It's not easy being green

A lot of Pagans are environmentalist, to some degree or another. Many (although by no means all) perceive themselves as earth-worshippers. Gaia is mentioned often.

By the same token, many evangelical Christians are dispensationalist, believing that Christ is going to come back Any Day Now, and, as a result, earthly resources are disposable. Indeed, according to the Doctrine of the Curse, because of Adam's sin, "The ground will therefore be cursed because of you." (Gen. 3:17). The phenomenal world -- nature -- is inherently tainted.

So what to make of evangelical environmentalism, or, as it's commonly known, creation care?

I first learned about this from a WaPo article, but it got me thinking, and it made me curious. So, I started digging.

Of course, as these folks will go to great lengths to say, they most certainly are not, "liberal, pagan, New Age earth-worshippers." More fully (again from the WaPo):

"While evangelicals are open to being good stewards of God's creation, they believe people should only worship God, not creation. . . .This may sound like splitting hairs. But evangelicals don't see it that way. Their stereotype of environmentalists would be Druids who worship trees."

Which, undoubtedly, means that actual Druids who worship trees [sic] likely aren't welcome travelers.

This begs the question: Which is more important, working to better the environment, or refusing to bed down with "the enemy"? Even the Evangelical Environmental Network itself says:

At the same time that we condemn nature worship, we must not let our zeal to avoid idolatry prevent us from our biblical call to care for all of creation. Indeed, one cannot fully worship the Creator and at the same time destroy His creation, which was brought into being to glorify him. Worshiping the Creator and caring for creation is all part of loving God. They are mutually reinforcing activities. It is actually unbiblical to set one against the other.

That seems to imply some wiggle room; sure, they're evil heathens, but serving as responsible stewards of creation is more important than battling infidels. I have to admit to being skeptical as to how this would play out in real life, but, honestly, I don't expect that there are any Pagans who'd have the chutzpah to give it a whirl. (Feel free to take that as a challenge, rather than a condemnation.)

Besides, you have to give props to the folks who came up with the What Would Jesus Drive? campaign.

Further, the movement appears to be growing, and they have significant influence. According to David Larsen of the University of Chicago:

Although primarily an educational outreach organization, in 1996 the EEN waged a successful campaign to prevent congressional Republicans from weakening the Endangered Species Act. At a press conference heavily covered by national media, EEN representatives called the Act the "Noah's Ark of our day," and charged, "Congress and special interests are trying to sink it." Influential Republicans, who thought they could count on the support of evangelicals, were caught off guard and quickly distanced themselves from the proposed changes. The Sierra Club later acknowledged the EEN as instrumental in this fight. Such political activity raised the ire of prominent members of the Religious Right, who sought to counter the EEN and the NRPE by forming the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship in 2000.

One thing that Larsen doesn't mention (but that the High Country News does) is that

House Resource Committee Chair Don Young, R-Alaska, and Richard Pombo, R-Calif., chair of the House Endangered Species Task Force, issued a joint statement suggesting that the evangelicals were a "front group" for President Clinton’s re-election campaign.

Which, of course, was bullshit, but hardly an unknown entry in the political playbook.

Further, although the High Country News article, from 1997, notes that none of the major evangelical players had signed on (specifically mentioning James Dobson), an article from the July 4, 2004 LA Times (quoted here) tells:

Declaring that caring for the environment is part of following Jesus, a group of 30 evangelical leaders has agreed to work for faith-based environmental activism among the nation's most conservative Christians.

[...]

Participants represented a cross section of mainstream evangelicalism in America, including the president of the National Assn. of Evangelicals, ranking officials of evangelical denominations, development and relief organizations such as World Vision, prominent evangelical scientists and theology professors, and senior editors of Christianity Today magazine.

...and then the WaPo elaborates on this; apparently there was another, similar, meeting in October of last year:

"The environment is a values issue," said the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals. "There are significant and compelling theological reasons why it should be a banner issue for the Christian right." In October, the association's leaders adopted an "Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility" that, for the first time, emphasized every Christian's duty to care for the planet and the role of government in safeguarding a sustainable environment.

"We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part," said the statement, which has been distributed to 50,000 member churches. "Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation."

Signatories included highly visible, opinion-swaying evangelical leaders such as Haggard, James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

To underline the fact that creation care evangelicals are not a fringe group, the WaPo notes that

Polling has found a strengthening consensus among evangelicals for strict environmental rules, even if they cost jobs and higher prices, said John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. In 2000, about 45 percent of evangelicals supported strict environmental regulations, according to Green's polling. That jumped to 52 percent last year.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not ignoring the fact that these folks are also generally opposed to gay rights and are virulently anti-abortion (although their pro-life stance is at least consistent, unlike the pro-lifers who are also pro-death penalty and have no compunction about murdering abortion providers.) By the same token, Peter Illyn of the Christian Society for the Green Cross notes that, "The Bible says much less about abortion and homosexuality than it does about caring for the planet."

All in all, it paints a fascinating picture of a religious movement that, although it seems monolithic from the outside, isn't, in fact, so homogeneous. And, again, I still can't help but wonder if those of like goal -- environmental action -- can't put aside their other differences towards achieving that goal.