Evangelical "going Green"?

[Michael Patton]

The latest Barna survey was published last night. Its intent was to evaluate the Evangelical position concerning the environment. 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 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.

For example, most of the prolific greeners who represent the movement and the agenda are those 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 about Global Warming can take precidence over murder of an innocent life.

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.

[H]

The exceptions exist. That's all. I may differ with you on this, but I have as much respect for the minority voice as the majority voice. Whether they control political power (yet, but the lowly sometimes have a way of rising to the top) or define the rule or not, they exist. When enough of them find one another and are hacked off enough about what it means to allow others to define them, they will add their voices to the debate. That's why there are just so many facets, so many nuances to any particular issue - people see it from utterly different perspectives. I've learned a lot from just listening - to pagans, to gays, to all kinds of people - and while some of what they may say (esp. about Christ and Christianity) is a cop-out, some of it is VALID.

I just think it doesn't hurt us to hang out a bit with an issue, really look at it, examine what may be biblical about it and listen to what is on people's hearts - as followers of Christ, not as compromisers.

I mean - look at the people Jesus hung out with. Really low types. He didn't argue with them much, either, just set the example. He didn't win everyone - but he won a few, and to the few he won, the difference was life and death.

And speaking of hacked off, there are a lot of hacked off people in the US this morning!!

[ScottL]

Michael -

You are correct - most liberals will generally be pro-choice or pro-abortion and allow for same-sex marriage. And we don't define things by the exception either. I was just simply stating we have to be careful. It might have easily been avoided by saying such things in your article as, 'I know this viewpoint does not define everybody, but...'.

I find in my articles that I write that I try to be careful of making everyone fit into certain boxes, although that is hard to do. Again, we don't want to walk on egg shells, but we do have to look to be sensitive, especially when we consider that we can't see into the hearts of people.

You're great!

[Char]

Reality is, most of it is shipped to landfills because it is not worth recycling. There is a lot of waste in human effort and resources being put in the trash with that glass.

This is absolutely true-we found out awhile back that all the glass we had to separate and drive down to recycle bins at the other end of town was being put in a truck and sent to the landfill.

I agree with what JL and others have said here. We do not have to necessarily go along with the green political movement to be good stewards of creation, especially since often their suggestions are silly and unsustainable and obviously the result of living their entire lives in urban environments. These Ideas are recognized as impossible to carry out by those of us actually living out in rural areas-but then the intimation is made that because we see the holes in these ideas we don't care. This is simply false and is nothing more than an attempt to guilt people into falling into line (for the record no one here is doing that, but it is done elsewhere).

The story you told is ridiculous JL-and totally believable.

[JL Vaughn]

Michael,

Or more importantly, do the exceptions control the polictical power?

[Michael Patton]

But then the question becomes do the exceptions define the rule?

[H]

Michael:

Well, here's the thing: I get irked when Christianity is caricatured as a religion of toothless snake-handlers, as it so often is and I'm sure it will be in Bill Maher's new movie "Religulous." You are probably correct when you say that most liberals believe a certain way; however, there are often quite a few exceptions. I know of a few pro-life atheists - for them it isn't a religious issue; it's a civil rights issue. There is even a movement of pro-life feminists in this country. Some gay people are really quite conservative (because of my art background I tend to meet a fair variety when it comes to people), but they tend to be less vocal about their beliefs. We don't need to walk on eggshells - who has time for that - but I have found that most people simply cannot be pigeonholed. They may be socially conservative but fiscally liberal or vice versa or a little of both. Vive la difference - that's all.

Peace.

[Michael Patton]

Would you think it is a stereotype to say liberals, generally speaking, support abortion or same-sex marraige? I don't feel as if I am defining them in a way that is contrary to any stated agenda.

[ScottL]

Yeah, I do think it was a bit of a harsh statement to equate the 'green movement' with those agreeing with abortion. I think that might be a very unhelpful stereotype. Even if you had a study that said 70% of those 'going green' also agree with abortion, that is still a very harsh statement to make - to those who are Christians that are 'green' and do not agree with abortion and for those non-Christians who are 'green' and do not agree with abortion.

I know we don't have to walk on egg shells, but we do have to guard our words.

[H]

JL:

I agree that most municipal recycling programs are both mandatory and a waste of time. (Whoa - you and I agree on something - a red-letter day! ;-)
They are usually nothing more than a phoney-baloney way for bureaucrats to reel in bigger sums that are attached to recycling programs.

That they arrested that woman sounds just like big government at work. Trash theft. Now I've heard it all.

[H]

Michael,
I can agree with that. I guess I am arguing (arguing?) for a balanced response toward the whole idea of "going green." I am a Republican (should I admit that?) but I can tell you I don't like a LOT of what goes on in that party - and so it should be with everything a Christian is involved in. We should exercise a whole lot of discretion and discernment when raising our hands to volunteer - no matter what we're volunteering for. And with our efforts should come the light and salt; we're a package deal, remember? ;-)