I remember how pleasantly surprised I was when in 2003 I learnt that the Catholic Church in Malta had launched an environment commission of its own, that was ready to stand up and make its voice heard as a legitimate stakeholder in the local environmental debate. Just a year earlier, while carrying out research for my dissertation on the underlying ecological theories of the environmental movement that eventually led to the development of ecotourism, I stumbled across Christian ecology - a beautiful fusion, which I had admittedly never expected to find at a formal theological level.

Reverting back to the point when I discovered the existence of the environment commission, I also remember thinking that despite the potential for bringing about real and sustained change, there was a large possibility that not many in Malta would share my same degree of enthusiasm or even take much notice. Nonetheless, when recently attending the first of a series of dialogue encounters organised by the Pastoral Formation Institute and the Environment Commission of the Church, I saw that the institute has succeeded in creating a forum where exchange of views between and among persons from different walks of life is encouraged and appreciated.

It is forging a space within the confines of the Church - a space which is also open to those who count themselves outside those confines - where dialogue is put into practice. I also learnt that the Environment Commission has ploughed on tirelessly amid a number of challenges and successes and is currently celebrating its fifth anniversary since its inception.

So what makes the Church Environment Commission different from an environmental or cultural NGO? And what is Christian ecology? In my opinion, although, strictly speaking, the commission is not the Church, the Church's potential for delivering change is huge when one compares the number of "members" and the influence that the Church may have in this regard in comparison to other NGOs.

Secondly, although diminishing slightly in recent years, the Church still enjoys the weekly attention of several thousands of Sunday church-goers that congregate of their own will, albeit with varying amounts of conviction and concentration, which is still far more member-contact that any NGO can possibly wish for.

More importantly and most in favour of the Church and its commission, Christian ecology could well be the binding agent that some authors believe was missing during the inception of the environmental movement.

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the environmental movement was increasingly questioning the status quo of man's relationship with nature and the need for radical change. In 1972, Arnie Naess, a Norwegian philosopher, coined the term Deep Ecology, which was based on two main principles. Simply put, the first was that all systems on the earth are interrelated (coupled with the idea that anthropocentrism [man at the centre] needed to be changed to ecocentrism [creation at the centre]) and the second that a radical change in consciousness could be achieved by humanity learning to identify with trees, animals and plants.

A few years later, author Lynn White Jr further elaborated on the concept of anthropocentrism being the root of the ecological crisis, by identifying religion as the cause of this state of affairs, or even more specifically, the Christian faith. His argument was based on the fact that Christian teachings state that God created the earth, and all included in it, for mankind and gave man authority to dominate nature. This, therefore, gave people a psychological platform from which to stand above nature and exploit nature as they deemed fit for the achievement of human development.

White's accusations startled theologians and helped fuel a revolution in religious thinking within the Church towards the end of the last century. This led to the reassessment of Christian ecology whereby for the first time ever the Church declared its recognition of the importance of the natural setting of the human existence.

By not enlisting Church support and instead adopting legal, juridical and technological approaches to the environment, White and environmentalists who followed and acted on his theory, are seen to have missed out on a great "opportunity which would have galvanised (sic.) the environmental concern into a movement".

In addition, theologians believe that environmental activism was not successful in "healing creation" because it lacked an ethical and moral dimension which is embedded in a religious approach. Those environmentalists that recognised this vacuum and sought to replace it with Eastern religions or influences, actually found that it separated them from a public that identified with Christianity or Christian values.

However, in 1997 bridges were built between the Christian Church and environmental NGOs when at the Symposium On Religion, Science And The Environment, the leader of the Christian Orthodox Church stated that destroying God's creation is a sin.

In response, Carl Pope, executive director of Sierra Club stated that "the environmental movement has made no more profound error than to misunderstand the mission of religion and the churches in preserving creation".

Christian ecology addresses the misrepresented authority of man over nature by stating that in "the first chapter of Genesis through the last book of Revelations", humans are called to care for the earth and will be judged according to the quality of their stewardship. Therefore, "if its basic premises were followed...Christianity is supremely ecological".

At a local level, in response to Pope Benedict's call to become more environmentally responsible, one could attend the next dialogue encounter organised by the Pastoral Formation Institute and the Environment Commission, which is being held today at 7 p.m. at the Phoenicia Hotel Ballroom in Floriana. The speakers will be Simone Borg and Vince Caruana, and the theme "Our Environmental Responsibility". I sincerely encourage everyone to join in and be the change you wish to see around you.