The latest on 'creation care'

Did you know 'biodiversity' means gay marriage?

Posted by David Roberts at 3:29 PM on 15 Mar 2007

Read more about: biodiversity | religion and spirituality

Over at The New Republic, Brad Plumer has a nice rundown on the whole green evangelical "creation care" thing. Most of it is probably familiar to readers of this site, but some bits are worth pulling out. First of all, there's ... this:

"I've learned the hard way that, for instance, you can't use the term 'biodiversity' in certain evangelical communities, because they see that as code for same-sex marriage," DeWitt says.

[Jon Stewart double-take face] Whaaa? (BioD, did you know about this?)

This, however, is where the rubber hits the road:

The green evangelical movement's biggest weakness, however, may be its continued allegiance to the GOP, whose record on environmental issues remains appalling. Every leader I talked to insisted that they can turn the Republicans around. "I've heard many pastors say that the 2006 election is the last time we'll have to choose between abortion and caring for creation," says DeWitt. But that seems unduly optimistic. A recent National Journal poll found that only 13 percent of Republicans in Congress are even convinced that humans are causing global warming. When I mentioned this poll to Cizik, he was taken aback, but still maintains that it's more viable to try to convert the Republican Party on this issue than to start defecting to Democrats.

That's the heart of the matter. In the end, "creation care" will matter only if a) evangelicals can turn R's around on the environment, or b) substantial numbers of evangelicals abandon the R's.

I'm skeptical about either, frankly, but this tidbit from Politico is intriguing:

In an hour-long interview at Democratic National Committee headquarters Tuesday, Dean also revealed that he has been quietly meeting with well-known Christian evangelical leaders in order to build new bridges between them and the Democratic Party.

"We're never going to convince them on civil rights for gay people or abortion rights," Dean said. "But we certainly can focus on the things that we both care about a lot: global warming, poverty and the materiality of our culture."

Stranger things have happened.

For story: The latest on 'creation care'
11 Comments | Post a Comment

Sh*t!

It was only a matter of time before they found that out. Time for a new code word. This all sounds eerily familiar.

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

by biodiversivist at 4:55 PM on 15 Mar 2007

Relevance

DR: How come you think creation care can only succeed as a movement if it does so politically? Sure, lots of change happens in Washington, but lots more happens elsewhere, in communities, where there are many churches, full of pastors and people who can make a difference right there, in their home places. That's a compelling side of the story, one that can even give rise over the long term to the strong conservative movement for conservation you envision. But creation care is not a political movement so much as a social movement.

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

by Erik Hoffner at 5:21 PM on 15 Mar 2007

"will matter"

Erik, DR actually wrote that creation care "will matter," only if it has either of those two political effects. It is not clear that he has an opinion on what its "success as a movement" would entail. He might possibly believe that the creation-care evangelicals may indeed succeed as a movement; but that that success, however it is to be judged on its own terms, will not matter, really, in the view of all the world, unless it results in such-and-such political achievements.

And it is not hard to see how someone such as DR, focused like a laser on activism and on a particular agenda, might think something like that.

Howard Dean, on the other hand, with an overlapping agenda of his own, seems willing to take a more patient approach. He is right, these ideas about social justice and the environment -- oops, I mean creation care -- will need some time to steep. (In the latest Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria cutely observed that during his visit to Latin America, W. spoke of the US's support of "social justice," "a phrase I have never heard Bush use before, and which must be causing ulcers in some of his right-wing fans.")

But the good doctor from Vermont need not be so cautious regarding gay rights. So long as same-sex marriage is not insisted on -- and in fact few prominent Democrats are willing to support it -- , then there is hope for agreement on other matters seriously affecting LGBTs, in keeping with middle Americans' sense of justice, fair play and compassion.

I agree that what happens eventually on the level of churches and congregations is an interesting story. But if creation care actually takes off and becomes a parallel network of environmentalist activism, minus the name, we should all be greatly disappointed if they continue to pour contempt on such words as "environmentalism" and "biodiversity," and on us the people who use them, as though they were better than us.

It would be even more disappointing if creation care comes to be allied with the new-fangled conservative Catholic "theology of the body," rigidly and unforgivingly heterosexualist. This was developed by the late Pope John Paul II, and unfortunately has many bigoted proponents. It has a fair amount to say about what "nature" is, in the eyes of God, and what the "natural" life is for human beings; and so I am afraid that an alliance between c-c evangelicals and t-o-t-b Catholics is not at all unlikely.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 1:16 AM on 16 Mar 2007

mutual suspicion

Canis, yes, some good points. Thanks. One of the interesting things you note is this rift in language and framing between mainstream enviros and churchy greens, who seem to want to avoid any appearance of being coopted by secularists and treehuggers/worshippers. As unfortunate as that is, I don't think it's an unfounded fear. There's a fair amount of skepticism on the creation care side about mainstreamers, because they've been perceived as a new "power base" to take advantage of in terms of quick political wins. A friend that pilots one such group reports that groups like his are regularly are asked to take positions on topics and issues outside of their realm by mainstreamers who are in a crunch to mobilize their supporters to "defeat this" or "pass that." That's not a good way to approach a nascent movement, in my mind. Better to build bridges, understanding, and common ground thru dialogue. Let the political pieces develop naturally. And they will.

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

by Erik Hoffner at 5:00 AM on 16 Mar 2007

interfaith

I forgot to say: there are many great "creation care" groups out there that aren't evangelical christians. Though that's what this discussion is about, many great groups centered around ecology regularly function in an interfaith manner, which is very different: groups like Earth Ministry, Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, Presbyterians for Restoring Creation, Interfaith Power and Light, Nat'l Religious Partnership for the Environment, Faith in Place, GreenFaith, the Nat'l Council of Churches Eco-Justice Program, and more.

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

by Erik Hoffner at 6:21 AM on 16 Mar 2007

Erik...

Thank you for the list of interfaith groups. It is good to know there are people willing to set aside differences and learn to work together to achieve common goals.

Two questions...

(1) Is there any indication of how green evangelical leaders are received by their congregations? Do people generally respond positively and follow their example or do they resist by go elsewhere?

(2) Are you aware of any particularly good examples of people learning more respect for one another -- perhaps developing a bit more compassion towards people they previously disliked -- when religious and secular organizations work together on a specific project?

by wiscidea at 6:34 AM on 16 Mar 2007

RE:

Wisc, regarding how evangelical heads of congregations are received, I can't speak from personal experience. However, find a copy of Moyers' hour long show on the topic (Is God Green?) from the fall: you'll see whole congregations of saved folks getting it: being glad that their core values about the planet are being validated by their church, and embracing this new teaching from their leaders. You can view at least some of it here:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/media_players/i ...

Your second question is best answered by reading the interview I did for Orion magazine with the director of Faith in Place (in Chicago): she talks about how their project has brought together Muslims, Jews, and Christians around a core issue: sacred foods. It's really inspiring and has built trust amongst usually adversarial groups. It's a pdf, linked to here:

http://faithinplace.org/news.php?ID=15

I don't have any examples on hand of religious-secular compassion building, but I bet I could come up with many if I called some of my contacts at creation care organizations that are part of the Orion Grassroots Network, like those mentioned above.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

by Erik Hoffner at 7:50 AM on 16 Mar 2007
[ Parent ]

Erik,

Canis is basically right. My concern is with the large-scale, global environmental problems of our age. Church groups are not going to have much impact on those unless they mobilize politically.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 8:51 AM on 16 Mar 2007

This will only matter if it effects politics....

because dealing with the major environmental issues requires new national leadership. I am open to the possibility of this movement being influential, but until large segments of the evangelical community are willing to openly support and vote for Democrats based on a broader and more comprehensive notion of life it will be mostly a talking point and not a major force.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

by Jason D Scorse at 8:52 AM on 16 Mar 2007

Abortion is an Environmental Issue

the last time we'll have to choose between abortion and caring for creation

Wait...so cutting down a tree for my own convenience and pleasure is a sin, but killing a potential human is not? Doesn't it waste at least as much? Think of the resources that go into making a baby.

Abortion is an environmental issue, but only for those who respect humans as much as animals, and people as much as trees.

by jabailo at 9:01 AM on 16 Mar 2007

Nah

I disagree, DR, Jason, that only national leadership counts when it comes to major environmental issues. Look at the progress that's been made to date in this country on climate for eg (and it ain't much) and you'll see it's all local groups behind it, pushing their city councils and mayors to do climate plans under the Cities for Climate Protection project. Then you'll see state leaders like Ahnold listening to what the local leaders are saying, and acting on that, and then we see Congress suddenly caring...but change doesn't originate in DC. Never does. It's with all of us, and it's just as important as the latest bill being watered down in the Senate. Interfaith groups with no sympathetic ear in Bush's cabinet are just as important to our collective future as the faith-based power brokers.

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

by Erik Hoffner at 9:17 AM on 16 Mar 2007
[ Parent ]

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.