Jackson Free Press

Even though the Bible speaks extensively about looking after the world the creator made, Sunday morning sermons rarely address issues such as shrinking ice caps, vanishing glaciers or how much mercury the nearby coal plant billows up into the sky. In fact, many pastors have moved away from the idea of protecting the world that God made, even going so far as to vehemently oppose any calls to preserve it.

In February, a group of more than 85 evangelical Christian leaders issued the "Evangelical Climate Initiative," pointing out fears of the impact global warming would have on the world's food resources and begging the federal government to take climate change seriously. The initiative calls for the government to "encourage fuel efficiency, reduce pollution, encourage sustainable use of natural resources, and provide for the proper care of wildlife and their natural habitats." No sooner was that message out, however, than evangelists with close ties to President Bush, like Focus on the Family's James Dobson and other critics, immediately shot out their own statement saying they didn't agree with it.

The retaliation mailed out by the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance defended corporations' right to pollute, saying that human carbon emissions—which an overwhelming majority of scientists claim contributes to global warming—should be curtailed only if it costs next to nothing. The ISA has also sought to muddle the scientific consensus on the role of carbon dioxide in global warming. Another bewildering message from the ISA: Ignore carbon emissions for the sake of the poor.

"We believe mandatory carbon emissions reductions are not cost-effective. Therefore we believe that, while we should continue studying the issue, there is no need for draconian measures that will keep the poorest people on Earth from enjoying the benefits of abundant energy," the organization said in a press release.

Evangelical leaders who happen to be pro-environment are beginning to get testy at what they see as woeful disregard for the planet they live on.

"What's crazy to me is that it's a biblical mandate to be environmentally conscious as God's people. We were commissioned in Genesis 9 specifically to look after God's world, but now there's some evangelicals saying 'I'm pro-life and pro-environment, and there's no place for us, politically,'" said Tri Robinson, pastor of the Boise Vineyard Church in Idaho, and author of the book "Saving God's Green Earth." "The Democrats aren't helping us, and the Republicans aren't helping us. So sometimes, the vote isn't easy."

Robinson says many evangelicals see environmentalism as a secular concern. Major environmental groups rose up in the 1970s and became politically active on the left. Organizations like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are pro-population control and thus, pro-choice. At the same time, environmentalists were becoming active on the left, evangelicals were becoming politically active on the right in response to Roe v. Wade. The result: Evangelicals came to see "environmental responsibility" as a liberal, bogus cause.

Opinions on right-wing talk radio drive the wedge further, Robinson says.

"I've had some horrible talk-show experiences across the nation, and I've had some fundamentalist Christians saying some really horrible things about this new movement. I see our basis in the Bible," Robinson said. "They're afraid this is a liberal agenda to take over the Republican Party by getting the evangelicals to get concerned about the planet. The problem is that the critics have seen too many conservative talk shows and stopped listening to their Bible."

There may be some basis for religious-right leaders to fear the seed of environmentalism sprouting among evangelical ranks. Paul Waldman, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, went so far as to say on TomPaine.com that progressives should "be celebrating ... the split this issue has revealed within the evangelical community."

Jim Ball, executive director of the Evangelical Environmental Network disagrees and says that caring for God's creation is not a partisan issue.

"I don't see the emerging environmental movement as a wedge between Republican and evangelicals," Ball said. "The Republicans and conservatives have, in some respects, not heeded their own tradition. Teddy Roosevelt was the first conservationist president. Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act. Bush Sr. signed the 1990 Clean Air Act. There is a Republican tradition of caring for the environment. It's just that it hasn't been implemented lately. We'll continue to try to help Republicans understand that global warming is an important issue. If they had listened to us earlier, maybe (the last elections) would have turned out different."

In the meantime, Christian environmental voters like Belhaven College President Roger Parrot—who signed on to the Evangelical Climate Initiative—will never be locked into a Republican Party vote at every election.

"The only thing I can advise is to vote based upon the issues of each candidate," Parrot said. "Nobody's going to satisfy every need."

Previous Comments

ID

80764

Comment

Pope Benedict XVI is also very pro-environment and anti-war--and that's independent of stuff like caring for the poor, dismantling racism (remember Moses' first wife?), and the actual personal conduct of elected officials. The idea that the American right wing and American evangelicalism have exactly the same priorities is a myth, and it's a myth that most American evangelicals--even those who vote conservative because of the abortion issue--have never bought into. The only people who seem to believe it are partisan hacks and right-wing talk show hosts, and they will be in for a rude awakening if they think they can take the evangelical vote for granted. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-12-20T22:26:15-06:00

ID

80765

Comment

One day the Religious Right is going to wake up and see the sins that they have committed in God's name. I don't think the Baptists ever will at the National level. Most states are split between going their own way and being dragged kicking and screaming into Nashville's orbit.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-12-20T22:31:59-06:00

ID

80766

Comment

I think there are a lot of good people in the Southern Baptist Convention who, if they only knew what the higher-ups were doing, would flee in disgust. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-12-20T22:34:11-06:00

ID

80767

Comment

I wish, Tom. The sad part is a lot do know what horrors have been done, but don't care and don't want to question their leaders because that would "Rock the Boat." I called the Mississippi Baptist Convention cowards for not standing against the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Cowards! I got one guy who called and left a voice message calling me names, but I called him and his pastor back and let them know where I stood clearly. When I went to church, however, everyone told me they liked my letter to the editor. They won't stand and be counted.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-12-20T22:37:50-06:00

ID

80768

Comment

One of the many reasons why I don't care for organized religion: It's one of the few institutions on Earth where cowardice is prized as a cardinal virtue. I am working, in my head, on a blog entry calling for the dissolution of the Anglican Communion. Unity for unity's sake is the golden calf of denominationalism, and it is time to melt down that golden calf. Sometimes division is a good thing. It's like another blog entry I want to do one day on the sanctity of divorce--a slightly touchier topic, to be sure. But the bottom line is that I'm tired of living in the moderate world. Just out of curiosity, what were the specific concerns vis-a-vis the Baptist Faith and Message 2000? Was that the creepy "graciously submit" stuff? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-12-20T23:37:58-06:00

ID

80769

Comment

It was indeed, Tom. Between that and the clause that a woman cannot hold a position of authority, i.e. a senior pastor of a church. Also, a woman cannot teach a class that has men in it: women can only teach a sunday school class with other women or children. Woman is not to assert authority over a man in any way. Heck, they even have a man as the head of the Women's Missionary Union! I'm surprised that these guys don't bow down towards Nashville every day at noon. They're not following God, or the teachings of the Bible: they are following a man-made creed. One day, they'll wake up and have congregations of people who are incapable of believing differently. I believe that's what they want.

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2006-12-21T10:21:06-06:00