Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
What's Really Behind Creation Care?
Wednesday's Washington Post featured an article about evangelical Christians' growing concern with global warming and, more generally, environmentalism. The article explained the development mostly in terms of political maneuvering amongst leaders, mainly "a years-long international campaign by British bishops and leaders of major U.S. environmental groups to bridge a long-standing divide between global-warming activists and American evangelicals."
But there's more to evangelicals' commitment to environmental stewardship, also known as creation care, than power-brokering elites. It's rooted in a deep sense of duty to live up to God's mandate to live in proper relation to the earth. In one installment of the recent "God is green" sermon series at Mars Hill Church, an evangelical megachurch in a converted shopping mall outside Grand Rapids, Mich., Pastor Rob Bell said:
We aren't treating the earth well, would you agree? This grieves the heart of God...we produce more and more and more, and we're doing it in such a way that earth simply can't sustain it. And I would argue we do not first and foremost care for the earth because of the latest scientific studies -- which verify that we are destroying the earth -- or because of the latest fad. We do it because God said to.
Listen to his description of the mandate for proper relations with the earth; his voice teeters on the trembling, and you can almost see him concentrating on keeping his eyes dry.
But did God really say so? Over the course of the July "God is Green" series, which is available online as an MP3, Bell and other Mars Hill speakers preach from the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Job, 2 Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Matthew, Luke, John, Ephesians, Romans and Revelations. (Note to the unchurched: that's about 1/5 of the Bible.) And they're not just poaching a spare verse here and there. In the first installment, Matt Krick notes that:
No less than eight times in Genesis chapter 9 God says 'My covenant is with you and all creation, my covenant is with you and all creatures, my covenant is with you and all the earth.' God is clearly stating his concern and his love for his creation that He created good - to sustain it, to see it thrive, to see it flourish. This is the heart of God for creation, and we see the heart of God continue through the entire biblical narrative.
Listen to his explanation of God's vision of our proper relation to the earth, even though it only scratches the surface of creation care's theological underpinnings.
I first learned about creation care in a 2004 sermon series at Kairos, a Christian community for young adults in northern Virginia. This wasn't some hippie granola church; I shared pews not only with fellow liberals, but with Heritage Foundation staffers fresh from their stints with the Coalition Provisional Authority. The specific details have faded, but I remember hearing that the earth is a sacred trust rather than a resource to be exploited. In other words, creation care is not just a platform, it's an orientation. While pundits concerned themselves with the Kyoto protocols, Clear Skies, and Healthy Forests, we were reexamining the very way in which we conceived of the planet.
At Mars Hill, which draws upwards of 10,000 people to its Sunday services in conservative western Michigan, you could hear uncharacteristically liberal-sounding messages about working against "systems of exploitation" and even a hint of what a conservative opportunist would call class warfare: "If somebody actually wants to argue with you that we're not doing some terrible things to our earth, this is somebody whose wealth and ignorance have simply isolated them from how serious it is."
They even reject the sanctity of private property. Citing Leviticus 25:23-4 -- "the land must not be sold permanently because you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land" - Bell calls man's claim of total dominion over the land a symptom of our "deep sinful bend of entitlement, in which we start to believe that what belongs to God belongs to us."
An encouraging feature of the four-plus hours of God is Green was the repeated confession of our failure to honor God's covenant with humankind and creation. We flout the notion of sustainability; we fail to live simply; we are addicted to exploitation; we don't sacrifice.
The most inspiring part of any good sermon is the call to action. In the final moments of the final installment of God is Green, Bell leads his thousands-strong congregation in a fervent, applause-interrupted prayer that Christians will no longer lag behind others who better model sustainable living, that they will heed God's call to go green. The only excerpt I will take from it is to say "amen." Please listen to the three-minute prayer.
While conflict over global warming and environmentalism exists within the diverse community of American Christians, it's important to note that the argument is no mere political concern. The theological energy behind creation care and "going green" ensures that what we're talking about is no mere squabble, but a movement.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Dan,
Thanks for putting this out there. The quotes were reassuring, yet somehow I also find the manner of this whole coming around of the evangelical right a bit scary, and here's why.
Firstly, the fact this movement has a name like "creation care" sounds like the marketing invention of a fearful leadership who is afraid of losing the flock over the fact they have up until now sided with big corporate interests by at the very least passively sanctioning the destruction of our environment so they could indulge in the tempting low-lying fruit offered by their right wing political bedfellows in the form of faith based initiatives.
Secondly, the underlying paradigm running through your piece and through this new "creation care" movement, seems to be that the people you speak of who are being awakened, have been apparently unable to see this truth with their own eyes. That's scary.
It is so obvious to anyone who feels a connection with nature, that we are all one, all creatures, plants, rocks, stars, big and small, and that even if you are not a Christian, you know that our common creator's covenant is with all these things, and with all of creation, and you know this without even having to read it in your respective scripture, or to be told it is OK to believe it. You know this because you are awe-struck and humbled by nature. The divine is experienced through the interconnectedness of all things, and you feel the connection in your bones, and you fear not the valley of death and are comforted because of it. Churches don't teach this stuff, we have to experience it with the senses God gave us, and think for ourselves as part of our "homework" away from church in the context of a full life. I think Jesus would have wanted us to take Christianity forward from where it was 2000 years ago, using those gifts to think and experience for ourselves that sense of interconnectedness from which all life comes.
Again, thanks for opening this dialogue.
Hello Ono4:
Just read a lot of your previous posts. Wow! Pity I don't live in California, I'd vote for you in a heartbeat! (serious suggestion here)
Hello nippersdad,
Thanks for the kind feedback and for reading my previous posts. Just went and read yours. Very informed and insightful. Again, thank you. All the best. Ono4Hoopono
I marked your post as Favorite. I hope you include in your "people of all faiths" room for people of agnostic viewpoints who marvel daily at the wonder of this universe.
Better late than never.
Can you say sustainability?
Amen.
To all Christians planning to enter the woods:
Beware the "Pipes of Pan"
wow. this has to be the first logical thing i've heard of super religious people saying in, well, forever. somehow i doubt bush will care, though.
I have, and always will have, a deep mistrust of any group that surrenders its thinking on the most vital issues to a its leadership. If the church is green today, it may have cause to not be so tomorrow and no sheep in the flock will be prepared to question it.
This nation is powered from the bottom up, and it depends on a vital, reasoning and informed public. The current fad in ecumenical thinking is small cause for enthusiasm.
absolutely! we must think for ourselves and step away from the cult mentality. I think we have all learned that our Government is not looking after our best interests and is acting solely on their own agenda. So we are smart enough to not let them tell us what to think ... right?
oh, guess not.
Reduce consumption and make sure what you consume is pollution free as possible.
The solution to me is the phase out coal and nat gas producers of electricity by building nuclear plants on shuttered army bases. If France can get 80% of its electricity from nuclear, why can't America? If global warming is as big a problem with a 10 year time limit as Al Gore states, then America can cut 3/4 of its CO2 production (along with airborn pollutants) by building 400 nuclear plants and encouraging the production of electric cars like GM's former EV1
Not a single private insurance company will insure a nuclear power plant; think about that for a second.
Also, any new power plant might as well be a giant bulls-eye for terrorists looking for targets. And no, I don't think that's alarmist, I think that's a legitimate concern.
Had we saved the trillion or so dollars spent on these atrocious wars we could have put solar panels on every roof in America and supplemented with hydrogen and geothermal. No radioactive waste and a new middle class.
Wouldn't it be brilliant if Christians could use their minds to explore new ideas without fear? Wouldn't it be brilliant if Christians recognized the beauty of God's creation that supercedes the bullshit issues of gay marriage and gun ownership? Wouldn't it be brilliant if Christians recognized when they were being conned by a political party?
Sheeple. At least they're beginning to head in the right direction. Finally.
Wouldn't it be lovely if some people would recognize that Christians come in all shapes, sizes, and beliefs? Especially, that evangelical Christians (who are hardly all of one mind, themselves) don't represent the entire flock? Or, even better, that C.'s as a group vote for both parties (or, in some cases, neither?).
Wouldn't it be brilliant if some folks (oh, about 90 percent of the bloggers and comment-section posters on this board) could stop stereotyping so simplistically and broadly?
I think so, anyway.
It is very difficult for many people here to deny the impact that all religion is having on the World.
It is impossible to study politcs, history and current events without acknowledging theology and religion
There is a very valid reason for the movement and embracing of Aetheistic and Agnostic views across Europe and America.
Christians as a whole are not attacked on this site.
Posters and bloggers here express their sincere concern about the EXTREMISTS of all religions.
Just as you would not hold the average Agnostic in contempt, but you might have some strong feelings about a Cult who worships some sadistic living man.
There is nothing wrong with Faith. There is a problem when those of Faith who believe they must only adhere to their God's Law dismiss Science and man's law.
Stereotyping is ignorant, regardless of whom it is directed at, but do not count 90% of the folks here in that group of ignorants!!!!!!!
I very much appreciate your bringing this into the open, Dan. I am very glad to have the evangies on board, finally.
I wish they could come on board from their own thinking instead of waiting for leaders of their church to tell them what to think however. The reliance on experts (clergy) to tell them what sacred texts mean is tribal in that it depends on the tribe to sanction a point of view. Sacred textual interpretation should be done by individuals in reflection on their own minds, in my view. They should seek to discuss and reason with others who have read these texts and even those who have studied them, but they should never substitute expert's judgment for their own. The expert's won't take their place in hell for them, for example.
Further, sacred texts themselves (bible, Koran, etc) are written to keep groups together and against other groups. This tendency is dangerous for an overarmed out of control social structure. Only by deciding for yourself whether and how the words of a sacred text apply to you can you deal with your maker who will hold you responsible. That you were just following orders/advice is not an excuse. So when you are encouraged for example to kill abortionists, recognize it is your action that you are responsible for.
I do hope the maker(s)/god(s) of this world have a special place in whatever form of hell these/this deities/diety made for those who give careless advice that ends up harming others, and another special place for those who would use sacred texts to divide us.
Unfortunately, I think the flock would not come aboard the green express without prodding from their leaders, so I apologize for complaining about evangelical church leadership because we do need it to make this move now. But perhaps you could think about letting their minds evolve past you in the future, eh?
I accidentally marked you as a favorite when I went to reply. You are not my favorite (obviously, since I disagree with you). I want to know who wrote the bible?...or the koran? What parts do you believe? What parts do you skip? Can one taylor their beliefs to exclude or include what they feel like? What about those who are motivated to kill? It is dangerous to think that the world was created just for us, as if it were ours to destroy. "Sacred textual interpretation" is scary. I think that belief without evidence is dangerous. Oh well, at least some christians are starting to concern themselves with the earth's well being. It's a start.
If you watched any Christian Amanpour's God's Warriors series, you hear extremists from Muslims, Jews and Evangelical Christians claiming that they are acting under God's Law. If they all really believe what they are saying, should they not marvel that each group has a god who selected the exact same spot on Earth as their Holy Land? Shouldn't this "fact" bring them all closer together?
If nothing else, I think it should all give them cause to doubt their scripture as nothing more than human power struggle and early politics.
All three books of each religion were hearsay stories told hundreds of years after alleged events. Many of the storytellers were illiterate.
It's fine if people choose to believe the stories, but why must they dismiss others' versions and more importantly, why must they dismiss SCIENCE and LAW.
It just makes no sense.
Faith is Blind - that is indisputable, it is part of the very definition of Faith.
Even Mother Teresa had severe doubts as to the existence of Higher Power. This puts a human face on Catholicism and could actually do for the Catholic Church what Princess Diana did for the Monarchy from a P.R. standpoint. Bring it down to honest human emotion, self-doubt and contradiction!
It's great to hear religious fundamentalists finally focusing on some issues with wide ranging relevance, regardless of personal beliefs.
The absurd hyper-focus on abortion and gay marriage (at least that's the Dynamic Duo of wedge issues so many seem to vote on) should be replaced (or at least broadened) with issues that effect us all, like poverty, the environment, war, etc.
If that passion and persistence could drive people who currently picket abortion clinics to speak out, for example, for better wages and universal healthcare, we'd all be better off.
So How come the Evangelicals are changing their ideas of man having dominion over the lower creatures (read we can kill, cause extinctions, throw garbage everywhere, side with earth-ruining corporations at will) to going green? some important Evangelical must have had an epiphany on his way to Damascus. Well, better late than never , I guess.
I really don't see the point is saying crap like "we've been saying this for 50 years."
We should welcome them as brothers and sisters in the fight for the preservation of the planet.
I had dinner with some "progressive" Berkeley (my home town) woman the other night and the discussion turned to "tolerance," where she suggested i wasn't tolerant enough in a certain area. A little bit later she started trashing Christians.
This must end. The left's hostility to religion (not its own) is revolting. And anybody who thinks that atheism itself is not a religion has his head up his ass.
I am glad that Christians are going green. In the end, it is about the Earth itself, not our petty political perspectives.
"The left's hostility to religion (not its own) is revolting." Well, what is that supposed to mean. The "left" is not monolithic nor is it particularly irreligious.
Just because we as a group tend to despise fundies (read lower case c "christians") does not mean we are hostile to religion per se. I think you will find that the "left" despises hypocrites of all types and persuasions. Lower case c "christians," for obvious reasons, just happen to be in the spotlight at the moment.
I am pleased to hear that the fundies are finally jumping on the bus. However, given the one fifth of the Bible that Mr. Nejfelt cites as supporting environmentalism, I should think that were they not the hypocrites we believe them to be, they should have been driving the bus in the first place. instead they spent forty or fifty years denigrating dirty f--king hippies for their beliefs when they could have been preventing a lot of the damage they now decry.
There is nothing petty about calling a spade a spade, there was a time when it was called honesty.
"Just because we as a group tend to despise fundies (read lower case c 'christians') does not mean we are hostile to religion per se."
Then why do the majority of posts at this site routinely use "Christian" to refer to the most conservative Christians? Why do most blog posts, for that matter? Mr. Nejfelt's essay is one of the very few that have qualified its points in that regard.
I went green as a Boy Scout at summer camp in the Sangre de Cristo (Blood of Christ) Mountains near Taos. The camp chaplain stated that nature is evidence that there is a God, and that He is good and powerful (Rm. 1:20), and part of a Scout's reverential duty is to safeguard the evidence so that others may know. That was nearly 40 years ago.
LOVE the audio. Thanks for sharing with all of us what it sounds like when an evangelical megachurch pastor preaches before thousands on an issue that we as progressives care deeply about. Hopefully this helps make the concept more accessible and REAL for folks.
Hippies started singing the mantra of energy efficiency, recycling, and sustainability some fifty years ago. If the dance has been going on for fifty years and right wingers are only now trying to figure out where it"s held at, what does this say about their claim that we need to put them in charge?
Christians have always taken decades even centuries to catch up to science. This is an obvious flip flop from using the bible to proclaim mans dominance over the earth and it shows how one can interpret the bible to mean anything they want it to mean.
Welcome aboard Christians. Your help is badly needed and appreciated.
GWW
The article refers to Amercian evangelical Christians. They are the Christians who have changed their views regarding global warming, etc. Many other Christians have had pro-environment views from the start.
Loading comments…
Posted August 20, 2007 | 09:27 AM (EST)