Green Evangelicals

Very interesting article, lively. I've been reading about the rise of religous greens for a while but this seems to indicates that we may be witnessing a watershed moment in our society. It could potentially have a profound impact upon American culture. If conspicous consumption (Veblen Lives!) is viewed as immoral by a substantial portion of the population it will undoubtedly shape the culture in good ways. This is definitely a positive thing. I wonder if the neocons will try to coopt the issue, though in many ways it really flies in the face of a large part of their culture.

 

Bill Moyers, one of the smarter people around when it comes to understand religious conservatives, has it right. It really is a transition from the concept of "dominion" and the concept he doesn't mention (but is implied), "stewardship."

To argue environmental issues with an evangelical, you don't attack his religion. You ask him if he thinks we are stewards of the earth, and if we should abuse, or protect, God's gift to us.

 

I would love to see the idea of stewardship embraced by everybody, regardless of their theological (or lack of) beliefs. It would seem to me though that the culture of comsumption and materialism that we live in will very much resist it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Oct 6 2006, 11:08 AM) [snapback]328905[/snapback]</div>

GW? The only Gee Dubya that springs to mind is not a myth, as much as we'd like him to be. What's your GW stand for?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Oct 7 2006, 02:49 PM) [snapback]329484[/snapback]</div>

Duh! Thanks, been a while since I associated that with a myth. I thought it was pretty much a given that our planet was warming up, and CO2 levels were increasing.

Especially when I keep reading stuff like this:

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html


Carbon dioxide levels are now 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years, according to research into Antarctic ice cores published on Thursday in Science.

 

I have to wonder what belief it is that has been serving as a mental block. EDIT... helps to read all the posts !

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Oct 6 2006, 11:08 AM) [snapback]328905[/snapback]</div>

At the other end of the religious spectrum, Unitarian Universalists hold this as the seventh and final principle of their religion: "Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part." That's consistent with another catch-phrase that UU's use: The only heaven we are sure about is the one we make on earth. So this is an integral part of Unitarian Universalist church. I understand where I stand there.

But it mystifies my why a fundamentalist Christian would consider this a religious issue, and the article does nothing to explain that. Merely says that they do, to some degree, and that there may be political fallout.

Guess I'm saying I'd like to grasp why they now, as opposed to in the past, have determined that environmentalism is a Christian issue. The article was unhelpful there. I understand that a lot of self-described fundamentalist Christians strongly hold beliefs that have nothing to do with the New Testament, but merely reflect their generally conservative bent. For example, apparently credible surveys show that three-quarters of self-described fundamentalist Christians approve of the war in Iraq. Personally, I don't think you can be a pro-war Christian, at least as I read the New Testament (I'd say the Sermon on the Mount is pretty clear there.) Yet the majority of self-described fundamentalist Christians appear to be, well, proudly pro-war Christians. So there is at least one important example where the teachings of the New Testament don't appear to interfere with willingness to support a conservative cause. I'm just wondering whether they truly have a theological basis for this conversion to environmentalism, or whether, like the war example above, this is just another secular opinion hiding behind the guise of religion? Either way, I think that's great -- I'd rather see Green Christians than pro-war Christians -- and hope the trend spreads.

 

Ah another UU at PC. Well, I've always been of the opinion that many Christians would rather just worship JC than actually listen to anything that he said. I think the trend is probably resulting from the fact that the concept of "dominion" is most likely causing unacceptible environmental damage and so the focus is now shifting to "stewardship" (as was mentioned in an earlier post). That seems to be the obvious cause anyway. Perhaps it's more subtle than that. I don't move in those circles so I am only peering in from the outside. Perhaps FSHagen has a better perspective on this (I'm sure he does).

It does seem like a good thing anyway you look at it. It's great to see greenies, security hawks, and the Christian Right actually agreeing on such an important issue, if for different reasons.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 11 2006, 11:02 AM) [snapback]331244[/snapback]</div>

I describe myself as a socially liberal but theologically conservative evangelical Christian, so my views are not typical in Christianity. But I do see a lot of cultural influences in American Christianity that don't seem to exist in other countries (including other English speaking countries). The "great debate" over evolution is one example, as is "temperance", the odd tendency for American Christians to equate moderate alcohol use with immorality. British and Irish Christians don't have these same issues (as I was told by a pastor in a pub in Bray, where the Guiness really does taste like heaven.)

Anti-environmentalism in conservative Christianity has roots, I think, in the culture wars. Because the people advocating environmentalism in the 1970s and 1980s were often "admitted agnostics" or "pagan earth worshippers", the movement was seen as a means to an end rather than weighed on its own merits. For liberal Christians, embracing these things appealed to their need to be seen as "modern" and "up to date", so they naturally embraced them. (These are really broad brush strokes, I admit, but I clarify it a bit in the next paragraph).

I think positions are taken that have more to do with the person's "world view" or preconcieved notions about the world rather than on the merits of the issue at hand. Its a good practice to challenge your views and really break them down to find out why you hold a particular view, and if that reason is sound. Its hard, but then in life we are not supposed to be comfortably smug.

 

I am a preacher. Who follows Christ. And I also believe in the following:

I am Pro Choice. It's not my place to tell another human what to do with their body.

I am not against gay people, or their lifestyle. It's their choice. Not mine, and I won't tell them what to do either.

I am for all races. I don't think any is better then the rest.

I am for one believing in what they believe. Believe in God, don't. It's again, your decision.

I am for the saving of the planet. That is why I own two hybrids, and recycle, and you know, do good things.

I am a Apple user. So all you PC users can bite me.







But really, the last line aside, I am what I wrote. SO, if I represent just a small part of the 'Christian' movement, maybe some might take notice, and think it's not such a stretch that Christians can think green.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 12 2006, 12:16 AM) [snapback]331599[/snapback]</div>

Aye. 'Tis true. Both sides of that coin.

TJ, agreed except that I'd recast it as saving ourselves/humanity not the planet. The planet isn't going anywhere (well, it is hurtling through space, but I'm talking figuratively here ) anytime soon. On the other hand, we have a lot to lose or gain based on our choices vis a vis the biosphere.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 11 2006, 02:02 PM) [snapback]331244[/snapback]</div>

Well, I'm not orthodox UU. That's my wife's tradition, I attend the services and find a lot to agree with. I, by contast, grew up Catholic. And never got over the concept of Limbo. I mean, what does a dance have to do with the hereafter? Would a just and benevolent God doom me to Hell just because I have poor joint flexibilty?

BUT the point I really wanted to make is that every Sunday my kids and I count the cars and the Priuses in the church parking lot row where we are parked. (Ironically, it is not possible to bicycle safely to the church.) The average to date is almost exactly that 10% of the cars, in our row, are Priuses. (Ignoring our car it'd be 7.5%, I guess). Which is an absurdly high percentage, given the prevalence of Priuses overall in the DC area. I peek over at the LDS church next door, and that's wall-to-wall SUVs. So the UU-Prius connection, I think that's a real phenomenon.

 

Yeah, there's definitely a connection. Don't think the parking lot has that many but there are several (and a couple of HCHs as well) and the number seems to be growing. There are some SUVs for sure but as far as CO goes I'd say the # of them is relatively low.

I'm not orthodox anything. Don't care for orthodoxy too much really.