Introduction
Christianity plays an important role in various social, cultural, political, and economic processes around the world. For instance, Christianity can become a pillar of the ethnic community or serve as a foundation of the widespread attitudes toward global issues and challenges. However, the impact of Christianity may be twofold — it can either facilitate cross-cultural unification and understanding or hinder it. The concepts of community and climate change in a religious context provide examples of both unifying and divisive potential hidden in Christianity.
Christianity and Community
Mass migration, when people of different ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds settle outside of their native country, is common in the modern world. The reasons behind migration may vary, ranging from the lucrative work opportunities to flight from the persecution in the homeland. Regardless, immigrants experience a need for belonging, and religious communities provide them with a reliable solution. On several occasions, Christian churches have played the role of a powerful community center with significant unifying potential. For instance, many Pakistani Christians who left their country due to the state-led Islamization policy joined together in their own congregations in Canada. The fellowship meetings at homes under lay leadership have grown into a fully-fledged immigrant church conducting services in Urdy and binding Pakistanis together. In this regard, churches have become a social center of the Pakistani Christian community, where the immigrants could practice religion and preserve the distinct elements of their culture.
However, the unifying impact of Christianity in the local immigrant communities can be accompanied by a reclusive attitude, which may lead to mistrust toward the host country and division within the community itself. For example, the second generation of Pakistani Christians born and raised in Canada has mostly lost the language and cultural competence necessary for attending the South Asian church. Instead, these people prefer a Western church, where services are more organized; moreover, some South Asian congregations adopted English entirely. As a result, the situation might likely escalate into an intergenerational conflict, where the followers of the original South Asian church may accuse younger generations of identity betrayal. In this case, one can see how the views on Christianity act as a divisive force in the homogenous community.
The potential disrupting effect of Christianity is more substantial in ethnically diverse communities. Instead of unifying people of different ethnic backgrounds, religious praxis becomes another factor of division. For example, the church’s spatial organization separates Christian migrant communities in Singapore. In the case of segregated churches, believers remain cohesive as an ethnic and cultural group but become excluded from the other groups. The Indonesian, Filipino, Chinese, English- and Mandarin-speaking Christians sit in the church together but do not interact. The outsourced churches create a different form of separation, in which a particular ethnic group is assigned to a specific location for religious meetings. In the case of Singapore, the Filipino Christians gathered at the church-rented area around Orchard Road. Such outsourced spatial arrangements directly contradict the perception of Christianity as a unifying influence, a universal value for all believers.
Overall, Christianity has a conflicting impact in the context of community. On the one hand, Christian identity can unify migrants into a cohesive social group. As a result, the migrants fulfill the need to belong and preserve their cultural identity. On the other hand, different views on Christian praxis among various cohesive groups can result in reclusion and mutual frustration. Consequently, Christian migrants may oppose the widespread praxis in the host country, or intergenerational religious conflicts may arise. The divisive effect is present even in the ethnically- and culturally-homogenous groups. In diverse populations, Christianity often becomes another factor of separation rather than the driver of unity.
Christianity and Climate Change
The duality of Christian influence in the modern world can be observed in the discussions around the climate change concept. In particular, the spiritual foundations of Christian theology can be used both in appeals to undertake the global action for climate change mitigation and in calls for non-intervention. In regard to unifying impact, the necessity to address the climate change issue stems from the sustainable lifestyle of Jesus. Jesus lived in a community with nature, the wilderness; therefore, the Christian part of humanity must follow in his footsteps and live sustainably. In addition, Christian theology exposes a sin of greed manifested in denial of human-induced climate change. In such calls for unity, Christian moral opposes the overly materialistic approach, which treats Earth merely as a resource base.
The unifying influence of Christianity in regard to the climate change problem stems from the highest positions of the clerical hierarchy. In 2015, Pope Francis criticized the technocratic paradigm for an instrumentalist attitude toward the “creation”, which resulted in “ecologies of destruction” and “economies of immiseration”. Instead of technological solutions, which would likely result in excessive human control over Earth, the Pope called for an inward spiritual change. By appealing to Christian values of temperance and compassion, Pope Francis increased awareness of climate change among a significant number of believers. In this example, one can observe how Christianity promotes ideas of global spiritual renewal and sustainability.
However, Christian theology leaves a significant room for maneuver, which can be used with a divisive intent. For example, the Cornwall Alliance declares climate change-related agenda “anti-Christian”, since it demeans God’s providence and debases human dominion of Earth granted by God. On the contrary, the unrestricted use of fossil fuels corresponds with God’s intents and perception of humanity as God’s beloved creation. U.S. Evangelicalism promotes a more extreme apocalyptic narrative, which acknowledges climate change, but views it as a divine activity that should not be stopped. Consequently, any social and political solutions to the climate change problem become illegitimate since humans must not intervene in God’s master plan. Overall, the actual presence of anthropocentric and apocalyptic motives in Christian theology allows such groups to sway the minds of believers and create a rift that interested parties may exploit. In this regard, Christianity is quite susceptible to divisive manipulations via various theological concepts.
Conclusion
Christianity should be considered a powerful source of social, cultural, and political influence in the modern world. However, its impact may be unifying or divisive depending on the context. In the case of communities, Christianity simultaneously appeared to be a cornerstone of cohesive ethnic groups and a source of intergenerational division. The application of Christian theology to the climate change problem was associated with the urgent calls for unity and divisive, dismissive attitude depending on the selected narrative within Christianity. Overall, one can state that Christianity remains a powerful influence, which may be equally beneficial or dangerous to cross-cultural unification and understanding.
Bibliography
Echlin, Edward, P. “Climate Change Theology.” New Blackfriars 89, no. 1024 (2008): 715–729.
Gill, Rashid. “Persecution and Pakistani Christian Diaspora in Canada.” In Diaspora Christianities: Global Scattering and Gathering of South Asian Christians, edited by Sam George, 204–219. Fortress Press, 2018.
Jenkins, Willis, Berry, Evan, and Kreider, Luke Beck. “Religion and Climate Change.”
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, no. 43 (2018): 85–108.
Woods, Orlando, and Kong, Lily. “Parallel Spaces of Migrant (Non-)Integration in Singapore: Latent Politics of Distance and Difference Within a Diverse Christian Community.” Journal of Intercultural Studies 41, no. 3 (2020): 339–354.