Parchment and Pen » Green Evangelicals

Green Evangelicals

Warning: an imbalanced and emotionally non-irenic post ahead. Don’t read as it may only cause disappointment among many of my more progressive friends.

The latest Barna survey was published last night. Its intent was to evaluate the Evangelical position concerning the environment. In sum, it argues that Evangelicals are “going green.” You can find it here.

One paragraph in particular caught my attention:

“Most Christians are not satisfied to be mere observers of the green movement. Three-quarters of self-identified Christians (78%) agree they would like to see their fellow Christians take a more active role in caring for God’s creation in a way that is both informed and biblical. Among evangelicals, 90% would like Christians to take a more active role in caring for creation, with 67% agreeing strongly. This sentiment is firmly endorsed by a majority of active churchgoers who are Catholic (52%), mainline Protestant (62%), and non-mainline Protestant (67%).”

I would agree with the basic thrust of this as I too am concerned about the environment. However, I am not going “Green” or even “going Green” in any way.

I, as an Evangelical, protest this association.

I think that it is important to distinguish here the difference between “going green” and a biblically based concern for the stewardship of God’s creation. In my mind, “going green” has massive political overtones that not only speak to a concern for the environment, but a prioritized concern for the environment that highlights many “green” issues to the neglect of those that are much more important.

Here is my issue: most of the prolific “greeners” who represent the movement and the agenda are those who support abortion. It is hard for me to take seriously those who want to save a tree yet tear apart a baby in its mother’s womb. It is hard for me to see how taking a stand about a highly controversial issue such as Global Warming can take precedence over murder of an innocent life. These eco-alarmists want to preach death and doom for a coming generation all the while standing guard over those who facilitate the death of the children in this generation. What is up with that? What am I missing?

In discussing this issue with someone, I got this response:

“I seriously do not understand why the church is so threatened by the “politics” involved, when the church is neck-deep in politics of one form or another anyway. Why not bring something to the table? Why bow out of the discussion?

. . .

Yeah, some people would rather save a whale and not the baby, but honestly a lot of people can do and WANT to do both, see no reason to dichotomize life, knowing it is all sacred (every moment of it) and knowing that everything was made by and for God, everything reflects his glory, everything belongs to him and to have great compassion for all living beings is to also reflect his image in the world.”

I just don’t get it. I am not saying don’t recycle. I am not saying don’t have environmental concerns (when legitimate). I am not saying don’t save a whale, monkey, frog, bumblebee, a flea, or a tree (to each his own). What I am saying is don’t speak with the same volume about these things as you do about human lives—about babies, children, the unprotected innocent souls. Don’t EVER speak with the same volume. There is a dichotomy—a biblical dichotomy. They don’t even belong in the same discussion. It is comparable to the condemnation of body odor of Osama Bin Laden while defending his terrorism. There are bigger issues. Much bigger issues.

So, it is not that I am against or threatened by the principles of the green movement. I am just against the insane way of thinking that often accompanies the movement.

Again, don’t get me wrong, I will do my part as God has given me stewardship over his creation, but I cannot be identified with the imbalance of those who are “going Green.” They can “go green” alone.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

32 Responses to “Green Evangelicals”

bethyada on 24 Sep 2008 at 2:53 am #

I strongly oppose the green movement for several reasons.

Many of their solutions are environmentally destructive.

The movement has undertones of nature religion.

They oppose and often condemn Christianity, including blaming it for environmental damage whereas Christianity has a good history of environmental stewardship. They often reject the concept of stewardship.

Politically, they hide their communism under a veneer of saving the earth.
ScottL on 24 Sep 2008 at 3:01 am #

Michael -

Thanks for the challenge. It is amazing that we can easily get off track. When we read Scripture, we have to see what our main purpose is as followers of Christ. I see our main goal as proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom rule of God, for it was Jesus’ goal to bring and announce the rule of God. We have a message of God wanting to be in our midst and bring us to reconciliation with Himself. And it’s our mission that is based upon that message.

As you rightly say, there is absolutely nothing wrong with caring for the environment. From the beginning, God mandated our first parents to take care of the garden (Gen 2:15), the little bit of ‘environment’ they had. I’m going to do a little gardening myself today, for it is a good thing. I never want to embrace a theology that says, ‘Well, we are headed out of here soon anyway, so no need to take care of the earth, creation, etc.’

But God has first called us to a mission of proclaiming the message of the gospel of the kingdom in the midst of the world. It is this message of grace upon grace from the King Himself that compels people to be changed, not specific movements. All else is to become peripheral.

We want to care for creation, and that might mean that you feel compelled to purchase a hybrid car, and recycle, and simply mow your grass. These are all good things, most of which I look to participate in. But we have to be careful of getting so caught up in movements and reactionary establishments for the sake of being involved. We have a much bigger task and goal – keeping our eyes fixed on the King and His message.

Thanks Michael.
ScottL on 24 Sep 2008 at 3:04 am #

bethyada -

We have to be careful with such strong words. You won’t win any of those on the ‘green’ side – Christian or non-Christian – without compelling words of grace. I think we should mainly help people see the bigger picture, while not stripping them of their right to have a concern.
Brian on 24 Sep 2008 at 6:05 am #

Why I am not surprised here! Mankind is the most destructive creature on the planet, both to the natural world and to his/her owns self. All the labeling will not change a thing. As the old saying go’s a day late and a dollar short. We should have been thinking about it 30 years ago. When compared to the killing of innocent life vs. the destruction of our world, what can be compared? It is our bent to control all things life and death. We are on borrowed time, either way you look at it.
historic salve on 24 Sep 2008 at 6:54 am #

Excellent post. I completely agree.
Dr Mike on 24 Sep 2008 at 8:05 am #

Michael -

I agree with what you’re saying here: the reprehensible contradictions of PC Green advocates are at times incomprehensible. How the life of a tree or a polliwog can be elevated to the level of the sacred while a potential human life (I say potential only because it is not actualized in the earliest points of conception) can be treated like material for landfills is inexcusable.

But there is something that troubled me as I read your post and I think it is this: the reduction of the sin of the Green people to the unconscionable slaughter of human life.

There is no question that abortion is an abomination and an outrage, but it is not the most basic offense. That would be, as you well know, the ignoring of the sacrifice of the Son of God and the treating of his blood as though it were a common thing, the equivalent of the torn corpses of murdered, waiting-to-be-born children.

We evangelicals, perhaps because we think politically but not Christianly at times, fail to look past or through the tragedy of abortion to the ~~even greater~~ greatest sin of all: the ungodly crucifixion of Jesus. That is the greatest sin; all other sins are insignificant by comparison.

Certainly the two-faced stance of many Green folks – “Save a tree but kill a child!” – is to be rejected. But the final and ultimate crime, and the thing that makes it impossible to work with such groups or individuals, is their treatment of Jesus Christ.

It is for their casual neglect or overt disdain for him that such people will be judged, not merely the killing of children. As horrible as abortion is, it pales in significance to the deliberate rejection of the Son of God.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 24 Sep 2008 at 8:42 am #

It is hard for me to see how taking a stand about a highly controversial issue such as Global Warming can take precedence over murder of an innocent life.

CMP, good post. VERY GOOD POST.
Wonders for Oyarsa on 24 Sep 2008 at 8:58 am #

I just don’t get it. I am not saying don’t recycle. I am not saying don’t have environmental concerns (when legitimate). I am not saying don’t save a whale, monkey, frog, bumblebee, a flea, or a tree (to each his own). What I am saying is don’t speak with the same volume about these things as you do about human lives—about babies, children, the unprotected innocent souls. Don’t EVER speak with the same volume. There is a dichotomy—a biblical dichotomy. They don’t even belong in the same discussion.

Michael, I see the point, but I don’t think it an adaquate way forward. Let me preface this by saying that I am not voting for the pro-abortion candidate for these very reasons, and that the issues are not morally equivalent. I cede that point. So don’t take this as arguing for the converse.

However, the biblical picture is a holistic one – one where the fate of man and the non human creation is bound up together. When man is put on the earth, his vocation is to tend creation, to rule it – and to rule it in the loving caring just way that God rules us. We are to be agents of God’s perfect will on the created order. We are given his vineyard to tend, and we are his regents.

When man fell into wickedness, God sent the flood upon the Earth to destroy not just man, but all of creation for our sake. That is the corrilary to our high calling – we can also drag God’s creation down into the depths. And when by one man’s righteousness the creation is saved, God promises never again to flood the earth – to commit himself to the salvation of the created order.

When the son of man rises on the first day of the week, new creation breaks in. A man walks again and is known to be the gardener. Creation has been groaning with our sin in travail until now, and awaits for its redemption in the resurrection of our bodies.

And so a cruelty to an animal, or the wanton destruction of a mountain is an affront to God in much the same way that the destruction of innocent human life is. On the one hand we destroy one bearing the imago dei, and thus injure God. On the other hand, we make the creation see when it looks upon us, not the face of God, but the evil one who comes to steal, kill, exploit and destroy, and thus debase God’s image.

It just won’t do to make all of these clear compartmentalized distinctions that trivialize core aspects of our human vocation. God’s salvation is all-encompassing. What will the master do to his servants who have treated their fellow servants well, but have oppressed cruelly those under them? Will it be any defense to say “well, I didn’t kill any of my peers?”
Gabriel on 24 Sep 2008 at 10:27 am #

Great post…

This is something I have thought about for a long time. I have linked and cited this post here: http://venersum.blogspot.com/2008/09/when-i-went-green-i-signed-up-for-this.html
David Di Giacomo on 24 Sep 2008 at 10:44 am #

This post strikes me as simply bizarre. When we talk about Christians “going green”, we are simply talking about a growing concern for good environmental stewardship (as opposed to flagrant disregard for it which has been way too prominent in the past, and still is in many circles).

In some ways it is in step with the secular green movement.
In some ways, it isn’t. A Christian “going green” doesn’t somehow magically become in favour of abortion, or any of the other doubtful policies that the secular green movement espouses. I’m green. I care for the environment. I think it’s important. I think it’s biblical. I think it’s Christian. I think that not caring for the environment is sinful and we will have to given account for how we have cared for God’s creation. But I don’t endorse abortion, or gay marriage, or state-funded sex changes, or what have you. I don’t see why you would even make that association. You seem to be ranting against something that doesn’t exist.
kwk on 24 Sep 2008 at 11:32 am #

Something like 1 billion people rely, ultimately, on the snowmelt from the mountains in and around the Himalayas for a steady supply of potable water. If the reservoirs of water stored in the glaciers there disappear, then these billion people are much more at the mercy of seasonal/annual rainfall variations, which as far as I know are becoming more extreme as time progresses. This is just one example of why, for me, “going green” is about valuing humanity, collectively and individually. That we can also save the trees and the fish and so on in the process of saving humans is nice, but is really secondary.
Mike J on 24 Sep 2008 at 12:33 pm #

“CMP, good post. VERY GOOD POST.”

Indeed. This is what has to be said and this is how it should be said.

It is insane to gloss over 78 million deaths per year while making proselytes to using less paper in the printer.
Mike J on 24 Sep 2008 at 12:36 pm #

Oh, and I would personally remove the caveat at the top.

It is profoundly sinful to be unemotional regarding the slaughter of millions of unborn.

And it isn’t imbalanced to call that out.
Raquelamisto on 24 Sep 2008 at 12:37 pm #

I see that those who oppose the post are arguing for Christians to view both the environment and humanity equally. Which is fair.
Why I agree with this post is because we are to value human life, God’s children, above the environment. From what I can tell, the environment was created to sustain us. If we damage that which sustains us we, obviously, aren’t going to survive. This isn’t rocket science.
Where the “green movement” goes wrong is the elevation of environment over humanity. The scientist who push for green to be an element of politics also encourage population control as a part of their “greenness”. (see here: http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=348). (And yes, this is why all those “green” seem to be pro abortion.) There isn’t a correlation here; it is an essential component to the true “green movement.” Just to clarify, I’m not talking about the politicized fluffy side of “green.” I’m talking about the true “green.”
It appears as if we, the outsiders to all things worldly, get a bit confused because someone, somewhere along the line, threw in the term “steward” and got it all murky. We are to be good stewards with our finances but no one would disagree that putting finances before humanity is NO LONGER good stewardship. Finances are a tool. The environment is a tool. Either abused or elevated, they become a sin.
So, as Michael stated, recycle and save energy. But as a means to an end. My advice is don’t get trapped in elevating the means.
C Michael Patton on 24 Sep 2008 at 12:38 pm #

KWK,

I don’t think that I am promoting a dismissive view of the environment (not that you said that). I am just saying that the Green Movement spends most of its time speaking to controversial (debatable) issues and making them the line of demarcation between righteous and wickedness all the while, for the most part, fighting for the right to kill innocent babies. It makes no sense. It makes it hard to hear. They don’t gain much of an audience with me and I think evangelicals should steer clear of any association.

It is not unlike the ACLU. Good cause (in principle), but inbalanced agendas cause them to lose their voice. I would not encourage any Evangelical to be associated with the ACLU, but I would say that we should be leading the way as examples of human rights and dignity.
From The Balcony on 24 Sep 2008 at 12:49 pm #

Great post Michael. You are right on when you say:

“….it is not that I am against or threatened by the principles of the green movement. I am just against the insane way of thinking that often accompanies the movement.”

I live in what would be considered a “green” state. there is definitely an insane element to this movement. I will also make the case that there are many of us (me included) who choose to be as green as possible because ethically, we believe it is the right thing to do….and it honors God.

Having said that — this is not something the church needs to focus on at this time. The church needs to focus on teaching the gospel accurately and constantly to a generation that is quickly losing sight of what the gospel even means. We’ve become so distracted with the peripherals that we can’t even see the foundation anymore. Being “green” is a peripheral, in my opinion.
From The Balcony on 24 Sep 2008 at 12:56 pm #

David…you said, “A Christian “going green” doesn’t somehow magically become in favour of abortion, or any of the other doubtful policies that the secular green movement espouses.”

While you are correct that not everyone falls prey to this, Michael is correct that there is an element in the green movement that does heavily favor abortion and other non-Christian activities. I see this daily in the state where I live. It does exist. Certain political elements which favor things such as abortion have proclaimed themselves to be the “green” party. While they can deceive themselves into believing that they are the only ones who care for the environment, this is not true. Christians do care for the environment – but we also care about biblical principles, including the protection of a human being God created. The perception is out there in my part of the world and in the media at large.

Like you, I choose to be as green as possible. But I also see that what Michael says has a large amount of truth in it.
GoldCityDance on 24 Sep 2008 at 1:41 pm #

It is hard for me to see how taking a stand about a highly controversial issue such as Global Warming can take precedence over murder of an innocent life. These eco-alarmists want to preach death and doom for a coming generation all the while standing guard over those who facilitate the death of the children in this generation. What is up with that? What am I missing?

As a former pro-choicer, I think I can give a little perspective from “the other side”. First, just to give my background: before I became a Christian, I was a “soft” (as opposed to the militant types) atheist who was heavily influenced by postmodernism. I wouldn’t classify my ex-self as a hardcore liberal, I was more like a moderate liberal who spoke with similar volume on both issues.

Here are some reasons why some liberals like my ex-self take weird stances on these issues:

1. Certainty. Some pro-choice liberals do not view the unborn as fully human. To them, there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the humanity of a fetus. Due to the uncertainty, they would place the unborn in a different category of life and effectively dehumanize the unborn. This lowers the value of the life of the unborn close to the level of animals who can express their pain or have significant cognitive abilities (animals who can shed tears, for instance). If you take such a position, it is inevitable you will speak with similar volume on both issues. Furthermore, in contrast to their uncertainty regarding the humanity of a fetus, there is a high level of certainty for green issues such as rainforest destruction, extinction of species, pollution etc. Hence, to them it seems reasonable to accord similar volumes to both issues.

2. Postmodernism. Tolerance is the highest virtue. Since these liberals cannot say for much certainty regarding the humanity of the fetus, they would tolerate pregnant women who choose to abort their fetus and they also EXPECT everyone else to tolerate this too. Anyone who is against giving women the freedom to abort is a bigot, since to these liberals, no one can be conclusively certain that a fetus is fully human. These same liberals would argue that saving the environment is an individual choice that needs to be tolerated too; they would argue that, in contrast to conservatives who are trying to legalize against abortion, they would not force conservatives to go green.

3. Education. This ties into the two points above. Everyone is taught the importance of saving the environment in school. We learn the many facts about deforestation, ozone depletion, species extinction, whaling, different sorts of pollution etc. Schoolchildren are encouraged to recycle, reduce and reuse. Contrast this to any talk about abortion and the humanity of fetuses. If schoolteachers talk about the green issue with much more volume and certainty than about the abortion issue – what sort of thinking do you expect our youths to have?
Vladimir on 24 Sep 2008 at 2:29 pm #

Michael,

I think you are right that this aggenda laden program is biased in the extreme. It, like many in the church or without, beat their own drum to the exclusion of other equally important and pertinent issues to the detriment of others.

The Pharisees were guilty of this. (cf St Matthew 15 and 23).

Eschatologists are guilty of this.

KJVOnlyists and some so called text-critics are guilty of this.

But St Paul made it plain that the christian faith is wholistic and all encompassing (cf Acts 20:27).

“For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God.”

Vladimir
C Michael Patton on 24 Sep 2008 at 2:54 pm #

Gold, thanks for the comments. Very helpful and I think you are right.

I wonder what is so hard about people being able to think through the abortion issue without formal education. It would seem that they would, at the very least, understand that there are strong opinions opposing it and think about the issue more profoundly. I just don’t think there is an excuse, educated or not, for believing that abortion is right or permissible.

However, it would seem that people with more life experience begin to take a much more conservative stance on this issue. Why? Because they can no longer niavely approach the issue from a third person stance. They have had their own children, seen the ultra-sounds, and pondered the “what if?” questions concerning their own child.
Raquelamisto on 24 Sep 2008 at 6:30 pm #

Michael,
I’m afraid that I disagree. I live in a low income, high rent area, and the majority of my family is made up of HARD core liberals. Watching women have abortions after raising children, watching many women mourn after the abortion is complete… I disagree with your experience statement.
Maybe the older generation that you know is just that, an older generation. One where the cultural morals of their 30’s was much closer to that of Christian morals.
My best friend from childhood has worked at PP for… 12 yrs and they do go out of their way to hide the ultrasound and the heart beat from the moms. But there are many women who ask to see/hear them regardless.
The law is written on our hearts. The women do know. They just choose the internal consequence over the external.
Jeffrey on 24 Sep 2008 at 7:05 pm #

>These eco-alarmists want to preach death and doom for a coming generation all the while standing guard over those who facilitate the death of the children in this generation. What is up with that? What am I missing?

I agree this is an inconsistency, but the severity of the inconsistency depends on the reasons for going green. If it’s about an emotional attachment to the planet for either secular or biblical reasons, then it’s every bit as bad as you are saying.

But to me, it’s about saving the planet for the sake of the people who live on it. If we damage the environment in a way that scars not only its beauty, but our ability to produce food, we are killing many in the next generations through starvation.

The certainty with which it does so is less than with abortion, but if you are comparing the expected value, that is, (the probability we are killing)*(the number we may be killing), then global warming is a concern comparable to abortion.
Wonders for Oyarsa on 24 Sep 2008 at 10:01 pm #

Hi Michael,

Check out this new ad from CatholicVotes.org. Very VERY powerful pro-life message:

http://www.catholicvote.com/
Eclectic Christian on 24 Sep 2008 at 11:01 pm #

Hi Michael,

I hear what you are saying about relative volumes. But then my question is why are evangelicals (of which I am one) so concerned about abortion, when the Bible has so much more to say about taking care of the poor and the oppressed? I have also found that the volume of noise concerning abortion (and/or homosexuality) is even drowning out the salvation message.

Don’t get me wrong. I was involved in the pro-life movement in Canada for quite some time. I helped defeat a pro-choice politician. I was even one of the organizers for Canada’s first National Rally for Life. But I became convinced that the ills that we experience in this world are but symptoms of a greater problem, a world without Jesus Christ.

Let’s focus on treating the disease, and worry less about the symptoms.

Now where was I… Oh yes, banana peel to the green compost bin, rinsed Peanut butter jar to the blue recycle bin, Newspaper to the other blue recycle bin.
Eclectic Christian on 24 Sep 2008 at 11:09 pm #

A little post-script here. I just watched the above mentioned video on catholicvote.com. I think it makes my point quite well for me. They argue that the most important issue for consideration is life. How many lives could be saved if 10% of the military budget was put towards international relief and development instead? The choice is not a clear cut as you might at first think.
From The Balcony on 24 Sep 2008 at 11:11 pm #

Eclectic – I agree wholeheartedly that we often place issues like abortion over those in povery. James 1:27 is one my favorite verses – and why I volunteer for Compassion Internationl.

I also wholeheartedly agree with your statement – “the ills othat we experience in this world are but symptoms of a greater problem – a world without Jesus Christ.”

So well said!
minnowspeaks on 25 Sep 2008 at 8:21 am #

WOW, CMP! Let’s just build a wall and put all the Christians inside and all the others outside. Then we can keep our enviroment clean for our reasons and they can do it for their reasons and we won’t have to risk discovering that we might have some common ground with “them”.
clearblue on 25 Sep 2008 at 10:29 am #

Hi Michael,

I think you do a great job of writing irenic, balanced posts – I really admire them as a great template for how to deal with difficult issues. Its a skill I need to really develop. However, the problem with irenic posts is that these posts only generate a few fawning croons of admiration at how well-balanced the post has been. Its just not good for the well-being of the blog.

I would probably describe myself as more of a sniper than a lurker. That is, I only ever comment when I am moved with great choler to disagree with something that is said – usually when the comments thread has been hijacked by the evolution/creation debate (usually by people who demonstrate only that they don’t have the least bit of familiarity with the published ideas, arguments and research of creationists). But, of course, I have other pet peeves.

Therefore, I think you need to maintain a better balance of polemic posts (to draw in and build up readership) and irenic posts (to show how internet discourse should be conducted). That means engaging in more fighting talk like this, even though it can get messy.
Susan on 25 Sep 2008 at 1:26 pm #

This subject has been addressed very well by Hank Hanegraaff on the Bible Answer Man broadcast a number of times. Jay Richards is the name to look for if you are interested in these interviews, which you can view/download from the BAM website.

*The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming* by Christopher C. Horner is a good resource, which has been discussed on the program.
From The Balcony on 25 Sep 2008 at 5:35 pm #

Clearblue
I’m glad you understand the reason for irenic posts. However, I don’t think Michael needs to balance his posts with polemic ones. He should write whatever is on his mind, not what we want him to write. After all, it’s his blog.

Even though I understand the reason you suggest this (to stimulate conversation), and even though I do see your good intentions from your post, at some point and time, almost every post will be polemic to someone, don’t you think?

If it’s true that Jas 3:17 ….the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere…..then ought we not practice peaceable conversation?

Titus also reminds us to avoid foolish quarrels and endless controversies. Since a partial definition of polemic is ‘the practice of controversy’, this goes against what we really should be practicing, in my opinion.

I like that Michael more often than not takes an irenic position. This is why I like his blog – it isn’t necessarily “controversial” — it is conversationally stimulating and culturally educational. I think we’ve gotten so used to controversy as the “norm” in our society that we sometimes fail to see the benefits of maintaining a constant irenic conversation.

Edification is important when it is genuine. Nothing wrong with that. I appreciate that Michael speaks truth from his heart as he sees it…..and I’ll tell him so when his post moves me.
Minnowspeaks Weblog on 26 Sep 2008 at 4:16 am #

[...] I have read in the last couple days. From Ragamuffinsoul to The Carnival in My Head , from Parchment and Pen to Flower Dust , from Grace Rules Weblog to Evolving in Monkey Town and from Missio Dei to Think [...]
britphil on 29 Sep 2008 at 7:05 am #

“WOW, CMP! Let’s just build a wall and put all the Christians inside and all the others outside. Then we can keep our enviroment clean for our reasons and they can do it for their reasons and we won’t have to risk discovering that we might have some common ground with “them”.”

Having dipped my toe back into the P&P waters without getting myself scalded too much, it is time to wade in a bit further…maybe up to waist height!!

Once more, well said Minnow…maybe one of the many reasons why people are “leaving the faith” at an alarming rate is that they find themselves having more in common with those on the outsie of the wall than with those who are within it.

Before I start though can I just place on record my delight that these sort of issues are being posted on a theology site. Our theology has to be rooted and earthed in the day to day nitty-gritty of everyday life and not just in the ethereal world of the chatroom. I for one am delighted Micheal that you have submitted three postings recently on “world issues” ie the Green/environmental issue, the Presidential race and the capitalism v socilaism debate. Not that I agree with you on every issue..in fact far from it as I shall explain shortly but I greatly admire your attempts to encourage us to not just think theologically but to apply our theological reflections to the reality of everyday life.

With regard to the Green issue, please let me begin with a disclaimer. I am not a card-carrying member of the UK Green party. I should be, given that Green is my surname, but I am not! However, there was something that was bothering me as I read your posting, and also the results of the Barna survey which initaited your posting, on the environmental debate. For couple of days, something was bugging me but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. Gradually I began to realise what was causing my unease.

Now I may upset my friends Stateside, but I shall try (and probably fail) to be as irenic and reasonable as I possibly can.
It appears to me that the usage of the term “evangelical”, both in the Barna research and Michael’s posting has a really blinkered feel to it. What should have been made far more clear, and hasn’t been, is that the research and the viewpoints espoused are solely from the perspective of American evangelicals. Since when have American evangelicals being given permission to represent the viewpoint of the worldwide evangelical constituency, especially given the fact that modern day evangelcialism has its roots in the Reformation, whose origins were not American but European. Inded if it had not been for the Pilgrim Fathers travelling from the UK to America, it may have been much longer before evangelcialism took root in the USA.

Yes, I concede that there maybe some, if not many non-American evangelicals who share the outcome of the Barna survey, but my guess is that if the research was conducted in other parts of the world a very different picture would emerge. If you were to interview evangelcial Christians who reside and serve God in the floodplains of Bangladesh you might just get a different response regarding the issue of global warming (yes folks…I hate to say this but God loves Bangladesh and Bangaldeshis equally as much as he loves America and Americans and othe nations of the world).

The sooner we wake up and realise that it was because God so loved the world (yes, the whole wide world) that he sent his Son, and not just the more prosperous corners of it, the better. I actually think that the research undertaken by the Barna organisation is valuable but is it too much to ask that they open a few satellite offices in Euope, Asia, Africa, Australasia and Latin America in order to obtain a more accurate, balanced and less US-skewed evangelical worldview re contemporary issues.

The other thing that slightly concerns me is the assent that is given that we should be “responsible stewards of God’s creation” but that is as far as it goes! It appears to me that such assent is skated over without unpacking what this actually means in practice. It si very easy to give lip-service, especialy to an established Christian doctrine, and to knock and criticise those who may espouse what they consider to be a more ethically and socially responsible approach, without ever laying this cards on the table and saying what mean by being “responsible stewards” of God’s creation.

Finally, I find the research findings that a large number of American Christians (almost half those interviewed) are taken in by the rhetoric that solutions to global warming will hurt the poorer people of the world to be one of the most depressing outcomes of the reseach. I take it then that not too many of those interviewed were from Los Angeles and the surrounding environs. It was good to see the Republican Party cancel a number of events at their Convention to formally nominate John McCain in order to focus on making sure that this time there was a proper and approriate response to the recent hurricanes as opposed to the disgraceful and shambolic response to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. But then again, would they have done so if it not been election year and all eyes were on them to see how they would respond this time.

In conclusion, I would contend that you can have a considered, active approach to environmental isasues without “going green” which is far too simplistic a label to attach to what are very serious issues which, as with all things, require a Christlike response.