Environmentalism represents a set of values; a structure of guiding principles relating man to nature. At its core lies the concept of sustainability, an idea that relates to every aspect of human life and stands far above any partisan, religious or ideological bounds. But these are not the typical ideas associated with the word ‘environmentalism’ today. Environmentalism remains stereotyped as a flagship issue of the left; in some circles pagan tree-hugging hippies out to destroy the economy are seen as its key supporters. The more universal values environmentalism represents have been obscured by these stereotypes and biases, born of partisan grudge matches and political power struggles spanning decades. Respect for the delicate web of life, providing a livable future for our progeny through conservation, awareness of our environmental impacts on our fellow man and creature; these values of environmentalism seem to resonate with values of religious thought more than a political party or movement.

The climate change debate has given a new depth and scope to environmentalism, giving it a powerful human dimension. A dramatically warmer planet will not only affect distant wildlife, but poses real dangers to society as well. This demands a new response to our environmental impacts, and forces humans to realize their place in the fragile global ecology. As Rich Cizik put it in a interview with Bill Moyers: “I believe human beings are in jeopardy…[global warming] is about people”(Cizik on Is God Green?).

This begs the question of why environmental values are more visible among believers, especially Evangelical Christians, whose gospel preaches compassion, love and respect. Religious groups have supported many social justice issues over the years, and Richard Cizik, former VP of the 30 million member National Association of Evangelicals, is quick to highlight the Evangelical community’s track record of branching across demographics to do good: “…if we've worked with Free Tibet on religious freedom, the Congressional Black Caucus on slavery, Gloria Steinem and feminists on rape, and the gay and lesbian lobby on AIDS, why can't we work with environmentalists [on climate change]?” (Grist.org) Rev. Tim Haggard, president of the NAE, explains “The environment is a values issue…there are significant and compelling theological reasons why it should be a banner issue for the Christian right”(washingtonpost.com).

Despite this commitment among prominent Evangelical leaders, a Barna poll from Sept 2007 found only 33% of Evangelicals consider climate change a ‘major problem’, making them “the least concerned group among more than fifty population groups studied” (Barna.org). Other polls indicate much broader levels of support, but it is beyond dispute that the Evangelical community remains divided and largely unengaged on the issue of climate change.

The politics of this divide will be discussed at length later in this paper, but its roots can be traced to theological origins. Lynn White first described Christianity’s theological biases against environmentalism in 1967 with his controversial essay The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis. White claims “[Western] Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has ever seen”(5), arguing that centuries of Christian influence on science and development has led to a conception of nature in purely physical terms, devoid of any spiritual value. Through Christian teachings of man as ‘made in God’s image’, humans came to categorize themselves as separate and above nature. This duality of man and nature established by Christianity dramatically de-sacralizes the natural world, puts the emphasis on the afterlife, and grants a near monopoly on the sacred to heaven and the spiritual realm. Some beliefs of the Evangelical community in particular lend credence to this idea, where personal salvation through Christ is the purpose of this life, guided by a strict interpretation of the Bible. White argues this system of value leads to an exploitative relationship with nature, regarding it as inferior to the spiritual world and ‘not worth saving’.

In addition to historical theological biases, the moral appeal of environmental ideals has been limited by cultural perceptions of environmentalists within the Church. One parishioner at the Vineyard Boise Church in Idaho, which has recently undertaken major green initiatives, characterized environmental issues as something “they, the liberal, the ‘tree-hugger’, take care of… We don’t, because we’re Christian (Bernard on Is God Green?).  Rev. Harper, an evangelical pastor who began giving nature tours to put his parishioners back in touch with the presence of God in nature, was told by his fellow priests“…now that you are working for the earth, you must be pagan”. Harper soon realized that this half-jest reflected “a general assumption that if you're too close to the earth, you're not Christian” (washingtonpost.com). Even champions of the environment within the Evangelical community at its highest levels, like Richard Cizik, admit that “Environmentalism carries with it baggage… big government, kooky religions… all the left-wing ideas that are known to mankind” (washingtonpost.com). Consequently, the most visible leaders of the climate change movement, like Al Gore, carry with them a strong liberal bias to many Evangelicals, seriously undermining their arguments.

This provides large hurdles in making environmental values palatable to a group that self-identifies as 56% ‘extremely conservative’, and notorious for championing right-wing causes (SDA archive). This bias is known as ‘cultural cognition theory’, and suggests “the cultural identity of an advocate can have a very powerful effect on how the advocate’s message is perceived” (Lin 2009). This same theory posits that in order for a culturally incongruous message to be received well, “cultural vouchers”, or in-group spokesmen for the issue, must endorse it in order for it to be perceived as legitimate. Despite the efforts of many Evangelical leaders, however, the liberal stigma of environmentalism proves hard to completely efface.

To make matters worse, religion’s centuries old feud with science gives climate change’s primary spokesmen--scientists--serious credibility issues among bible-thumpers. Chip Ward observed that “If you don't believe in the evolutionary sciences, chances are you also don't heed or trust the ecological sciences that underlie environmental law and policy”, highlighting the biases that will inevitably color the judgment of a biblical literalist community (Nagel 2007). This distrust is only exacerbated by the broader debate over the validity of climate science. The bickering within the scientific community casts it as internally divided and inconsistent to a group that already views scientists with serious suspicion. With this in mind, it comes as little surprise that a 2008 Barna poll found Evangelicals to be the most skeptical of any population segment surveyed, with just 27% ‘firmly convinced’ global warming is happening (Barna.org).

Despite these hurdles, the debate over ecological issues and policy responses has been steadily gaining ground within the church, albeit slowly. Since the late 1970’s, in the face of rising ecological devastation and in response to the growing secular environmental movement, the Christian church, especially more mainstream denominations, has slowly begun to move toward a new ‘eco-theology’. Pope John Paul II named St. Francis of Assisi the patron saint of ecologists- not coincidentally, he was also the only saint mentioned in Lynn White’s essay as a potential guide for re-thinking the environmental values of Christianity. In a Jan 1990 world peace address, John Paul II proclaimed “the ecological crisis is a moral issue” (Kearns 2004).

The response was not limited to the Catholic Church; theologians from every denomination, including Protestant Evangelicals, contributed to what would become the new ethic of ‘eco-theology’. Partially a theological response to Lynn White’s scathing essay, eco-theology sought to frame religious values in terms that show “how the environmental crisis amounts to a crisis in the intimacies of God’s relation [with man]” (Jenkins 2008). According to White, “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to the things around them” and the ethic of eco-theology sought to re-frame how Christians saw their relationship with nature (White 1967).

Three main ‘schools’ of eco-theology emerged by the late ‘80s: the eco-justice movement, the creation spirituality movement, and the Christian stewardship movement. The distinctions between these schools are significant, and they appeal to very different denominations and demographics.

The eco-justice movement, a favorite of mainline Protestant churches and minority churches, is focused mainly on issues of the poor and disenfranchised, seeking ‘environmental justice’ on issues like pollution and land use. It frames environmental concerns in humanitarian terms, and because of this has a much broader appeal among religious groups. This idea has gained traction recently within the Evangelical community, as evidence mounts that the poorest people on earth will bear the worst effects of a warming climate.

Creation spirituality directly links a belief in God with nature itself, working to “return a sense of the sacred to everyday life”, highlighting the cosmological evolution of the universe, and man’s small place in the ‘big picture’. This breaks with the anthropocentric focus of historical Christian traditions (Kearns 2004). Mostly appealing to the liberal denominations, creation spirituality shares common ground with religious environmentalism and earth worship. Many within the conservative denominations, like Evangelicals, find these ideas heretical because a ‘bio-centric’ approach to the value of nature necessarily undermines scripture, which asserts that God alone is the source of divinity.  

The final school, Christian Stewardship, is the approach most Biblical literalists and Evangelicals take to addressing the environment. They call it ‘creation care’ instead of environmentalism, and draw their directives straight from scripture, namely Genesis 2:15, which calls man to be “stewards of” and “care for” the earth. They see creation as our inheritance from the garden of Eden, and those who abuse God’s work will be held accountable, because Revelations 11:18 puts it plain as day that "God will destroy those who destroy the earth." ( Grist.org).

Within all of these schools lies a common thread: a reunification of man and church communities with their surroundings, endowing the environment we live in with moral significance, and guiding us to protect it. This overarching theme is synonymous with deeply held environmentalist values, albeit from a religious instead of secular perspective. This is critical common ground, however, because shared moral values can create strong bonds among groups, and shared motivation to act. Any issue that can be framed in moral terms that appeal to religious groups stands a strong chance of gaining political traction, and many causes have sought this appeal in the past.

Many political scholars and casual observers would agree religious values are central to American political culture. The appeal to moral values has been a part of American politics since the pilgrims founded their ‘city on a hill’ in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Any politician seeking office would do well to invoke God and country at every opportunity. But the battle for control of the religious demographic goes beyond posturing and speeches. The religious voters of America are an especially prized political ally, because networks of church congregations constitute the most powerful grassroots organizations in the United States, and with that comes powerful social capital. Some Evangelical ‘megachurches’, like Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, claim several thousand members in a single congregation. Preachers like Warren have tremendous political clout, since their preaching largely sets the social agenda for their congregations. Churches bring believers together to share common values, and these shared values translate politically to shared votes.

Since Ronal Reagan’s 1980 presidential race, Republican conservatives have actively courted religious voters in order to transform them into a powerful voting bloc, now dubbed the ‘religious right’. This has given a boon to Republicans, who have successfully co-opted religious voters by hyping up social wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage. By the second term election of George W. Bush, their success was clearly evident, when “[f]our out of five Evangelical Christians voted for George W. Bush, making up over 30 percent of his vote” (washingtonpost.com).

The political platform of the conservative party also carries with it a strong anti-environmental stance, and many in the religious right vote against sensible environmental policy because they prioritize ‘value-based’ personal morality issues that conservative rhetoric is aligned with. Republicans tapped into cultural biases against environmentalists to garner support among working-class churchgoers as well. One journalist observed “Republicans…[took] people who used to be union workers and pull[ed] them over to their side by demonizing environmentalists…they would say ‘these people are taking your jobs” (Barker on Is God Green?). Even Rich Cizik, who is an outspoken advocate for global warming in the Evangelical community, admits “we’ve [Evangelicals] been co-opted politically. We’ve adopted the agenda of the Republican Party which is largely serving the interest of the oil and gas and utility companies”(Cizik on Is God Green?). John C. Nagel points to a study of environmental beliefs among Evangelicals that found “Christian anti-environmentalism can be traced directly to political commitments” (Wright quoted in Nagel, 2007).

The anti-environmental policies of the Republican Party have their roots in capitalistic, pro-business values. These ideals have bled over into the Evangelical community as well. In one recent poll, three-quarters of Christians said they thought the phrase "God helps those who help themselves" came from the Bible”, according to Evangelical leader Calvin DeWitt (Grist.org). He, along with many other Evangelical leaders, is concerned that American Evangelicals are too focused on the ‘gospel of wealth’. Another prominent Evangelical leader and author, Matthew Sleeth, said of his fellow Evangelicals "Bible-believing Christians have confused the kingdom of heaven with capitalism and consumerism" (Grist.org).

By focusing on social wedge issues like abortion and ‘family values’ that highlight individual morality, the Republican political agenda has drawn the social agenda of Evangelicals away from issues like poverty and global warming that demand a broader social response. This narrowing of the social agenda’s scope has made it easier for Evangelical and political leaders to polarize and mobilize the pews against an ‘enemy of the Church’, like abortionists or gay couples. Rev. Joel Hunter makes this case well in an interview for Grist magazine:

"One of the things fundamentalist churches have learned, have practiced, and continue to practice, is the best way to grow in influence and fundraising is to make people mad. And the best way to do that is to create an enemy…its very clear to everybody that if you don't come out aggressively against something, not only might you alienate your base, but you will certainly alienate your donors. And many of these hardened or narrow right organizations have been formed specifically to react against something." (Grist.org)

The ‘enemy’ in the global warming debate is a bit more problematic from this perspective; it is ‘us.’ This fact provides barriers of its own to engaging the climate issue, but faces even stronger resistance in a community whose social agenda has been tailored to fighting ‘agents of Satan’ among social groups that provide a convenient moral contrast to themselves. Some Evangelical leaders, like Matthew Sleeth, point to bible verses that say “Look not to the speck in your neighbor's eye but to the mote in your own" to encourage Evangelicals to confront this moral dilemma of guilt, but it is simply easier to wage a moral crusade against someone other than yourself (Grist.org).  

The Evangelical community has been mocked as the “steady date of the GOP”, a stereotype of Evangelicals held by many in the political community and beyond (Grist.org). They are seen as the most vocal and active segment of the ‘religious right’, and on many social issues like abortion and gay marriage this is true. Richard Cizik claims Evangelicals represent 40% of the Republican party, capable of mobilizing serious conservative clout in support of the Republican social agenda (Grist.org)

But in recent years, the Evangelical community’s reputation for ideological homogeneity has been fraying on the issue of climate change. Brian McCammack remarked “while all Evangelicals are theologically conservative, they are not necessarily all politically conservative”, pointing to a growing divide within the Evangelical community between progressives and conservatives (McCammak 2007). This divide has increasingly polarized the Evangelical community. The conservative side is sticking to its culture-war guns of gay marriage and abortion, while the progressive side broadens its agenda to include social justice issues, notably global warming. The conservative and progressive stances on addressing global warming share the common conflict points of economics and science with the secular community, but with evangelicals, Biblical interpretation adds a layer of theological division to the debate.

Especially at the level of national leadership, a significant divide over addressing climate change has formed within the Evangelical community. Major national organizations, like the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA), and the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) have taken a progressive stance on the climate issue. These and other progressive groups came together in February 2006 to issue “Climate Change: An Call to Action”, a document signed by 86 Evangelical leaders including Rick Warren, pastor of the largest Evangelical church in American, Leith Anderson, president of the NAE, Richard Cizik, former VP of the NAE, and dozens of presidents from Evangelical colleges across America. The document acknowledges the inherent skepticism of the Evangelical community towards climate science, but affirms in the first section that human-induced climate change is real:

“…many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians… we are convinced that Evangelicals must engage this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem or humanity’s responsibility to address it.” (christiansandclimate.org)

The call to action continues with a laundry list of biblical and moral convictions calling Evangelicals to immediate action, arguing that human-induced climate change is a “failure to exercise proper stewardship”, a task commissioned by God in Genesis 1:26-28. The final sections of the document call for “market-based, cost-effective mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade program” to reduce national emissions (christiansandclimate.org). Leading Democrats in Congress have advocated this policy, and the ECI’s support of a cap-and-trade initiative is a powerful example of Evangelicals reaching across partisan lines in addressing global warming. As Richard Cizik put it, “to be biblically consistent means you have to, at times, be politically inconsistent” (Cizik on Is God Green?).

Progressive Evangelical leaders have to tread lightly around certain theological issues, and framing is very important to their ‘call to action’. In calling for greater awareness of the value of creation, they run the risk of crossing the line towards a ‘bio-centric’ reading of the Bible, like creation spirituality, and alienating many Evangelicals as a result. The EEN has been active for over fifteen years and has a long record of environmental advocacy outside the climate change debate, though their focus has recently shifted from environmental conservation and endangered species protection to saving humanity from the climate crisis (Nagel 2007). This shift in framing is a good example of the strategic change in rhetoric environmental Evangelical groups have adopted in attempting to galvanize more of their constituents on climate change. Well aware of the bio-centric theological no-fly zone, the ‘Call to Action’ couches its arguments for climate action in humanitarian terms, arguing worst effects of global warming will fall on “our poorest global neighbors” (christiansandclimate.org). There are passing references to “God’s other creatures”, but the focus is people. Richard Cizik cites the prioritization of human beings as an important distinction between secular and evangelical environmentalists “Enviros say the earth is in jeopardy. The earth will go on. I believe human beings are in jeopardy…this is about people” (Cizik on Is God Green). For progressive Evangelicals, it is important to create ideological distance from groups like ‘enviros’ in order to maintain their relevance within the Evangelical community. They are often subject to harsh criticism from their conservative colleagues for not distancing themselves enough. By calling Evangelicals to arms on climate change within the context of addressing poverty and caring for the ‘least of our kind’, progressive leaders provide a strong Biblical basis familiar to their laity, and avoid adding an entirely new issue to the crowded Evangelical social agenda currently dominated by the fight over abortion and gay marriage.

In contrast to the ECI and its colleagues in the progressive 'social justice' sphere, there is also a vocal segment of the Evangelical leadership that remains opposed to substantial action on climate change. This ‘conservative’ element is represented by organizations such as the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship (ICES), the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation (CA) and the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. These groups count many prominent evangelicals among their ranks, including James Dobson of Focus the Family, and Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries (and Watergate) fame. The conservative position on climate change is drastically different from the progressive camp, especially in their interpretation of the key Genesis passages that provide the theological grounding for ‘creation care’. E. Calvin Beisner, a key spokesperson from the Cornwall Alliance, interprets the Genesis passages to mean that “…that God intended, and still intends, mankind to transform the Earth from wilderness into garden”, and “…good stewards are necessarily those who exercise active dominion over the earth’s resources” (McCammak 2007).

The Cornwall Alliance issued its own treatise on global warming in response to the ECI ‘Call to Action’, under the name “The Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship”. The Cornwall Declaration opens with an acknowledgement that “As concerns about the environment have grown in recent decades, the moral necessity of ecological stewardship has become increasingly clear”, yet finds little reason for change in the status quo to achieve greater stewardship. It dismisses “manmade global warming” as an “unfounded…undue concern”, and suggests “…growing affluence, technological innovation, and the application of human and material capital are integral to environmental improvement” (cornwallalliance.org). The document ends with a list of ‘aspirations’, which includes no policy positions but plenty of politically conservative rhetoric, including calls for ‘liberty’ as a tool for environmental management and hopes that “…widespread economic freedom—which is integral to private, market economies— makes sound ecological stewardship available to ever greater numbers” (cornwallalliance.org) This is familiar material; “Subtract blatant biblical references, and the current conservative evangelical environmentalist stance on climate change science begins to look strikingly similar to George W. Bush’s first-term position on the issue” (McCammak 2007).

This is a dramatically different message from those put forth by progressive leaders like ECI, and mixed results in the polls suggest conflicting messages from Evangelical leadership has stymied major, decisive action from the pews. It is far more difficult to gauge the level of polarity on this issue among the 30 million plus American Evangelicals than it is to identify the positions of key leaders and groups, but a 2009 Public Religion survey on religious activists offers some clues. The survey split religious activists (not identified by denomination) into ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ groups, and found that “Only 13% of conservative activists agree that more environmental protection is needed even if it raises prices or costs jobs, compared to nearly 9-in-10 (87%) progressive activists who agree” (publicreligion.org). This survey includes all denominations, and does not represent solely Evangelicals, but indicates a strong contrast between those within the Christian community who subscribe to either conservative or progressive views on the environment consistent with the polarity of the Evangelical leadership.

There are several polls that indicate higher levels of commitment on global warming, and many findings seem to contradict one another. For example, a Barna poll from August 2008 found that “Among evangelicals, 90% would like Christians to take a more active role in caring for creation, with 67% agreeing strongly”, yet this is the same poll cited earlier that found Evangelicals to be the most skeptic of global warming science, with only 27% firmly convinced it is happening (Barna.org). Yet another poll taken by Public Religion found this number jumped dramatically the following year in 2009, when 64% of white Evangelical respondents “believ[ed] there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been increasing over the last few decades”(Publicreligion.org).

Such scrambled data on Evangelical climate convictions suggests the internal divisions within the leadership have created a deeply mixed reaction from the laity. One survey found a full 89% of Christians (all Christians, not just Evangelicals) have never even heard the term ‘creation care’, indicating a broad disconnect between messages of the leadership and minds in the pews (Barna.org). The inherent skepticism among Evangelicals of the media (the same Barna poll found 65% of Evangelicals think the issue is ‘hyped’) and scientists is only exacerbated by inconsistent messages from within their community, creating higher barriers for mass action. Yet some poll data suggests a consequential movement of Evangelical laity on this issue. The most recent survey available, from Public Religion in March 2009, found that “Four-in-ten white evangelicals view climate change as an urgent problem”, with 35% saying it is “extremely important to them” (Publicreligion.org).

This growing plurality of progressive Evangelicals has the potential to make serious waves on this issue, especially given the Evangelical community’s intimate ties with the Republican Party. This is especially true at the higher levels of leadership, where many have been outspoken on this issue already.  Despite the widely fluctuating numbers, all polls indicate a divide within the Evangelical community on climate issues, and most indicate this divide is growing. Josh Hopping, a parishioner at Vineyard Boise Church in Idaho, reflects a changing political consciousness among everyday Evangelicals: “Normally in the past I’ve voted one party. I’ve actually taken a step back…I can’t just vote straight party…there’s a broader issue at stake” ( Hopping on Is God Green?). Leaders like Cizik are optimistic about this political shift, and he believes it will make waves in the Republican party. He claims “…we need to become the change agents within the Republican Party, and I believe we can, and we will” (Cizik on Is God Green?).

This type of change is possible because, as Calvin DeWitt points out, “Evangelicals can change at the drop of a hat… They have no one to answer to other than the Bible. So if the Bible says it, they do it…They are used to conversion”(Grist.org). By framing climate change as a Biblical imperative, progressive leaders are successfully re-categorizing environmental values in the Evangelical consciousness. Reverend Joel Hunter sees a broader shift in the Evangelical social agenda taking place as well, “[going] beyond the reactionary issues that were morally centered into the compassion issues that are well-being centered”, with global warming falling firmly in the latter (Grist.org).

Strong moral conviction, combined with a consolidated institutional framework of churches nationwide, can build a powerful and mobilized voting block of civically engaged citizens. The social agenda of a group like the Evangelicals has real consequence for national policy, perhaps more so than many other groups competing for influence in Washington, largely due to their powerful network and claims to moral conviction. Our national culture is a Christian culture, for better or worse, and well-organized Christian groups like the Evangelicals have demonstrable clout with national leaders. The Evangelical community’s change of heart on climate change can bring a whole new dimension of activism on the issue, and Cizik has little doubt that Washington will react:

"If evangelicals were to take climate change, the environmental issues, seriously, do it from a biblical standpoint -- not a secular ideology here but from a biblical standpoint, developing their own voice -- there's no question Washington would pay heed." (PBS.org)

Even leaders outside the Christian community have recognized the power of religious allies in the fight against climate change. E.O. Wilson, head of the Council for Secular Humanism, recently wrote an open letter to the pastor of a Southern Baptist church imploring him to join with Humanists in addressing climate change. According to Wilson, “…religion and science are the two most powerful social forces in the world”, and common ground that finds common goals between them is a potent political force (Grist.org).

The power of religion lies in its role of giving people’s lives a sense of purpose, a fundamental system of value that shapes individual views of the world. If these values are changed, the individual’s outlook will necessarily change with them. The values of an environmental worldview, including sustainability and just treatment of the natural world, have been largely absent from Christian ethics for much of western history. But with climate change, new perspectives are arising within religious communities that are beginning to incorporate these elements into the Christian worldview, bringing new moral imperatives along with them. “Religions add values, not just votes, to the effort to build a sustainable world” (Grist.org). Religious values have always been a significant element of the American political system, and cultivating a religious value based advocacy for climate policy will add a powerful pillar of support.

By forcing people to see themselves as intricately connected to the fate of a natural world they have grown to understand as a separate, inferior realm, climate change requires people to face a crisis of existential proportions. Religion has long been a place mankind turns to address the deepest and most complex problems of the human condition, and facing the challenge of global warming may prove no exception. In the development of a truly sustainable society, religion will be instrumental in shaping values and creating deep convictions to act, bridging socially disparate groups and ideologies with a common goal. This goal has long been a value of the environmental movement: the sustained balance of the planet that supports all human life, and our continuing ability to thrive within it.