- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (11/8)
- Next Post »A La Carte (11/9)
Environmentalism - A New Religion
- 11/08/07
- 52
Yesterday we received notice that the town of Oakville is changing the trash collection strategy. Currently we have our trash picked up every week and have "blue boxes" or recycling bins picked up every other week. Beginning in April, we've recently learned, we'll have garbage pickup every other week and recycling pickup every week. We'll all be given a "GreenCart" into which we can toss all manner of wet and compostable garbage. Though the layout of our home poses some challenges for us, we are largely in favor of this strategy; we're glad to see the town taking seriously their responsibility for environmental stewardship. If we can keep garbage out of the local landfills, we would all agree this is a good thing.
There was one thing in the notice that caught my eye. It was a short story about a local woman who is a local environmental "champion." She is pictured sitting with her young children and the article describes her efforts to reduce their environmental impact. "I only use reusable cloth bags when grocery shopping." "When I've put away the groceries, I leave the bags on the front door knob so I'll remember to bring them back out to the car." "She never buys single serving containers." "I engaged a diaper service to collect and recycle disposable diapers." "They hang the annual Waste Management Calendar in their kitchen to that everyone can see it." "Her twins help compost by putting their fruit peels in the Kitchen Catcher for backyard composting." "We talk a lot about our earth and how we can help make it a healthier place." "Our family of four only has a half bag of garbage or less, as most waste is either recyclable or compostable." And so on.
What struck me about this article was just how much it sounded like a woman who serves the environment with religious fervor. It sounded like religion, not like taking out the trash. And it reinforced in my mind something I've thought about often--environmentalism is fast becoming the default religion of our age and of our society. It is a religion that is politically correct and which creates few enemies. It is a religion everyone respects and a religion that is bound to garner attention. It is a religion that is creating its own brand of Pharisees, people who stand on the street corners, so to speak, declaring their religious accomplishments.
I believe the first time I began to think of environmentalism as a religion was after reading a speech Michael Crichton delivered back in 2003. Though he was not the first person to make this connection, his speech was widely quoted and widely discussed. And well it should have been. Though it is in many ways anti-religious and though it proceeds from an unbiblical worldview, it is, nevertheless, very interesting. Crichton begins by saying "The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance." As a Christian I can agree, to some extent, with this statement. Certainly few things are as important to humans as distinguishing was is true (and Who is Truth). From that starting point, Crichton begins to show how environmentalism is spreading untruths and how it is built upon a shaky, unstable foundation.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.
As Christians we understand that certain truths are imprinted into the human mind. Among these truths is the knowledge that something in this world is not right. We know that we are sinners but that this is an unnatural state for us. And somehow we seem to know that we need redemption. Every religion offers its own understanding of how we can be made right. Environmentalism offers sustainability and offsets, the path to a return to the idyllic state from whence we came.
Crichton denies the existence of an Eden--he denies that humanity once experienced perfection. But his point still stands. Environmentalists have created in their own minds a kind of idealistic world that has never existed since the fall into sin and one that can never exist until the Lord returns. They fall into the myth of the noble savage, somehow believing that technology and industrialization are inherently evil. But history bears out just how wrong and absurd and irrational this is. "What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden? "
Death and sin have reigned since Adam defied God. Death and sin will continue to mark this world until the day the Lord returns and eradicates them once and for all. Without the Lord we cannot return to the state of perfection, regardless of how well we treat this earth. But the environmentalists would have us believe otherwise. They are calling for us to place our faith in them and in their understanding of what's happening in the world. They ask us to place our faith in their solution; in their salvation. Al Gore, undoubtedly the world's foremost environmentalist spokesperson, has gone on record several times saying that we need to have a blind faith--that anyone who would doubt climate change is like a person who still believes in a flat earth. Environmentalism is a religion that is increasingly demanding adherence at the expense of reason. And this despite environmentalism's long record of getting it all dead wrong (remember acid rain and global cooling and DDT and...?).
In find it interesting that the term "global warming" has now been largely supplanted by "climate change." This offers at least two advantages to environmentalists: first, it allows scientists to claim either warming or cooling as evidence of their theories and second it makes their theories far easier to prove because the climate is always changing. The climate is never static, but always changing in one direction or another (which is why we speak of historical average temperatures drawn from a long sample). Today any unusual weather patterns--warm weather in January, unusually cold weather in January, a large number of hurricanes, the absence of hurricanes--are all used to prove that climate change is happening. And we are supposed to blindly accept all of this. This does look like a religion--not the religion of the Bible which offers evidence and calls for faith--but the religion of the world which demands faith despite evidence. It is a religion that mimics truth, offering its own concepts of deity, sin, salvation and redemption. It is a religion that masks truth, blinding people to problems of the heart that are far deeper than the environment. It is a religion that creates its own version of truth. It is yet another false religion--another kind of works righteousness in which humans can make themselves right before their god through their own efforts.
Let me conclude with sentiment I've expressed here before. I am all for tending to the earth and hence I'm all for Oakville's new waste disposal strategy. I know that God entrusted it to us and did not give us a world that is merely habitable, but a world that is stunningly, breathtakingly beautiful and one that was absolutely perfect for us. Sadly, we ruined the perfection and continue to do so. As Christians we should have the highest view of the earth, seeing it as a gracious and generous gift of God. We should be first in line to protect it, to tend to it, and to attempt to reverse whatever damage we have done to it. Yet we must not fool ourselves into believing that we can save it in and of ourselves. The earth is not neutral or inherently good. Not anymore. We ruined it and have to be prepared for it to continue to decay, just as you and I will do. As our bodies rot and decay, so too does the earth. So while we tend to it, we do so from a perspective that realizes that this earth is only our temporary home. When the Lord returns He will redeem it, He will rebuild it, and restore it to its original perfection.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (52)
My son and I were talking just yesterday about environmentalism being the new religion. For some of the young people he knows, there really are no absolute moral rules except do everything you can to reduce your footprint.
I agree with you too about Christians needing to take seriously our job tending the earth.
Thanks, Tim. You've put together all the jumbled thoughts I've had for some time, but could never put together in a coherent form. Very good point.
It's bizarre to me how something becomes one of the 'unquestionable truths' of society. How did climate change get to that status?
One thing I'd be curious to see is if it's as bad in the States as it is here. I was at a conference in the States last year and was amazed to see that there were no recycling bins anywhere. People were throwing out plastic and aluminum! In Canada, if we were to ever bring back the death penalty, it would probably be for that.
I do think it is our responsibility to be good stewards. We should reuse whatever we can and be frugal with resources.
However sometimes ideas that look good on paper don't work out well in reality. England changed to every other week trash pick-up this year, I believe. Articles about it reported flies were swarming and rats were congregating in urban areas. In hot weather it was really stinky by pick-up day. Those with larger families tended to have the most problems dealing with such issues, of course. Not everyone has a place to compost or even room to store trash for long periods of time.
Sometimes it looks like something useful is being done when in fact the problem may have been made worse. For instance, landfills may be used less, but more water may be wasted, etc. etc.
If environmentalism and global warming consitute the new religion, then the Kyoto Protocol seems to have become its statement of faith, its credo. Despite all the signs that the treaty has failed to achieve anything much, it seems that the refusal of the USA and Australia to ratify it have brought cries of indignation and anger that in past times would have only been provoked by religious heresy. If it wasn't for the greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps those two countries would be burnt at the stake.
You use an anecdotal story to paint all environmentalists with the same characteristics as the woman you mention. While some environmentalists are as the woman you described, there are many more who are not.
I am a Christian and an environmentalist. I do not worship the creation. I worship the Creator. In worshiping the Creator I am concerned over the care of His creation.
It is time Evangelicals engage the issues rather than setting up environmentalist straw men and then blowing them over. Instead of complaining, try giving some answers. (this is a general comment not directed at your post)
My take on the matter is that is is a matter of consumption. As Americans we over consume in virtually every aspect of our lives. Surely that is a BIBLICAL issue than ought to be addressed. (and is far more important than preaching at the homosexuals who AREN'T in our Church)
Mr. Challies, your essay is idiotic. Mr. Gerenscer states the case quite well. Most of us who work for environmental groups, or try to reduce our own consumption or support organic food purveyors do so because we care about our health, the world we leave to our children, and issues of economic and cultural equity. Americans think they are the only people on the planet, happily consuming 40 percent of the world's resources like it's a God-given right. It's not. God calls us to be stewards. He calls us to compassion for all creatures. Your essay simply ridicules this, and to what end? It's a political screed, not a true critique of faith. It cheapens religion and concern for the environment both. You should be ashamed.
This is the first time Ihave ever read an article on your website, I'm new at this since I'm computer illiterate! But boy did your article get me thinking! I have noticed a huge increase in garbage over the past 20 years and I think a major reason for that is consumption. But why more now? Maybe its because we are all in such a hurry that we need fast everything, from food to toys everything is packaged in plastic. What is with the water bottles? I survived perfectly well for an entire day without having to carry around a water bottle! And if I got thirsty- I used a glass! Paper cups were for picnics! Also why does fresh lettuce come in a plastic bag? Our whole consumerism is wacked!
I think the overall idea you had was thoughtful and necessary to address - environmentalism as a religion. It makes evangelists aware of a new god being worshiped. However, it seems you went on a tangent to almost disprove or downplay global warming. Whether it's occurring or not, I think the underlining purpose for your post was to show that our eyes should be focused on our purpose - glorifying Christ. Do you think participating in political discussions of Al Gore, the definition of global warming, and evidence supporting or contradicting theories accomplishes this?
That’s not to say we as Christians, or even merely as humans, shouldn’t be responsible stewards of our environment. Far too often the conservative response to environmentalism propaganda is filled with anti-environmental rhetoric: “Give me an gas-guzzling, carbon-emitting SUV so I can burn rubber on these leftist kooks. We’re getting outta here soon anyway!” That attitude is a terrible by-product of our years of evangelical escapist teaching.
Another detached thought: People yearn to fill a purposeful void left in their lives when religion is removed. They need something to live for, something greater than them. I suppose that’s one explanation why environmentalism would be so popular to the agnostic. It is a way of serving a greater good and having an impact that will continue after they have passed.
Does he call us to have compassion on all creatures? We are to be good steward's, but creation is under subjection to us(Gen.1:26). If we had compassion to all creatures, we wouldn't be eating meat, even though God allowed it.(Gen.9:3)
I don't think Mr. Challies argument cheapens anything. His article isn't 'simple ridicule' of environmentalists. It's about blind faith, by mostly non-believers, as something akin to pantheism (acknowledged or not). He also has the right to draw parallels between faith and politics, and not be harassed by knee-jerk reactions by those who simply skim his posts.
Caleb,
Do you think it's escapist-evangelicalism or pseudo-Christian Republicanism? I vote the latter. Christianity has been subject to much harm by suburban white middle-class Republicans who 'go to church,' think they are 'in the right' because of this, and simply knee-jerk away from their political opponents into belligerent defiance.
I think Tim did a good job in his article of qualifying his statements and acknowledging that we should be good stewards of the environment. Seems like stating the obvious to me. I also think that it should be obvious to people, that confronting one erroneous position doesn’t necessarily mean that you are supporting the other extreme of the issue. I’m sure your thinking, like mine, is slightly more sophisticated than a toggle switch that is either on one extreme or the other.
Yes, Eric, he does. First you misunderstand the Genesis passage. Second, you ignore many others that plainly speak to our stewardship responsibilities. Read the book Dominion by Matthew Scully for some understanding on this.
Eric- I would agree with you. My reply was first an email reply to some friends, some who have just realized that the charismatic movement is dying, and still carry some of that baggage. And I’m afraid that anti-environmentalism may be a common backlash from conservatives who are married to the political right. Challies did a good job of qualifying his remarks. But I wouldn't discount the subtle-effects that Evangelicalism has had on mainstream Christians, many who have a rapture-centric view of their responsibilities on earth. If we have nothing more than an escapist attitude, there is no room, or reason, for maintaining Earth. Again, that's not to say Challies insinuated this. I think we’re probably in agreement.
Eric,
Subjection does not mean doing anything I want. That's licentiousness. It is a libertine spirit.
Is it really subjection of the earth or is it rather stewardship of the earth that God gave us responsibility for?
God allows us to eat meat. But, stewardship also demands that we care for the life of the beast. The beast is a created being and has standing in its own right. Same goes for every part of creation. We are responsible for caring for every part of creation. As such our politics and daily living practices should reflect that care.
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1018
Here is an inteeresting article by Dr. Mohler on this issue.
I just think it's pretty shameful that Callies would essentially ridicule who is doing her part to live more sustainably. There's just nothing in this to make fun of or to find theologically threatening, and yet he uses this good person as the basis of a rant. It makes me wonder frankly, if Callies even understands what religion is.
Concerned Virginian,You are the only person involved in this discussion that up to this point has resorted to ridicule and pronouncements of shame upon people. Cool your jets... ;)
I just think it’s pretty shameful that Callies would essentially ridicule who is doing her part to live more sustainably.
I did not mock her at all...or certainly did not intend to. I merely pointed to her as an example of a person who reminded me of the Pharisees of old. Imagine if she was a Christian and not an environmentalist. How long would we want to here her go on about "I read my Bible twice a day. I pray before every meal. My boys study their Bibles and know the books of the Bible by heart. We got to church three times a week." If it was in that context, we'd find it shockingly self-centered. But in an environmental context we do not...
Tim,I think you are right about the particular person you mentioned but perhaps too broad in your assertions about environmentalists in general.
I suspect you try to mitigate that broadness with the last paragraph in the post.
It is easy to turn anything we are passionate about into a religion. As a pastor I have evangelists in our Church that evangelized for Avon, Home Interiors, Vitamins, Vegetarianism, etc. They were zealots always pushing their program on others.
I am passionate about environmental issues but that passion flows from my commitment to my Creator and the following of his command to be a good steward of creation. We must never worship the creation.
One thing that I note with secular environmentalism and with some flavors of Christian environmentalism is the idea that working to fix the environment will fix people and communities.
I would argue for exactly the opposite - that is, when people are in a right relationship with Christ, they will act according to Phillipians in which they see others greater than themselves.
From this ought to stem a reduction in selfish living and a concurrent reduction in the desire to extract whatever they can from each other and their environment. This will have a positive impact on their community and their environment.
So, while I feel that it is imperative as Christians to live a simple, unselfish lifestyle, which necessitates good environmental stewardship, the environment will never be truly "saved" until His Kingdom is fully realized.
In the meantime, we as Christians ought to focus on our relationship with Christ and with others and with our world. That triad of focus, with the primary note being Christ, will result in improvements as each Christian community grows and can be seen as light and tasted as salt in the world around... each community being an prototype of the realized Kingdom.
Basically, to get back to my original point, secular and some Christian environmentalists have things backward. Instead of focusing in the symptom, which is a spoiled environment, they ought to focus on the root cause (while not neglecting the symptoms), which is corrupted hearts.
Tim: I didn't mention this previously, but I think your post was very good, very well thought out. I do believe that the kind of environmentalism that is presented through the media has all the characteristics of a religion, and you outlined it very well, while showing that you truly care about being a good steward of the earth.
Amen
Great point E.G. Many these days are preaching the effects of the gospel, as the gospel. Since the real gospel is offensive, especially in our pluralistic society, we simply bypass it altogether and preach moral imperatives that are common to most religions, even humanism. It makes as much sense as a doctor prescribing "health" to a sick patient rather than actually giving them the medication that would cure them.
Tim, I think you are right about the particular person you mentioned but perhaps too broad in your assertions about environmentalists in general.
That could be. Perhaps I should have been more clear that not all who care for the environment make it into a type of religion. But I think that should go without saying...
The whole "environmentalism is a religion" thing is not a new assertion and predates Michael Crichton by several years. But no question he further popularized the phrase.
I agree with some others here that the woman you sited in this article is not treating the environment as a "religion" or as her "god." (Gore, however, in his book "Earth in the Balance" clearly does.) IMHO, this woman is just sharing multiple ways that people can be doing small things to help make our world a more clean and healthy place to live.
I'm not one in favor of the "green" movement taking place in our society. It is mostly based upon junk science and flawed information. I certainly don't believe global warming is factual and caused by humans. I do not believe we are powerful enough to destroy this planet. I don't believe that the planet is in dire circumstances environmentally - God is sovereignly in control of His creation.
But as I say that, we are to be stewards of this world and do think we all can do a little bit more to help in some basic simple things to improve upon water and air pollution (like woman you mentioned above.)
However, the greatest thing to ever affect our planet is the sin issue. And we know that only the gospel of Jesus Christ is sufficient to "clean up the mess" caused by our original parents in the garden. (Gen. 3; Roms. 5:12-18). No amount of "carbon credits" and reverse the curse.
We should consider the words of the Apostle Paul when he said, "Rom. 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
Rom. 5:21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
From "green" pastures...SteveCol. 1:9-14
Ok Chris,
Let's say I buy your view.
So, since the vast majority of evangelicals care little for environmental issues what does that say about them and the gospel? If faith (the gospel) without works (the effects) is dead what shall we say about Evangelicalism.
Sadly, it is in liberal Churches I find the most sympathy towards environmental issues. Evangelicalism is dominated by rapturism which results in a careless approach to the future (why bother with the future since Jesus is Coming today?)
I agree with some others here that the woman you sited in this article is not treating the environment as a “religion” or as her “god.”
I did not say that she treats the environment as religion or god. I don't know the woman and for all I know, she may be a God-fearing believer. What I said was this: "What struck me about this article was just how much it sounded like a woman who serves the environment with religious fervor. It sounded like religion, not like taking out the trash." What stood out to me was how much this whole portion of the little newsletter sounded like it was honoring her for religious beliefs.
Hello Bruce,Can you offer me any poof that the vast majority of evangelicals care little for environment? As long as these evangelical men and women aren't living their lives in reckless disregard for the environment then I don't see how you have a right to criticize them. Just because they aren't jumping on the alarmist bandwagon and giving environmental issues top priority in their ministries doesn't mean that they don't care about the environment, it may just mean that they aren't going to get caught up in environmental-ISM. Mankind faces a much bigger problem than the temperature of their planet. The biggest problem is that everyone of us is a sinner and if we die in our sins we are gonna spend an eternity in an environment that makes anything this temporal world could throw at us look like paradise. I think most (though the number is shrinking) evangelicals recognized that this is the greatest problem facing humanity and therefore it remains their greatest priority.
Chris,
you didn't answer my question.
But.........In the past 3 or so years I have visited 125 or so different churches ranging from Catholic to Fundy Baptist. Many of the Churches had a pre-trib, rapturist eschatology. In those Churches I never heard anything that showed any concern about the environment. It was all...........You are going to Hell, Get saved, Get ready for Jesus to Come. All about Heaven and very little about On EARTH as it is in Heaven.
The only Church I saw that was actively dealing with environmental issues with in a Biblical context was an Episcopal Church.
I live in an area, that no matter the denominational tag, the Churches are all the same. Most hold to right wing political views. They are George Bush friendly and they buy into his agenda (which includes a horrible environmental view)
You set up a false dichotomy. Winning souls. Caring for the environment, Both, not either or. All I am saying is that Evangelicals are far too focused on "winning souls" all at the expense of letting creation go to hell.I have pastored in Evangelical/Fundamentalist Churches for near 30 years. My comments are based on being in a lot of Churches, knowing a lot of pastors, and having a good number of bull sessions with fellow pastors about the "issues" of the day. For the most part the environment isn't even on their radar. Boosting attendance, electing a right wing republican to office, increasing offerings,and gossiping about who did what./when/where are the typical crucial issues.
I believe the point is this: following Christ means bending your whole being towards saving souls, not saving the earth. As we focus first and foremost on aligning our lives in submission to the standards God outlines for us in His Word, a care for the environment (and other social issues) naturally falls into place. Good stewardship and an avoidance of consumerism are attitudes that bear witness to the Spirit at work within us.
So yes, Christians should care for this decaying world, and other animals, and our health, and equity problems -- but in a way that speaks of the Lord's sovereignty over all... never at the expense of putting one's own acheivements concerning the world above the One who created this world.
It is not about us striving to create heaven on earth, but about us asking the Lord that His will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Thank you for this thought-provoking post.
Hello Bruce. I didn’t answer your question because I dispute the underlying premise and even you ability to know it. I don’t find the fact that you claim to have visited 125 churches very compelling either given the fact that, that is only .00027 of the churches in the united states. I would also be curious as to how many of those 125 pastor if they were to be asked would claim to not care about the environment. As far as “on Earth as it is in Heaven” I’m more inclines to believe that is referencing knees bowing, tongues confessing and people worshiping God as opposed to environmental activism.
Any time you mix politics and religion, you get politics. The church needs to do more that switch from right to left, that would be making the same mistake all over again.
I don’t believe that I used a false dichotomy because I believe that a pastor can care for the environment, evidenced by the fact that they try to be good steward of it, without making that an issue in their ministry. I believe the false dichotomy is that you either make environmentalism part of your ministries focus “or” you don’t care about the environment. Actually, the foundational premise that “the Earth is going to Hell” is in no way a settled matter. And it would be a terrible mistake to waste time and resources trying to save a planet from “Hell” if it wasn’t actually headed there when that time and energy could have been used spreading the gospel in order to save people who are.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&q=great+global+warming+swindle&total=145&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
http://www.youtube.com/v/PYl4hkFRdTk&rel=1
I always love these academic arguments (err I mean friendly discussions) :)
Let's cut through all the verbiage... for each of us:
1.What are we actually doing to advance God's Kingdom? What have we really done to "win souls"?
2.What are we actually doing to be good stewards of God's creation?
I am not looking for anyone to actually type out their answers. I just know it is easy to talk and write about these things without actually "doing" these things.
I am sorry you don't accept my observations about evangelicalism. I pretty certain I am spot on but you certainly have the right to disregard it. I think my sample size is large enough and broad enough to give me a pretty good picture of how things are.
Let's forget the environmental issue for a moment and let me share my observation on the "soul saving" issue. Of those 125 or so Churches we visited.....Less than 10% of them ever bothered to visit our home. 0%, yes zero percent , asked us whether or not we were Christians. Some Churches we visited for upwards to 3 months. Not one visit. Not one concern over whether or not we were Christians. Now granted we look/smell/act the part.........
I do not grant you that the environment is a political issue. It is not and if pastor's are not addressing the issue from the pulpit they are not preaching the whole counsel of God. Exposition without application is worthless.It is one thing to grant that we are to be stewards of creation. It is another to actually say what that looks like in 2007.
If you really want to become a good steward:
Keep driving your SUV...just not to a boy/girlfriends house to spend the night.Keep using as much toilet paper as you like...just don't read Penthouse, Cosmo, etc. while in there.
I guarantee more pollution is created by sinful companies, creating sinful products to please our sinful minds.
The resources are God-given and if we really want to help be good stewards, we would stop worrying so much about overusing and start asking ourselves...what are we using them for.
Steve is correct (and he has the Bible to support)...it is a sin problem.
Excellent points, Tim. You don't have to apologize for anything you wrote. I happen to think that environmentalism is inherently pharisaical. To say that it is one of the more dominant religions today is probably an understatement. It's one thing to talk about conservation and stewardship, but being an "environmentalist" is something else entirely.
So-called "environmental groups" don't exist merely to educate. They exist to proselytize and convert people, to raise funds and lobby for legislation. In essence what they are saying is, "If you don't do things the way we want, then we're going to force you to."
I have always found it interesting that the concept of Christian liberty is virtually lost when it comes to environmental issues. If you want to start a neighborhood group to walk around and clean up litter, plant trees, and recycle cans, then you'd be doing your part as a steward of your little part of God's creation. But if you support radical organizations that seek to use the government to make me pay for unsightly windmills and solar panels, or subsidize the production of ethanol, or in any way try to force a particular lifestyle on me and my family, then we're no longer talking about biblical stewardship.
I see how today's environmentalism can easily cross the line and become a religion. I do agree with some, however, that those of us who belong to God should approach caring for our world with more fervor, not less.
One observation: when I lived in India, there was trash all over the streets of my neighborhood. It was gross, and there was a looming smell that got me every time I walked out of my door. I bet it was less trash than Americans would typically put out in a neighborhood because this was a "poor" neighborhood. But still - I suspect the underlying Hindu belief system made many think, "Well, the earth doesn't really matter anyway, so who cares..." I do not want to be like that because I know Who made this place.
If my father was a king who gave me 12,000 acres of land to take care of every day of my life, I would work so hard to do it, even if he told me it was going to be trashed until he comes back to make it the way he wants to. Although it may look like I'm worshiping the land itself, I know I would be doing it because of who my father is and because he told me to do it. It may look like I'm following someone else who does the same thing and doesn't even know who my father is, but my father knows why I'm doing it.
I think taking care of the world with fervor overlaps with so many other areas of stewardship - and I think this is why many Christians like the phrase "living with a smaller footprint." It certainly appeals to me. Converting my car to run on veggie oil doesn't seem like a religious act to me but something that could save me money and maybe allow me to give more to God or adopt a child, etc. And if doing that, building a cob house, getting rid of plastic or harmful toxins in the home, or using Freecycle saves me money and makes me think I'm going to save my kids and grandkids money and time in the long run to truly help others, then I'm going to get excited about it. And I'm going to share it with others, too! "Look at the ways God is freeing us up to do the more important things!"
I think we should be just as excited to be better stewards. The difference should be that we don't stop with the practical benefits of doing so. We realize that the benefits are a means to the end of more freely serving because we aren't tied to everything a consumption-mindset binds us to. Isn't that why missionaries get rid of most of their stuff to follow Christ?
Maybe I'm missing what you're saying. I'm not trying to be antagonistic at all. But after reading your post I felt like I should be guilty for being zealous about these things.
I've reread the post twice, watched one of the videos (Chris #32), and I think I have a whole lot more to learn and pray about now. Thanks for opening a great discussion.
God help us to do Your will!
I work for a leading online travel agency. We sell airline tickets, hotel rooms, cruises, vacation packages, etc. In the last few years, there has a been a huge push for the company to go "green".
I won't describe everything that's involved, but a short list includes:- building a "certified green" campus for our corporate headquarters- partnering with environmental conservation organizations to raise funds and increase awareness- hiring a "Director, Sustainability Initiatives" (new position)- providing opportunities and incentives for employees to volunteer time, effort and money toward environmental causes- selling "carbon offsets" to our customers who choose to buy them to offset the environmental impact of their travel...and more...
I have to say that all of this sounds pretty good to me. It's a great feeling to know my employer is concerned about the environment. Because, like many of you, I understand that Christians need to be good stewards. While the company is by no means a Christian organization, I'm sure you can see the connection. It could feel good for a Christian to work for such a company. Their motives are not Biblical, but they are supporting things which a Bible-believer can get behind.
Unfortunately, I have also discovered that many of these environmentally-focused initiatives are unhelpful. In many cases they provide no real positive impact; they fail to achieve their stated goal of "helping the environment" in a measurable way, even by their own standards. We basically spend a lot of money and effort directed at programs and organizations who really don't do much but talk a good game. But boy, are we proud of it.
As far as the company is concerned, this is a PR and marketing issue. They put a happy face on it and pretend to truly care about the environment. From the inside, it looks very deceitful.
One does not have to look very hard to find evidence of the hypocrisy: in our cafeteria, our parking garage, and in the homes and private lives of our employees and company management. If these people truly believed all that the hype they buy into and broadcast, their lives would show it. In reality, they drive huge gas-guzzling automobiles and produce a vast amount of waste (like good ol' Americans).
What drives our corporate leadership is, of course, "company sustainability" (in the words of our CEO), not a true desire for "environmental sustainability". Going green is the hot trend right now. We can make money off of this. If piling up more garbage and intentionally polluting the air were all the rage, you can bet we'd be promoting that, too.
I'm reminded of certain leading environmentalists (celebrities and politicians) who fly around the world in private jets and return home to their mansions. They are indisputably, measurably, consuming huge amounts of fuel and generating lots of waste. Yet they preach a message that we should all do exactly the opposite. And the green masses regurgitate the message and give a free pass to their leaders.
A religion, indeed. A religion that does not serve God, but rather serves ego and money.
By the way: I eat lots of meat; I live in Texas; I probably don't recycle everything I could; I just bought a new car which is NOT a hybrid; and I'm at least somewhat proud to be an American. I also don't consider myself in any way a real danger to the environment (global or local), but feel free to cast stones.... ;)
I'm all for being a good steward, honestly. But I'm more than skeptical of the "cult of green". I have no interest in supporting fraudulent beliefs which have no basis in fact, but require money and lifestyle change. The hype, fanaticism and legalism involved does look much like a religion to me.
This is so true! Yes, like you, I completely support recycling, taking good care of the environment and "good stewardship" of our environment - I also respect the fact that many would enjoy and have others enjoy God's breath-taking and beautiful creation.
But now, the "green issue" is no longer a subtle competitor for the Gospel, it's overt. Our local paper (the Gaithersburg Gazette) just ran an article entitled, "Churches spreading the gospel on green living." http://www.gazette.net/stories/110707/bethnew55415_32370.shtml The article boasts of the"Creation Care" forums, held at one church, and another church launching a green campaign last fall which "... drew more than 100 people, two-thirds of whom were from outside the church." One church voted the environment it's "number one issue," and parents and pastors are recruiting its youngest attendees (the children) to help. One church's "environmental leader," said that folks, "don't know exactly what causes (global warming) and how to solve the problem."
Solving the problem is where the real Gospel comes in - as you wrote - the Lord is the one to redeem it, rebuild it and restore it, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ helps us first take responsibility (at a heart level) for our own sin, trust in him, and change. I am a very grateful member of a church (Covenant Life Church, in Gaithersburg, MD) who prizes the Gospel and preaches it first in red (the cross) not green. I can't tell you how truly grateful I am to have hope, and to take that hope with me through any temptation or anxiety (and there is a great deal of anxiety over this "inconvenient truth.") There is truth. And there is gospel and there is Gospel, but it takes a work of God to be able to both understand and work at restoring the number one issues.
Thanks for your blog! Thanks also to the folks who are specifically praying for this issue!
I've got to say that (aside from Concerned Virginian) it's been wonderful to read the comments here. IMHO, Bruce and Chris have given an excellent example of how Christians can disagree and yet still show grace towards one another. What an excellent witness of Christ!
Self-congratulatory much, Levi? What an excellent example of Christian witness this all is -- this obtuse pummeling of people who want to leave to their children an undiminished earth. As a Christian, I see nothing Christian about this discussion at all.
Mr. Challies, I thank you for your responses but they perpetuate the problem. You concede that perhaps "not all" environmentalists are nature-worshipping heathens. Why, thanks so much for that. In my next essay on stereotyping I will likewise concede that "not all" Christianists bomb clinics. Perhaps I will add that not all black people are criminals. And hey, if it doesn't stretch the point, not all Muslims support Osama.
Of course you see the problem, I hope, this "not all" forumuation of yours makes it seem as though the criminals, clinic bombers, and Osama followers are the norm. We'll wink and nod that "not all" people are this way, but man, most of them, or at least a whole lot of them are. Thank you god, that I am not like these publicans.
Thanks, but no thanks for your concession.
As for your labeling the poor woman a hypocrite or pharisee. Pot meet kettle. She's being interviewed by a newspaper about what she actually does in her own life. It doesn't appear that boastful to me. It's simply a statement of the things she does, about which she was ASKED. I can't see how this drove you to launch such a screed on environmentalists.
Environmentalism is about one thing only -- ensuring that we do not leave to our children and grandchildren a diminished earth. What part of that do you have a problem with?
I'm all for careful use of resources, recycling, composting etc. But there are elements in the Environmentalist lobby whose fervour for the environment has turned into what appears to be hatred for humanity. Read this frightening article on the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7078857.stm and especially the readers comments below. Most contributers subscribe to the author's notion that we must drastically reduce the human population in order to preserve the planet. Suggestions include compulsory euthanasia for 80 year olds. Of course widespread abortion, one-child policies etc are acceptable means to acheive this, as far as the environmentalist fascists are concerned.
It is leading to the new Nazism - reduce the population by half (weed out the weak, old, unborn, disabled, anyone high-maintenance) in order to preserve the 'good' guys (i.e. environmentally aware, low carbon-footprint people).
I would agree with Paul. I dont think the backlash against going green is so much that people don't want to take care of the environment...but it's because there are people out there talking about euathanizing (albeit, probably a small minority) in order to control global warming. And if what some scientists say, that the evidence is inconclusive right now, then it's scary to think about a solution that may be worse than the problem.
Paul,
You raise some very valid points which many people who call themselves environmentalists would rather not see articulated so clearly. There is that fringe element out there who is leading us to a "new Nazism", as you say. Unfortunately, they are decreasingly fringe and increasingly mainstream.
Anyone can take any social / political / religious / whatever issue and turn it into a crusade. Petty things like objectivity, truth, and selflessness take a back seat to the all-consuming priority of The Cause. This is what I see happening in many cases with the "green" movement. It's not that the fringe suddenly appeared; wacko environmentalists have been around for a long time. It's just that now there seem to be more of them, and they seem to be making greater strides toward broad acceptance of their views and policies.
Couple this with the massive worldview-shift of the 20th century -- the death of Truth and the rise of post-modernity, Darwinism and humanism in the West -- and you have fertile ground for the "cult of green" to take root. I'm just pointing out that there are decidedly non-Biblical worldviews underlying much of what passes today as eco-friendliness. But I digress...
Concerned Virginian: I think here is a major point where many of us on this comment thread differ with you. We recognize that many leaders of the contemporary environmentalist movement do not merely want to "leave their children an undiminished earth". Yes, that is their message. But as Paul and others point out, they sometimes appear willing to place everything under subjection of their Cause -- even human life.
Certainly, not all who would call themselves environmentalists are this strident. As Tim said, that should go without saying. It really should.
I hear what you're saying about the "not all" formulation. But I also think you misunderstand Tim Challies. I'm almost convinced you are choosing to misunderstand him...
To be blunt, much of the environmentalist rhetoric I hear in the media (and even around the office at work) describes humanity in terms of being a stain or a parasite rather than the crowning jewel of God's creation. The Bible tells us we are fallen and sin has literally ruined everything. But people are still the only thing in creation that God created in His image. It's getting to the point of an ideological battle between "Man under God over creation" vs. "Earth / Mother Gaia (or whatever) over Man". Personally, that bothers and offends me. It's a battle with potentially far-reaching and very serious consequences.
Which brings me back to Tim's original point in his post: it's becoming an almost religious issue.
Paul, Woz, Ben, if you haven't already you should watch the "youtube" video that i posted in comment #32. It has some interesting quotes concerning population control.
I agree with what Tim says about environmentalism being the new religion. As Christians we of course need to be concerned about recycling, reducing our carbon footprint and more sustainable living etc. What grieves me most however, is how this new religion is creeping into the church and replacing the real Gospel, ie the only Gospel. We have 'Environmental Sundays' and weekly environmental tips while the gospel of grace is rarely if ever preached and taught. Environmentalism is much easier to preach, it is less offensive and increases the churches approval rating in the community.
Of course not every environmentalist supports population control. Do we have,in some areas, to large of a population? Yes. Much of this is caused by rural residents moving to the city to make a living. Address the "why" of this and a lot of the over population issue goes away.
Of course, the Catholic anti-birth control policy doesn't help either.
I am not persuaded that actual numerical over population is the problem. Population density is the issue IMO. When people can no longer feed themselves they head to the city. Thanks to NAFTA and our farm trade policies we have rendered millions unable to provide for their families. SO, they go to the city to get manufacturing jobs putting lead paint on toys..
I agree with Steve Camp’s statement, “this woman is just sharing multiple ways that people can be doing small things to help make our world a more clean and healthy place to live.”
It is a straw man to say that her actions amount to religious fervor. I think it makes Christians look like wild-eyed fundamentalists to set up such arguments. Christians should be careful to focus on what is factual and for which there is data. Why should we be unnecessarily critical of unbelievers?
I try to be a good steward of the earth and I always like to save money and resources. Many actions that are good for the environment are also good for the pocket-book. Good habits are not that difficult to integrate into our lives and a multitude of good habits should not be ridiculed.
Excellent post, Tim. Spot on, despite some of the arguments and insults here.
The type of thinking espoused in this column trivializes the gravity of the situation with our declining environment. While many Christians are leery of scientists, they are simply reporting their discoveries; it's the media who does all the fear mongering. But there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about what we're doing to the earth.
The issue of caring for creation goes far beyond recycling, which is about as far as most people go. The damage we are doing to the earth is having a tremendous impact on the poor. Climate change (yes, it's OK to use that term) is affecting the poor in low-lying areas such as Bangladesh (http://www.ohio.com/news/10965701.html). If you're a Christian and you find out that there will be an estimated 10 million poor people in Bangladesh forced to become refugees because of the environment, what do you do? To borrow a worn-out, yet appropriate, question, "What would Jesus do?"
Steve Camp and some other people making comments here want us to believe that we should be standing along side of the road telling them about Jesus while they watch their homes and livelihoods get washed away. (Tell them that climate change is junk science.) Jesus would be helping them in a practical way--and then He would get to share the Gospel truth.
The Bible tells us to make disciples, not "converts." As followers of Jesus we are to help others learn to live the way Jesus lived. Jesus' compassion toward the poor is something we should all care about--and there are so many environmental issues that encompass the poor. People dying from diseases due to unclean water don't want a sermon--they want clean water. And if it's Christians who give it to them, it's Christians they will listen to. Such acts of love and kindness will provide proof that Christian's faith is not a bunch of hot air.
Finally, in regards to some of the concerns raised about the population control ideas, that's exactly why Christians need to be leading the environmental movement and not the secular world. The world always loses its bearings when it tries to do the church's job without Christ at the center. We should care about creation as Christians--and we can actually bring about the change that so many environmentalists have wanted but been able to accomplish because of their off-kilter methods.