Subscribe to Posts
political pollution, brothers, that’s what it is
I stumbled into a concern for the environment. It’s not something I sought out. It was thrust upon me. And my interest in this topic is fueled by my concern for the gospel, which has been getting a bad name of late. For good reason. Because we pastors have allowed the gospel to become polluted by political ideology.
I sauntered naively into this concern. I assumed that lovers of Jesus who also love his book would be easily won over to the need for disciples to care about the good creation. After all, a new and transformed one has already been announced, even begun, by the renewal of the dead body of Jesus into a glorified one. A harbinger of things to come. And it’s our job as followers to hasten the good that is coming. Pollution, abuse of creation, is not the good that is coming; it’s the death that is passing away.
the strange resistance
But I ran into a strange phenomenon: a persistent resistance among many pastors in my own tribe, evangelicalism, to this concern. I kept hearing the same objection repeated in dialog with these friends. “Human beings don’t have that much power–to ruin the environment, to affect climate, to mess up the ocean.”
What book conveys that perspective? Not his book. If anything, the lovers of Jesus and his book would be predisposed to accept the possibility that we human beings can ruin things. When science offered evidence of such impact, we’d be inclined to say, “That fits my worldview. That’s what we do as sinners. We mar things.”
From the beginning his book says we humans bear his image; this means we have some unique powers; but unlike the God in whose image we are created we use these powers for good and evil. The other creatures are allowed to simply be themselves. They are neither commanded nor prohibited from doing what comes naturally. We alone are commanded and restricted, because we are so powerful in comparison. The very first words from God concern what we may and may not do with creation (eat anything, but this one thing….). Use this not that for yourselves.
ruin stuff is what we DO
But we used this and that. We transgressed our boundaries and we violated trust. Our actions became so vile, so filled with violence and marring of the creation that God regretted having made us, and sent a flood. He couldn’t wipe us out without harming many other creatures because we are inextricably connected with them.
A remnant was preserved to start over and the remnant went bad. The remnant used technology to build a tower reaching to the heavens and God, it says was afraid of what they would be able to do. Nothing will be impossible to them! he cried out in dismay. And so he confused them to limit their capabilities for a time. .
Is this the picture of a human race incapable of affecting the climate?
And yet that is the most common push-back I get from fellow believers who have a predisposition to be skeptical about climate change. It’s strange, literally. It’s a foreign perspective.
the jesus movement didn’t start out like this
Back in the early Jesus movement when the hippies were discovering Jesus as if for the first time (in typical hippie hubris) it was understood that we human beings can and do and will, unless stopped, ruin things. I remember Hal Lindsey and the Late Great Planet Earth sending chills up our spines about a third of the rivers and third of the seas turning to blood–fulfilled before our eyes by the pollution we’re pouring into nature.
That was before the Jesus movement went to bed with political operatives and conceived this hybrid called the religious right. Christian right? Christian left? How about Christian?
And yet among evangelical pastors you often hear this objection to the concerns of environmental stewardship: it’s all so much chicken littlin’–the environment is doing just fine, not to worry, we’re not that powerful to affect things that much.
I submit: that’s political pollution marring good theology. It’s a thick smog between us and the Bible we’re reading.
we’ve been listening to too much talk radio
I hear that refrain a lot on culture war radio. Rush makes the point all the time. How could little old humanity affect the CLIMATE? Rush, I think, is selling a distortion of capitalism. It’s a form of unrestrained capitalism. Capitalism run wild.
Capitalism says that wealth is something we have the power to generate. There’s not a limit to the amount of wealth so that those who have more are necessarily taking it away from those who have less. And there is truth to that. The Law of Moses seems to say the same. Wealth generation is not a zero sum game.
And the proof is in the pudding: the free market has done more to lift more people out of poverty than any planned system ever did.
But the Rush Limbaugh brand of capitalism assumes that “natural resources” are virtually unlimited and free for the using.
But nature is not unlimited. God is unlimited. Not nature. Nature is creature, not creator. Nature has regenerative power, a kind of creative power, but it’s not unlimited.
What we call nature (there’s no such word in the Bible) is more than natural “resources.” It’s God’s creation! By him, for him, under him! Oil can be used up. Water can be used up. Forests can be used up. Topsoil can be used up. Things can be wasted to the point where they are no longer available.
The pope lately has been making this point. Nature has been telling us of late, “No! There a limits and you exceed the limits at your peril!” That’s the wisdom of what the pope calls “natural law.” You can’t mess with sister nature!
it’s the predisposition to skepticism I’m talkin’ about
Now just to be clear: I’m not saying that every evangelical who is not convinced about climate change science is politically polluted. I am saying that the present predisposition that Amercian evangelicalism has to question climate science is enabled by political pollution. (British evangelicals, for example, don’t have the same issue with climate science.)
I am also not saying that the environmental movement as a whole doesn’t also have political predispositions. Of course it is influenced by political ideology.
Why aren’t leading environmentalists raising Cain over the way China and India are messing with sister nature by gender selection abortion practices that are dangerously skewing their populations? It’s due to the political pollution of many leading environmental organizations. Ironically, it’s humanity run wild, yet many environmentalists are blind to it.
American evangelicals have misled secular environmentalists. Why would you expect an environmentalist to pursue faith in God when when polls indicate that the more you care about God the LESS you care about the environment? If I weren’t a believer myself, I’d be sorely tempted to think that faith in God is bad news for the world too. What I, as an insider, see as a distortion of faith, many outsiders see as representative of faith. We can hardly blame the secular environmentalists for not being turned on to God when the god we show them makes people care LESS about his creation.
But judgment begins with the household of God.
So before we go taking the speck out of the eye of secular environmentalists, how about we remove the plank from our own?
The plank from the platform of politics which has nothing to do with the kingdom of God.
Tags: babel, climate change, environment, flood, genesis, Hal Lindsey, Jesus Movement, Late Great Planet Earth, natural law, noah, politics, pope, rush limbaugh
January 20th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Hear, Hear.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Ken,
Here is a link I stumbled upon today just after reading your post. I don’t know if I rub shoulders with anyone who thinks that we aren’t that powerful to make an impact on such a big world…but I’m sure they’re out there.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Im my experience with evangelicals and the dicussion on protecting the environment I always come away with the feeling that many of these evangelicals are rather complacent and not interested about protecting the environment. I believe this is rooted in there particular form of Eschatology that says that the world will get worse and never get better until it all burns and the Lord returns.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Here’s another recent study connecting air pollution with diabetes.
January 24th, 2009 at 7:56 am
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” – Gautama Siddharta
“You all have a single Teacher, and you are all classmates. Don’t set people up as experts over your life, letting them tell you what to do. Save that authority for God; let him tell you what to do. No one else should carry the title of ‘Father’; you have only one Father, and he’s in heaven. And don’t let people maneuver you into taking charge of them. There is only one Life-Leader for you and them – Christ.” – Jesus (Matt 23:8-10)
January 24th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Article: Possible natural explanation found for West Antarctica’s warming
(Trendwatch)
By The New York Times and Rick C. Hodgin
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41171/117/
South Pole – In 2008, scientists from the British Antarctic Survey reported a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica [the same place the one degree Fahrenheit warming has been reported]. The volcano beneath the ice sheet “punched a hole right through” due to its heat and force. This geologic event (a volcano) may prove to be the source of the recent warming seen in West Antarctica in what has otherwise been reported as a 50-year cooling trend seen in East Antarctica. [more...]
January 24th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
There’s a great article about asthma and health by Matthew Sleeth at http://www.creationcareforpastors.com/articles/ (it’s the second article down)
January 24th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Right on Ken!! I totally agree with you. And not only the concern about global warming, but environmental pollution in general. It is caused by these capitalist greedy corporations who are amoral and operate mathematically, like a mindless insect, towards increasing profits as their “bottom line”, or their overriding goal, their reason for being. These corporations give lots of money to evangelical pastors who belittle concern for the environment under the false and fatuous guise of being more concerned about “saving souls”.
Let us consider the root meaning of “spirit”, which is in hebrew “ruach” or in greek “pneuma”. This breath or spirit flows through God and Nature and through all her living Creatures and through humans. It flows through our hearts. The mystic Meister Eckhart wrote that “every creature is a word of God”. To make a word, our breath flows through us. At times, through quiet prayer, in my heart, I can feel deeply all of creation and the presence of God at the same time. I am breathing in union with all of creation in the presence of the living God.
I believe in the greening of christians. I believe in the immanence of God. Does not omnipresence imply immanence? Is He not here as well as there? Hildegard of Bingen wrote: “The soul is a breath of living spirit that with excellent sensitivity permeates the entire body to give it life. Just so, The breath of the air makes the earth fruitful. Thus the air is the soul of the earth, Moistening it; greening it.” Dr. Deborah Vess, Director of Interdisciplinary Studies, Associate Professor of History, wrote about Hildegard of Bingen: “Green is another very important color in the work of Hildegard. Her writings speak often of viriditas, which has been translated as ‘greening,’ and she speaks of the ‘greening’ of the universe. The world is all ‘greening’ — brimming with life, vitality, and creativity. Similarly, Christ brings lush greenness to shriveled and wilted people.”
Write on Ken!
January 24th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Bob W, recent data confirms that Antarctica as a whole has been warming in recent years.[one portion has gotten cooler, but the other has gotten warming with net trend clearly warming.]
January 25th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Right on Jonathan! Where are your blog posts?!?!?!
January 26th, 2009 at 3:22 am
I understand your point and I agree that we shouldn’t assume that humans are incapable of affecting climate patterns; however, I will take the skeptic over the blind follower any day of the week. Better to be skeptical and allow a more thorough and complete understanding to develop than to run blindly off a cliff because of irrepressible group think.
And the real issue among thinking people isn’t whether we should take care of the environment. Of course, we should. The question is how much gain do we get from our pain and is it worth it. For someone with a secure job and plenty of money, it’s easy to sit back and declare that we should be doing this and that for our planet without doing any critical thinking to understand what the effects will be on other human beings. What environmentalists seem to forget is that human beings are also part of the planet and that environmental actions taken to protect the planet may have a devastating effect on other people, usually the poor. But they are usually willing to sacrifice them for the good of the planet….
So, yes, remain skeptical. Allow scientists to do their jobs without being bullied by political organizations. And don’t let anyone tell you that you care LESS about creation because you are concerned with the effects of the environmental agenda on your fellow human beings, who are part of creation for those too deluded to see the hypocrisy.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:38 am
T. Lewis, You should know that I grew up in the city of Detroit and pastor a church in Ann Arbor, which is deeply affected by the auto industry. I’m skeptical at this point of the skepticism regarding climate change science which I regard as being fueled primarily by eight years of an administration and congress that was biased against the science coming out due to vested interests as well as millions of dollars invested by vested interests (oil companies, especially) in raising doubt about the science much as the tobacco industry spent millions and many long years fueling skepticism about the cancer link to smoking. Follow the money. The environmentalists I know are acutely aware of the impact of climate change on humans and are seeking ways to deal with primarily because of the human impact–the human suffering. I’m skeptical in particular of the a.m. talk show hosts who
perpetuate a myth about environmental scientists that is more schtick than anything else. I’m glad you are concerned about the impact of environmental concerns on humanity. I share that concern and view it as primary.
January 31st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
T. Lewis raises a commonly expressed concern about the balance between the environment and people. Personally I think it is a false antithesis.
We don’t need to worry about the environment and the earth for their own sake. The earth and its environment will be here for a long time regardless of what we do!
The issue is whether that environment will be hospitable for humans and the ecosystems we depend on. As Ken has pointed out many times before, as the environment changes it is the poor, with their limited resources, who are most at risk.
I suppose you could blame the communication strategies of environmentalists for the mis-perception that concern for the environment is disconnected from concern for people. But if you look in any depth at our interdependence with the environment, the connection is so strong it’s hard to miss.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Ken- I found some hope today…I thought I would share: http://gaia.world-television.com/wef/worldeconomicforum_annualmeeting2009/
February 12th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Ken, there *are* vested interests on your side of the AGW debate, too, so if skepticism based on financial interest is going to prejudice you against AGW skeptics, you probably want to pay more attention to the interests of AGW proponents.
But is it really the case that such environmentalists as Bjorn Lomborg (whose position elaborates on T Lewis’s concerns) and Lawrence Solomon (author of The Deniers) are motivated by capitalist concern? That seems unjust.
February 13th, 2009 at 8:37 am
James, It’s not a matter of what any individual is motivated by. I am not in a position to know at that level. But I think we can infer that on the whole when there are powerful financial interests at stake, such as the millions of dollars invested by the oil companies in denying climate science, and an administration which for 7 of 8 years resisted, that this does need to be taken into account. Of course in any complex science (which climate science is) there will be scientists who disagree with the consensus. That’ a given and a good thing. But why do American Christians (not British or other Christians as a group) tend to agree with the climate skeptics. Does it have ANYTHING to do with the most powerful voice in talk radio, and a steady campaign by the oil companies and those they fund, amplifying the voices of the skeptics? Especially when the skepticism goes against the lean of our theology which stresses the capacity of man to ruin things, the certaintly of global distress of this ilk, and the virtue of prudence in responding? That’s my point. I’m saying on the whole, the money interest has been on the side of the skeptics. Which doesn’t mean that any given skeptic is motivated by the money interests. Thankfully, the oil companies have pulled much of their funding from the outright denial as the evidence has piled up. (Lomborg, of course, is not one who denies that humans are causing the recent warming. He is critiquing the priorities of many proposed responses like Kyoto.) By the way, you can be sure that the way to get media attention for a book on climate is to deny the consensus. The media are always looking to show both sides, especially on certain news outlets because it is better for the ratings. There are thousands of books on climate from the majority view and much fewer from the other side. So they get more attention proportionally.