Take it outside, God boy

Evangelical enviros leery of associating with, uh, enviros

Posted by Lisa Hymas at 12:28 AM on 05 Apr 2005

Read more about: religion and spirituality | environmental movement

Richard Cizik, head of the National Association of Evangelicals, is heavily hawking the notion of "creation care" these days. (That would be God-flavored environmentalism, for those not in the know.)

Three weeks ago, he chatted up the concept with NPR's Scott Simon (whom I wholly adore, but that's a topic for another post).

This past weekend, he got his mug and his pitch in The New York Times Magazine, via a Q&A with Deborah Solomon. An excerpt:

Q: What is wrong with [the] term [environmentalism]?
A: It's not the term. It's the environmentalists themselves. I was recently speaking with the leadership of the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation, and I told them, ''Gentlemen, I respect you, but at this point don't plan on any formal collaborations.''
Q: Why? Because they lean to the left?
A: Environmentalists have a bad reputation among evangelical Christians for four reasons. One, they rely on big-government solutions. Two, their alliance with population-control movements. Three, they keep kooky religious company.
Q: What is your idea of a kooky religion?
A: Some environmentalists are pantheists who believe creation itself is holy, not the Creator.
Q: And what's No. 4?
A: There's a certain gloom and doom about environmentalists. They tend to prophecies of doom that don't happen. Look at the movie "The Day After Tomorrow," in which New York City freezes over.

The evangelicals don't want to play with the enviros, and -- sad, but true -- that's probably smart strategizing. The Christian right already knows how to get Bush's attention, and Rove's devotion. Can any green groups say the same?

For story: Take it outside, God boy
6 Comments | Post a Comment

Bible thumping minions

Religion is an important part of life for 21% of Europeans, 46% Americans. We are stuck with religion for a while. It would not be hard for televangelists to convince their Bible thumping minions that it is a sin to destroy God's creation (our biodiversity). Hey, whatever it takes. There are other religious groups doing the same thing: http://www.salvationnetwork.org/

He did make one point that I had to agree with. Environmentalists are overly dependent on the government to fix our problems. Yet, the vast majority of all of the new nature preserves created around the world over the last decade are the result of efforts by NGOs. Our government just walked right into a public owned preserve without batting an eye. Had that preserve been owned by a private concern, a conservation NGO, it would have been much harder to take the oil. People have a strong tendency to support private property rights. Zoning laws are just as ephemeral. They all fall to profit motive pressure in the end as well. If you want to save what is left of our biodiversity, get it into the hands of NGOs. Government is not our friend anymore. Government is not going to save our biodiversity. http://wwww.saveourbiodiversity

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 2:07 PM on 05 Apr 2005

the day after tomorrow was not our film...

...in fact I believe most enviros were against that lame movie for misrepresenting the facts & doing exactly what the Evangelist claims WE are responsible for, i.e. misrepresentation. Now we're getting blamed for Hollywood schlock?

I wish them the best with their message, and I won't resort to panning them or their methods to do it.

ps yes, doom & gloom is a problem...but so is denial.

by dawn burns at 2:42 PM on 05 Apr 2005

But...But...But

Wait a minute. Those who complain about big government are either the rich, who want big business to rule (this is what fascism really is), or those who have been brainwashed by the rich. While I've had strong anarchist tendencies since I was seven (and still do), big government is the only thing that can protect us from big business. The problem now is that the U.S. has gotten so fascist (see above) that big business has BECOME the government. This is what has to be changed. This is not to say that individuals don't need to take responsibility and take their own actions. Without that, government could not possible solve our problems. But individuals are helpless against big business without the support of the government.

Re religion, the U.S. is at a level of religious superstition equivalent to a medieval peasant society. The worst thing about this is that religions teach that the body and spirit (or soul) are separate, so that it really doesn't matter what happens to the physical world, because what's important is what happens to your soul after you die. This evil teaching must be reversed so that people will once again have proper respect for the natural world.

Re the movie, come on, it was a MOVIE!!! You've fallen into the right wing, anti-environmental trap that someone can't even make a movie without environmentalists being called doomsayers or some such name. Sheesh people, lighten up! (Beside, well respected theoretical physicist Michio Kaku showed how the scenario in the movie could actually happen, though the chances were very slim.)

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 12:12 AM on 06 Apr 2005

Re: the minions

Speaking as a devout agnostic myself, I am not ready to write off the evangelical element of American society just yet. I have both a practical and personal reason for this. Practically, I don't see religious beliefs going anywhere. Much is made of the secular nature of Europe, but much of that comes from state-sponsored religions stifling personal beliefs. With our Establishment Clause, we as Americans have a system that encourages religious and spiritual beliefs. Yea, it does seem at times that the more conservative religious elements want to do away with this freedom, but so long as the ACLU is alive and kicking this isn't going anywhere. There will always be religious people, so what good comes from ignoring them? Personally, my first enviro class, Introduction to the Truth as I like to call it, was taught by an evangelical Christian environmentalist, Prof. Cal DeWitt. Aside from being a first rate professor, he is a truly nice person, someone that just strikes you as being completely friendly. He spoke of religion without proselytizing. If we had more people like Prof. DeWitt on our side, we are better off than without.

by wallrock at 1:32 PM on 06 Apr 2005

sad and yet encouraging

I can't understand this. First, the term 'big government solutions' is a right-wing take on the need for enforcable laws to protect the environment. Indeed, most of us don't believe that we can rely on a sense of 'corporate responsibility' to protect the earth, since this conflicts with the need for short-term profits to meet stockholders demands. And 'market-based' solutions are really just a gentle prodding that legalizes pollution and moves it from one place to another, right? The assumption here is that passing and enforcing environmental laws would encumber business and depress the all-important Economy. Yet they want government to police every aspect of our lives, enforcing thier idea of morality (ie, Christian Fudamentalism). Can we cave on this?

Next, their belief, as I understand it, is that God will provide for as many people as we can make, as long as we subscribe to the 'correct' faith. They see no limit to growth, and all that matters is populating the earth with humans- move over animals and plants that don't serve our needs. There is no recognition of the connection between the health of all species and the future of humanity- only reliance on God to balance nature (in our favor).

As for 'kooky' religions, this is the classic evangelical 'us and them' doctrine; when pressed, they will claim that anyone who does not follow their dogma is evil, seduced by Satan (who is their creation), and so of course they will not associate with such low-life. This is where discrimination comes in- they'd be happy if all 'non-subscibers' dropped off the face of the (infinite) planet.

But yes, folks like me are too gloomy. A church in my neighborhood flaunts these words to the street

"Disregard the depressing forcasts of self-appointed prophets of doom".

Presumably the 'self-appointed' are the scientists who report the probable outcome of sluggish or no change; only God is allowed to make such predictions, and therefore it is safe to ignore the silly (godless) scientists.

There's a basic conflict here in their beliefs; they say we should protect and preserve Creation, but not because it is holy, simply because it is the work of the creator. Yet the creator put it here for one reason only- to support limitless human expansion. Yet the threat to creation is humanity- but creation serves humanity. If I were a computer, I would self-destruct here.

In spite of their discrimation and faulty logic, they could probably accomplish more than real enviro's in this cultural climate, so I am hopefull. But it is sad that they reject us because we might see God in Nature, limits to growth, or evil in profit motives.

a liberal in redsville

by birdboy at 5:13 PM on 06 Apr 2005

An Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation

This language sounds great to me. Although agnostic and progressive myself, I say we should welcome "Creation Care" Christians with open arms. That is, assuming the goal is not ideological purity but to defend the environment. Well, that's certainly my goal!

Anyway, here are some excerpts from the Evangelical Environmental Network's declaration:

"Because we worship and honor the Creator, we seek to cherish and care for the creation.

"Because we have sinned, we have failed in our stewardship of creation. Therefore we repent of the way we have polluted, distorted, or destroyed so much of the Creator's work."

"Many of these degradations are signs that we are pressing against the finite limits God has set for creation. With continued population growth, these degradations will become more severe. Our responsibility is not only to bear and nurture children, but to nurture their home on earth."

"The Creator's concern is for all creatures. God declares all creation "good" (Gen. 1:31); promises care in a covenant with all creatures (Gen. 9:9-17); delights in creatures which have no human apparent usefulness (Job 39-41); and wills, in Christ, "to reconcile all things to himself" (Col.1:20)."

by meanandgreen at 6:59 PM on 10 Apr 2005

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.