forefront of Gen Zers’ minds is no surprise. Many Gen Z members believe it’s among the top three issues our world faces today. …While not having to agree on every detail of climate change, we can recognize the earth is God’s creation, and He entrusted it to our care’ [34].

This statement correctly identifies the importance of the issue for Generation Z. Indeed, this understanding is backed up by research for the Pew Foundation who found that 42% of US evangelicals under 40 say that anthropogenic climate change is a reality versus 28% of US evangelicals over 40 [41]. For RCs in the USA the difference is even more stark, with 66% of Catholics under 40 saying anthropogenic climate change is a reality versus only 33% of US Catholics over 40 [41].

The importance of climate change for younger Christians is also clear in the UK. Research for the Christian development charity Tearfund found that nine out of 10 teenagers in UK surveyed were concerned about climate change and felt that their church should be doing more [42]. The Tearfund research concluded that inaction on climate might lead to young people leaving the church in the UK. In contrast to the AG, the EP statement is explicit in its local and global concern for the impacts of climate change, which it fully accepts. The comparison between AG and EP might elucidate the culturally different response between the USA and UK respectively. This difference might also be an example of a denomination being able to adapt beyond its own cosmological type. The grid-group model suggests that the relative passivity of the AG to anthropogenic climate change is because of the underlying assumption of a benign cosmos (Fig. 1 and Table 1). This raises the question as to whether acceptance of anthropogenic climate change by the EP might have led, or be leading to a change in the cosmology of this denomination. It is also possible that the EP falls into the fifth category, which falls in the centre of the grid-group plain and has been associated with autonomy and ‘conviviality without coercion’ [14]. In order to resolve this fifth category, a more precise quantitative study of many more different Christian responses would be needed. A more quantitative approach could involve detailed questionnaires to locate Christian groupings on the grid-group space [18].

Cosmological type D is represented here by the document from Christian Aid. It should be noted though that numerous other Christian development and aid charities would inhabit this same space. For example, Tearfund, CAFOD and World Vision all have similar statements which are easily accessed on their respective websites. Importantly the tone and urgency of the Christian Aid document very much expresses the sense of an ephemeral cosmos (Table 1 and Fig. 1). Note that these agencies are effectively sent by the different denominations into regions which are often struggling the most with the impacts of anthropogenic climate change and which are least able to respond. Therefore, although these agencies might originate from denominations with cosmologies of type C (perverse/tolerant), their work on the ground in the face of climate change means that those working for such agencies have lived experience of type D (ephemeral). Indeed, there is an emerging theological literature concerning a Christian response to ecological trauma [43].

Given that there is no outright denial of anthropogenic climate change in any of the source documents, any conclusion regarding the mapping of Christian responses to climate change is tentative. However, the two weaker responses which verge on denial in the case of the SB and a certain passivity in the case of the AG are indeed outliers on the grid-group plain (see dashed line on Fig. 2).

The AG and SB responses hint at common ground across all of the denominations and groupings. Every statement listed in Table 2 shares a pastoral concern for the impact of climate change on those struggling most. As Hayhoe puts it, for Christians ‘[love] is key to acting on climate: caring for the poor and the needy, those most affected by the impacts of a changing climate, as well as creation itself. It’s not only our responsibility, it’s who Christians believe God made us to be’ [44].

Discussion

In what cases does demanding change to a given normative cosmology explain the resistance of Christian denominations and groupings to accepting anthropogenic climate change?

We have seen in the results section above that the response of the SB to anthropogenic climate change might be explained by the perceived challenge of Climate Science to the authority of SB leaders and also that such leaders risk cultural syncretism in their theology. The podcast from Mohler, president of the SB theological seminary, attempts to question the scientific basis for anthropogenic climate change by suggesting that there is a ‘worldview’ underpinning the science itself [38]. Such a claim goes well beyond the suspicion among SB and others that modern environmentalism equates to nature worship [45]. Furthermore, Mohler fails to differentiate between climate scientists and the broad, multi-faceted cultural movement of modern environmentalism.

Such differences of perspective across the grid-group plain are hard to broach, particularly when alternative perspectives are undermined in such a dismissive way. In this case some sort of contextual ecological conversion is needed before any action can take place [46, 47]. In the case of SB, the grid-group model suggests that effective change may be through internal dialogue and power struggles within their group, where indeed there have been hints at a change of understanding (see e.g. the SBECI statement) [37]. Furthermore, working with the leadership to reassure them that this is not a challenge to their own authority and to frame anthropogenic climate change within a familiar scriptural understanding of sin may be helpful. If there is indeed syncretism between market economics and theology suggested in the statements of Mohler, then using market-based arguments about the financial costs of climate change versus the value of renewable energy compared to fossil fuel subsidies may be convincing [38, 48]. Alternatively, syncretism employed to gain competitive leadership advantage inevitably must deal with reality when direct and obvious impacts of anthropogenic climate change on human suffering are experienced. A leadership that denies the obvious cause of the suffering of their people will adapt or fall.

In other cases, such as with the EP, the realities of climate change on the ground and the challenges it poses to those already struggling have provoked a strong and clear response. Similarly aid agencies such as CA sent by denominations inhabiting a type B cosmology find a cosmology independent of their sending church within type D given the significant vulnerabilities of those least able to adapt to ongoing climate change.

Is it better to seek to change a given normative cosmology or seek to speak to it?

There is an underlying assumption here that an external agent must seek to either change or speak to the cosmology of a denomination or grouping. In the case of the EP statement, it may be the case that observable events and lived experience have a more important role than external agents of persuasion. The example of the SB shows that cosmologies are not easily changed by external argument but might be changed by circumstances and lived experience and leading individuals in the group. Mary Douglas cites the specific example of charismatic belief as one which adapts to circumstance and lived experience [49]. Hayhoe reviews published evidence that supports the contention that negative information about climate change can inspire change [50]. As discussed above the AG have responded to climate change in order to connect with generation Z, for whom it is a matter of deep concern. This study has also raised the question as to whether the cosmology of EPs has evolved in response to anthropogenic climate change, away from a Type B cosmology and towards a less benign and more uncertain cosmology more like Type D or C.

In this sense, the witness of the lived experience of those in groups such as CA who are sent by churches with Type C cosmologies to serve struggling and vulnerable communities and who inhabit Type D cosmologies are a powerful and convincing voice to Christians across many denominations. It is plausible that these voices of witness have been a strong influence for EPs and for Generation Z, who the AG denomination want to connect with around the subject of climate change. The statement from CA has been widely read across the CE, which is one of the sending denominations for CA. There is therefore a communication feedback between cosmologies C and D, reinforcing the sense in the leadership of the CE that this is a period when strong and clear leadership is needed.

One option to elicit effective responses to anthropogenic climate change from church denominations and groups across the four cosmologies is to seek common ground. In various ways, all of the statements from different denominations and groups recognize the significance of anthropogenic climate change for those most in need [2]. Emphasizing the common theme of concern for those most in need may be a means to elicit stronger responses from those more reluctant to accept anthropogenic climate change. Such common ground in responding to the issues of justice around anthropogenic climate change may well provide the ‘normative framework’ to allow churches to work effectively together and alongside broader society, in the way that Jeffrey suggests, even if broader understanding cannot be reached [47]. There is evidence for this approach in the report on climate change of the National Association of Evangelicals in the USA, which states that ‘the disproportionate devastation upon the most defenceless must break God’s heart’ [51]. This report has a strong emphasis on observed impacts and lived experience, avoiding any perceived challenge to church leaders from authoritative scientific understanding [51].

In summary, the work of Douglas and hundreds of subsequent studies employing the grid-group model have shown the robustness of the cosmological types on the grid group plane [12, 14]. It would therefore be demanding if not impossible to seek substantial changes to a denomination or group’s cosmology. However, based on the findings of this study, small shifts might be both possible and adequate to make substantial changes to a denomination or group’s response to anthropogenic climate change (e.g. for the EPs). Encouraging small changes to cosmologies while also speaking to the given cosmology, including areas of common ground across cosmologies, might be the best overall strategy to encourage constructive responses to anthropogenic climate change.

In the light of the differences in understanding and approach explored in this paper, Clingerman and O’Brien point to the role of theology in imaginatively re-framing anthropogenic climate change so that it is properly understood. Therefore, by way of synthesis I propose an imaginative framing of those interactions, which draws on Douglas’ original symbolism of the body [52].

Are there valuable responses to the challenges presented by anthropogenic climate change, from the perspective of these different cosmologies?

In the first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul addresses a number of different areas of controversy between his own understanding of his faith and the understanding of the small community of Christians in Corinth, who were strongly influenced by the contemporaneous culture of Corinth. Dale Martin assigns these differences to different attitudes to the body held in each culture and subsequent differences in cosmology [53]. The differences in cosmology between Paul and the Corinthians that Paul tries to address mirror closely the differences discussed here. Martin describes Paul’s position as one of ‘economic relationship’ whereby Paul was part of a nascent and evolving church movement which sought mutual obedience and the sharing of resources within a developing church structure [53]. In contrast, the Corinthian church whom Paul is addressing are divided into a ‘strong’ group of high status and influence and a ‘weak’ group subservient to them [53]. From the Martin analysis therefore, I suggest that Paul and the Corinthians belong to types C and A respectively, with both leaders and followers present in the Corinthian, type A, Church. In a well-known passage, Paul exhorts each to express their gifts in the service of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 12). Paul compares the use of these gifts to the working of the body, thereby not seeking to fully convince the Corinthians, but to seek a productive way to work together: ^‘The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’, nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable…’ (1 Corinthians 12.22–23, New Revised Standard Version). As a systemic challenge to human and non-human systems, anthropogenic climate change might be best addressed by considering those constructive contributions or ‘gifts’ which can be found across grid-group space. Indeed, Boorse makes similar use of this ‘body of Christ’ imagery in the preface to her lead-authored report for the National Association of Evangelicals [51].

The different cosmologies expressed across Christianity do indeed bring different gifts. By calling on the gifts, the strengths of each of the different cosmological types represented within Christianity, there is a chance to offer active participation in overcoming the challenges of anthropogenic climate change rather than condemn any one response. In particular, the kinds of actions which come easily to each type, rather than those which run against the grain, can be discerned. Hayhoe argues that ‘if negative news about climate change is immediately followed with information explaining how individuals, communities, businesses, or governments can reduce the threat, then this information can empower rather than discourage us’ [50]. This case is likely stronger if those actions are in some sense particular to the gifts and outlooks we each bring to this challenge [54].

Dake and Thompson have used the grid-group model to consider the actions of households which can support sustainable development [18]. For example, for households with type A, balanced meals are favoured, there is a tendency to wash clothes at the same time and to keep to regular routines. All of these traits come naturally to many with type A cosmologies, and therefore perhaps naturally to SBs, and they all have the potential to have a positive impact on anthropogenic climate change. They represent the vocation or calling of this group to the way that they might have an authentic agency in responding to climate change. To encourage church leaders to discern and lead in these ways authentic to that tradition and cosmology is a plausible way forward beyond the current deadlock. The traits that might prove helpful in responding to anthropogenic climate change for Type B include an openness to change because they hold few long-term plans and are moved by current fashions. Type C has a tendency towards vegetarian meals, home-made meals, bio degradable products and using consumer pressure to challenge companies, and many of these positive actions are already pursued by Christian denominations and groups within Type C. Type D prefers second-hand or older furniture and is prepared to boycott certain products if need be. The traits studied by Dake and Thompson are not comprehensive but they indicate the variety of relevant responses across the grid-group plane that may be helpful across different Christian denominations and groupings [18].

We have discussed already how dialogue among Christians holding different cosmologies can influence and inspire the gifts of others, particularly the feedback between types D and C and in providing evidence for a compassionate response from group B. Each Christian group here does indeed bring distinctive gifts to the great challenge of anthropogenic climate change.

Further work

As has been noted by previous authors, Christian responses to anthropogenic climate change are complex with multi-variant factors including nationality, socio-economic, age and culture [1, 6–8]. Smith and Leiserowitz found that despite this complexity, the grid-group model was a helpful tool for interpreting their multiple regression analysis of American evangelical attitudes to anthropogenic climate [17]. Indeed, the original work of Douglas and the subsequent founding of cultural theory based on her model has evidenced over decades the usefulness of the grid-group model in understanding complex social responses (e.g. [12, 14]). Although intentionally limited in scope, this pilot study has found good correspondence between the relative positions on the grid-group model and the cosmological types associated with these relative positions (Fig. 1 and Table 1) [22–26]. Specifically, competitive cosmologies are observed for SB under type A while a benign cosmology is observed for AG for type B. RC and CE both follow an integrated and ecological cosmology in their response under type C, and finally, CA follows an ephemeral cosmos response under type D. Based on the tentative findings of this work, avenues of further research may therefore be proposed.

The most significant simplification of the present study was to only consider the normative voice by using published official responses to anthropogenic climate change from the various denominations and groupings studied [11]. An obvious area for further work is to consider the responses of individuals within a given denomination or grouping which constitute both the espoused and operant voices [11]. Given the enormous scope of a comprehensive study of Christian responses as a whole, a sensible approach may be to consider one denomination in this way. The work presented here suggests that SB may be a helpful denomination to choose based on the complexities of the type A space on the grid-group plane. Previous work has employed questionnaires to establish both positions on the grid-group plane and characteristic responses and would form a template for a methodology for such a future study [18].

Alternative means to limit the size of any future study to something workable would be to follow previous studies in selecting one country or broad theology such as evangelical [7, 17]. Given that previous studies have addressed Australia and the USA respectively, the UK may be a helpful nation to study [7, 17].

Finally, in the final chapter of her book Natural Symbols, on which the current work is based, Douglas discusses the means of release from a seeming fatalism in the responses to which an individual or group is conditioned by their respective cosmological type [55]. The chapter, titled Out of the Cave describes a fifth cosmological type which is defined by a self-awareness of grid-group identity and therefore a loosening of the control of cosmological type in responses and decision making [55]. Decisions made by those within this fifth contemplative type can therefore be on a case-by-case basis carefully fashioned to the nature of a given challenge. It would be helpful for any future study to resolve this fifth type and to explore the responses to anthropogenic climate change that emerge from it. Because this fifth type intersects the four other cosmologies, it has the potential to generate a ‘normative framework’ to facilitate a more comprehensive response to anthropogenic climate change across Christian denominations and groupings [47]. In this regard, a more detailed, questionnaire-based study of the EP, CE and CA might prove helpful. Each of these denominations and groupings approach the region of grid-group space characteristic of the fifth cosmological type. It is therefore likely that some individuals within these denominations and groupings are within while some individuals are without this contemplative-type cosmology. Alternatively, an explicitly contemplative denomination such as the Quakers (also known as the Religious Society of Friends) might prove a helpful case study.

Conclusion

Perhaps the most significant argument for challenging existing cosmologies in response to anthropogenic climate change is put by Pope Francis in his argument for ‘ecological conversion’ [56]. In contrast to Pope Francis, Willis questioned whether ethicists should approach challenges such as anthropogenic climate change ‘with a reformist agenda’ preferring to define both ‘environmental problems’ and responses within the context of different moral communities [46]. Jeffrey, however, has argued that relying solely on a plurality of responses within different moral communities is ‘conceptually unstable’ and that some sort of ‘normative framework’ is required for responses to environmental challenges to be both possible and reasonable [47].

This paper has attempted to address some of the reasons for miscommunication and mistrust across different cosmological points of view while also seeking to release the gifts that each bring. Grid-group cultural theory suggests that the authority and hierarchy structures of Christian denominations and groupings might explain some of the differences in response. Type C and D cosmologies have responded unambiguously and helpfully to anthropogenic climate change in contrast to some churches with type B and A cosmologies. However, the very grid-group qualities that have made the responses of type C and D cosmologies so clear are not present for type B and A cosmologies and might even prove threatening. For example, close group identification and a give-and-take ecological hierarchical structure for type C might well be threatening under a competitive leadership model for type A. The sense of a benign cosmos perceived by type B may well be threatened if challenged by a picture of an ephemeral cosmos at risk perceived by type A. In cases of strong reluctance to accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change, it may be necessary to work closely within these structures and perceptions to make the case for anthropogenic climate change to establish some form of ‘normative framework’ [47]. To make this case, evidence of the impacts of climate change may prove more helpful than the scientific explanations behind it. If the case can be made for a Christian denomination or grouping to prioritize anthropogenic climate change in its teaching and action then significant gifts from these groups might be released in order the meet the challenge of anthropogenic climate change. The common focus of anthropogenic climate change as an issue of justice is likely a common theme that will help establish such a ‘normative framework’ [47]. As Clifford puts it in her report for CA:

‘The starting point of this report is the fact that climate change is above all a justice issue. The people who are already suffering most from global warming are those who have done least to cause it, and have the least resources to do anything about it’ [2].

Although clearly limited in scope to a very general understanding of Christian denominations and groupings on the grid-group plane, this study has found broad agreement between the cumulative observations of the four cosmological types and the normative responses revealed in published statements regarding anthropogenic climate change. There is likely much to be gained from more detailed studies along these lines as outlined in the section ‘further work’ above.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Revd Dr Cate Williams and Revd Dr David Heywood who commented on an early draft of this manuscript as well as conversations with fellow members of the Society of Ordained Scientists. Revd Dr Stan Brown provided helpful comments on a later version of the paper. Early conversations with Revd Dr Andrew Schuman informed the direction of this paper. Comments from two reviewers and the associate editor were very helpful. Thank you to Prof. Eelco Rohling for inviting this submission.

Study funding

This study has had no additional funding other than the author’s Church of England stipend for a Priest in Charge.

APC funding

This is an invited paper. The fee was waived.

Author’s contribution

Mark Siddall (Conceptualization [lead], Data curation [lead], Formal analysis [lead], Investigation [lead], Methodology [lead], Visualisation [lead], Project administration [lead], Resources [lead], Writing—original draft [lead], Writingreview and editing [lead]).

Conflict of interest

The author is an ordained priest in the Church of England. While every effort has been made to avoid bias, the reader should be aware of this fact.

Data availability

The data used in this paper are from publicly available sources on line as cited in the text.

References