Recently, I heard from a Christian who had
read my essay on "Christian environmentalism." He talked about how he had already taken some steps
to make his own family "greener:" cuttting back on unnecessary
buying, watching their energy consumption, and in general trying
to live more responsibly. But he could see the limits of what
individuals can do, and felt motivated to try to organize his
particular community to do bigger, more significant things. He
asked me for suggestions. Below -- with a few added thoughts --
is what I told him.
Thanks for your note on my essay on "Christian environmentalism." I'm glad you found it interesting, and I'm glad that you and your family are taking some of the basic steps of responsible citizenship. I believe that taking control of our personal actions --acting always in a loving and caring way -- has to be at the heart of whatever we do.
You asked "Is there a way in which
the Christians can come together and make the necessary changes
to help save the earth?" Since you asked, I'll give you
my most candid answer, the one I save for those (using a biblical
example) who seem ready to go off their milk (baby) diet and start
eating meat. It's an answer that requires considerable chewing,
namely: Christians can't become part of the solution to our
global environmental problems until they quit being a significant
part of the problems.
I'll elaborate on that blunt statement below,
but let me repeat here what I said in my essay: no matter what
Christians do -- or anyone else does -- I'm not sure the world
can be "saved". We (humankind, collectively) have done
some horrible things to it. Even if - from a technical standpoint
-- some of the problems are still solvable and some of the bad
trends still reversible, I see little indication that we have
the worldwide collective will to do the tough, coordinated things
that must be done. Obviously, that doesn't mean the world will
end tomorrow, or even in the next several generations, but I think
it does mean that life will progressively get more and more complicated,
even in those countries "most blessed," and some people
and entire nations will find the struggle to survive even more
difficult than it is currently. Even in the United States, the
basics of life we have come to expect and depend on will disappear,
diminish, or become unpredictable and undependable.
I -- and the majority of scientists in the world -- could be wrong.
The best way to find out is to continue on the way we are going:
denying the seriousness of the problems, and continuing the kind
of "environmentalism" that may make us feel better about
ourselves, but is really just another example of "fiddling
while Rome burns." From my understanding of what Jesus said,
it seems that "Christian responsibility" demands that
we act as if the bad news bearers are correct. Whatever is done,
it is a now or never situation right now.
Not too many years ago, "environmentalism"
meant using real coffee cups instead of paper ones, and advocating
the creation of national parks and wildlife refuges. Personal
and organizational efforts to treat the Earth more responsibly
certainly did some good toward slowing environmental degradation.
As I said above, I think those kinds of actions should still be
integral in the life of any loving, moral, ethical person. But
if we ever really thought that kind of approach was adequate,
we were fooling ourselves. Now, it's clear that nothing meaningful
can be done toward "saving the Earth" without carefully
planned, fully committed government action, nationally and globally.
Until the 1980s the United States was a leader in environmental
protection, and the significant actions taken here at home served
as compelling examples for other nations to emulate. Even then,
we selfishly consumed far more of the Earth's resources than we
were entitled to, but at least our collective heart seemed to
be in the right place. Now, "the world's only super-power"
is the principal stumbling block to global actions necessary to
restore environmental health.
Here's where Christian culpability is glaringly evident. I said
in my original essay that I thought Lynn White was wrong to label
western corporatism the "Judeo-Christian ethic," because
the teachings of God and Jesus (in the Judeo-Christian bible)
are clearly counter to almost everything for which White blamed
their followers. Reconsidering, I think I was too hard on White.
I was thinking about what God and Jesus said; White
was looking at what Jews and Christians did. ("By
their works will you know them"!) Regardless of how right
or how wrong the White premise was in the past, I think an essay
written today blaming "the Christian ethic" for our
current environmental crisis would be right on the money. I say
this for two reasons.
First, many people who consider themselves Christians are not
worried about pollution, climate change, or loss of animal and
plant species. They seem to have a "God will take care of
that" outlook. Some actually welcome these problems because
they see them as signs of "the end times" and the long-awaited
"Rapture." As long as this futuristic mind-set trumps
Jesus' own admonitions to keep working until he returns, and the
apostle Paul's urgings to treat one another with love, the Christian
community cannot be a positive influence toward "saving the
world."
Second, even those Christians who have some earthly concerns consistently
vote for lawmakers and administrators who have been aggressively
rolling back environmental protections, and have been refusing
to cooperate with other nations in addressing global problems.
Christians don't necessarily want those results, but they consistently
vote for the people who use the most religious rhetoric, regardless
of what else those people stand for. These lawmakers almost never
deliver on their pledges to do something about "family values,"
but they are almost always successful with their business agenda
-- which is almost always about short-term profit, not about long-term
environmental viability. Is it worth it to the Christians to keep
voting for possible legislation banning abortion, stem cell research,
or homosexuality, if this guarantees that the United States will
continue to ignore the environmental health of the world? As long
as the answer is yes, then Christians are a liability rather than
an asset in any fight to "save the world."
Baldly reading what I've written, it sounds like I'm asking Christians
to choose between Christ and the world, between heaven and earth.
That's not the case. Christians have let themselves get trapped
in a morass of legalistic religion and opportunistic politics,
and have forgotten Jesus' teachings on a variety of very important
subjects. It's clear we can't serve two masters; we each need
to decide which one we'll serve.
This is probably not the response you expected, and for the sake
of conciseness I've made some statements without much explanation.
If you'd like to discuss any of it, let me know.
Thanks again for writing. Regards,
Sandy Wilbur