What Would Jesus Save?

The evangelization of the environmental movement.

By Tim Bowles, Vanderbilt Univeristy

 
A version of this article appeared in Orbis, a Campus Progress-sponsored publication.
 

Tree huggers should prepare to embrace an unexpected and underappreciated ally in the struggle for environmental awareness and protection. A right-leaning evangelical group is poised to release a declaration encouraging Congress to legislate obligatory greenhouse gas emission controls. With 45,000 member churches totaling 30 million souls, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) has tremendous influence among politicians dependent on their religious base. If the policy statement is released, perhaps our environment will finally receive more protections than energy companies and auto manufacturers.

It may come as a shock to many liberals, but the NAE is not the first evangelical group to encourage "creation care" – a biblical call to be good stewards of the Earth.

Often, we lefties react to evangelical Christians with disgust or dismissal, branding them as easily duped pawns obsessed solely with abolishing abortion, equal rights for gay Americans and potentially life-saving research. It is an easy and unchallenging mindset to adopt, but one that is myopic and inherently unprogressive.

Evangelicals do have other concerns, and the environment is a blossoming one. Rev. Richard Cizik, NAE vice president for governmental affairs, explained his biblically inspired position on the environment to the New York Times: "Genesis 2:15: The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it… We believe that we have a rightful responsibility for what the Bible itself challenges." Cizik, along with a host of other evangelical leaders, signed a document in June 2004 entitled The Sandy Cove Covenant and Invitation. Its goal is "to motivate the evangelical community to fully engage environmental issues in a biblically faithful and humble manner, collaborating with those who share these concerns" and "to engage the Evangelical community in a discussion about the question of climate change with the goal of reaching a consensus statement on the subject in twelve months." These concerns included "health threats to families and the unborn, the negative effects of environmental degradation on the poor, God’s endangered creatures, and the important current debate about human-induced climate change."

What a refreshing statement to hear! This should prove to us that evangelicals are not the one-dimensional activists that we often malign them as being. The NAE is a major force and an essential component of the Christianist Right.

Its leader, Pastor Ted Haggard of Colorado Springs, speaks to Bush routinely on the phone. It could potentially exert influence on evangelical politicians like Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who is chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Inhofe is not exactly a compassionate conservative. During hearings about the Abu Ghraib abuse scandals, he blasted the inquiry itself, asking why we should care about accused murderers, terrorists and insurgents "who probably have American blood on their hands." He also calls human-induced climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Ironically, any legislation to reduce greenhouse gases must have his approval. Although it is unfortunate our environmental well-being could depend on men like him, he still has to report to an electorate, part of which is an evangelical base. If they demand environmental protections, maybe he will relent.

Two other groups, the Noah Alliance (known at the time of the campaign as “the Noah’s Ark Foundation”) and the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), explicitly promote environmentalism among other Christians. In 1996, these groups successfully lobbied against the proposed weakening of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), proving their viability and influence. The EEN funded a multimillion-dollar ad campaign that called the ESA the "Noah’s ark of our day," saving species from destruction by mortal hands. With lobbying support from the Noah Alliance, the ESA remained essentially intact, although it continues to be threatened by the current administration and special interests (if the two can be separated).

Evangelical interest in the environment comes at a particularly crucial time: according to two articles in Science, the levels of three greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – are at their highest in 650,000 years. Despite these alarming numbers, there is a profound lack of governmental interest in preserving our world. Our government shuns the Kyoto Protocol, halfheartedly pursues alternative fuels, allows fuel efficiency standards to stagnate and does nothing to promote mass transit use and other alternative forms of transportation.

Of course, those numbers are just science. Science does not satisfy or persuade many Americans. If it did, evolution would be unchallenged and the impending peak oil crisis would be a real concern. For anything to really change, people have to believe in climate change and believe in practicing a sustainable lifestyle and believe in our responsibility to the Earth. And there is no voice better poised to instill this belief in Americans than pastors at the pulpit. Engendering a sense of biblical duty to the environment would spawn both grassroots and governmental change as people alter their own habits and pressure their politicians to care about climate change and our future—now. Scientists, for all their meticulous research, have failed in their marketing campaign.

We all know Christians can mobilize, especially evangelicals. Saddleback Church, led by Pastor Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life, fed 42,000 homeless people in Orange County, Calif. three meals a day for 40 days. That is progress and organization, and that is exactly the kind of moxie the environmental movement needs for its own sustainability. Churches can do such things because they have tremendous social capital. Social capital is simply a way of quantifying the advantages of a strong community. Historically, close-knit neighborhoods and towns provided the social capital to achieve social change through collective action. But social networks are disappearing in America —except in churches.

Progressives must take a leap of faith and do everything in their power to support the continued increase in evangelical environmentalism. We should embrace these Christians, form relationships with them, set aside differences and realize that we have the same goal in mind—the health of the planet and all its inhabitants—albeit different motivations. Abandoning stereotypes and correcting misunderstandings are integral to the formation of this relationship. Lefties must learn that there is a difference among evangelicals, fundamentalists and the Christian Right, and that within each category is a spectrum of beliefs. By differentiating among these groups, we expose the true extremists among them.

Cooperation on the issue of environmentalism could be just the beginning of this unlikely coalition. Why not combat corruption, genocide, unjust wars and cronyism together? As we squabble over petty differences, real issues remain unaddressed and continue to fester. So let’s be progressive in our thoughts and in our coalition-building and reach out to that majority of evangelicals and other Christians who are not extremist and construct a broad coalition.

 
Tim Bowles is Editor-in-Chief of Orbis.

Related Stories

• Gender-Neutral Housing Comes to Princeton
• Campaign Communications Director, Repower America
• Toke Up Marijuana Laws
• Send a Health Care E-Card
• The Battle for Pittsburgh