“Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt” for environmental degredation. So argued historian Lynn White, Jr., in a much-reprinted article.(1) The debate has taken many turns since White’s article first appeared in the 1960s. Some have argued that an exploitative attitude toward nature is built into the biblical world-view, which must therefore be rejected. Others have suggested that the biblical notion of stewardship, properly understood, is compatible with contemporary environmentalist concerns. Still others have disputed the notion that Christianity is significantly responsible for environmental abuse in the first place. Moreover, there is no consensus about the severity of our ecological crisis, or what the response to it should to be. See, for example, the lively debate in “Creation at Risk? Religion, Science, and the Environment,” edited by Michael Cromartie (Eerdmans, 166 pp.; $15, paper).
Despite such disagreement, there has been a growing responsiveness to environmental issues among American Christians since the first Earth Day in 1970. Many mainline Protestants have wholeheartedly embraced the ecology movement, as Robert Booth Fowler has chronicled in “The Greening of Protestant Thought” (University of North Carolina Press, 252 pp.; $14.95, paper). Similarly, the bishops of the Catholic Church have forthrightly endorsed mainstream environmental causes. Finally, on the academic scene, ecological theology–much of it in tension with orthodoxy–is a flourishing enterprise. For a representative study, see “The Greening of Theology: The Ecological Models of Rosemary Radford Ruether,” Joseph Sittler, and Jurgen Moltmann, by Steven Bouma-Prediger (Scholars Press, 338 pp.; $23.95, paper).
Are evangelical Protestants left out? Many have argued that doctrinal distinctives have led Bible-believing Christians to slight the environment. Evangelical sociologist Tony Campolo, for example, has blamed premillennialism: If the world is bound to get worse, and Jesus is returning soon, why worry about ecology? Another frequently offered explanation is that evangelicals may have trouble identifying with environmentalism because of the New Age ties of some of the movement’s leaders.
But are these charges accurate? Until fairly recently, most such discussion was largely conjecture. Scholars had very little evidence about the link between religious influences on the one hand, and environmental attitudes on the other. In recent years, however, we have conducted several studies that address this connection: surveys of clergy, religious activists in politics, political party activists, and average citizens. What can we say on the basis of these studies? Do conservative Protestants conform to the portrait painted by their environmentalist critics?
First, a 1988-89 survey of Protestant clergy reveals some very clear differences between evangelical and mainline traditions. We asked pastors to list “the two or three most important problems confronting the country,” tell how often they addressed environmental issues, and report whether they favored stricter environmental controls even if the results were higher prices and fewer jobs. As the table shows, evangelicals are much less likely than mainline ministers to name the environment as a major issue, address it as a part of their ministry, or support stricter regulations (although half do).(2)
What causes these differences? Although specific denominational factors no doubt have an impact, the main influences are theological, especially eschatology and affiliation with conservative religious movements. As the table shows, premillennialists seldom perceive or address environmental problems and are also least in favor of more stringent regulation; nonpremillennialist clergy hold down the other end of the spectrum. Similarly, ministers who identify with the fundamentalist movement are much less likely than religious liberals to see the environment as an important problem, address it frequently, or advocate stricter regulations. These religious factors overlap, of course, but each makes its own contribution to environmental attitudes. Thus, the more dispensationalist in belief and the more fundamentalist in affiliation a minister, the less likely he is to see or address environmental problems or endorse policies to deal with them.
Are these results the artifact of the specific denominations we studied? Certainly not. The 1990-91 Wheaton Religious Activist Study surveyed almost 1,000 evangelical, mainline, and Catholic clergy and over 4,000 laity active in religiously related political interest groups, from a wide range of denominations. We found once again that evangelical clergy were least inclined to see the environment as a major problem, put a high priority on the environment, or favor strong environmental policies. And the table shows that the laity faithfully mirrored their pastors’ views, although laity in each tradition tend to be slightly less environmentalist than the clergy. Once again, basic religious measures of premillennial eschatology and fundamentalist movement identification are important correlates of less sympathetic attitudes toward the environment (data not shown).
It was deja vu all over again among contributors to various Democratic and Republican party causes in 1988-89, most of whom were not drawn to politics by explicitly religious concerns. Once more, evangelicals had the lowest probability of belonging to an environmental organization, favoring increased spending on environmental programs, or feeling affinity for the Sierra Club, a centerpiece of the mainstream environmental movement. Mainline Protestants and Catholics were more sympathetic to environmental groups and causes, but were far surpassed by secular activists–those without any religious attachments at all. Again, adherence to biblical literalism, attachment to fundamentalist or Pentecostal movements, and frequency of church attendance all produced less support for the environment among party activists (data not shown).
What about the folks in the pew? In the 1994 edition of the University of Michigan’s biennial National Election Study, we find that regular churchgoers in each tradition differ from each other and from secular voters. As the table shows, those who attend evangelical churches are least likely to favor increased environmental spending or feel close to environmentalists; secular voters again prove most sympathetic to ecological concerns. (Interestingly, all groups are less environmentalist than they were in 1992.) Similarly, voters who held most strongly to biblical inerrancy, identified with fundamentalism or Pentecostalism, and attended church most frequently were least environmentalist, while those with less orthodox perspectives were friendlier to environmental concerns (data not shown).(3)
What are we to make of all this? It is clear that certain themes present in evangelical Christianity have contributed, as critics have charged, to a diminution of environmental concern. Premillennial eschatology, in particular, is strongly associated with suspicion of environmental causes, as is identification with fundamentalism. Perhaps it is understandable that the movement which so carefully guarded Christian orthodoxy early in this century is suspicious of social movements with spiritual credentials anything but orthodox. Still, we think that a more careful reading of the Scriptures can produce a faithful Christian theology of care for the natural world.
1. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” “Science,” Vol. 155, March 10, 1967, pp. 1203-7.
2. The evangelical denominations in our 1988-89 surveys include the Assemblies of God, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Covenant Church (surveyed in 1992), and the Christian Reformed Church. Mainline churches were the Reformed Church in America, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The proportion of ministers who addressed environmental issues varied considerably: the Assemblies of God (25 percent), the Southern Baptist Convention (26 percent), the Evangelical Covenant Church (34 percent), the Christian Reformed Church (51 percent), the Reformed Church in America (54 percent), the United Methodist Church (67 percent), the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (62 percent), and the Disciples of Christ (64 percent). A similar pattern appeared when we asked these same pastors whether they perceive the environment as one of the nation’s two or three most important problems: only 6 percent of Assemblies pastors and 20 percent of Southern Baptists said yes, compared to 31 percent of the Presbyterian pastors surveyed and 30 percent of the Disciples of Christ.
3. For further information on the studies summarized here, see James L. Guth, Lyman A. Kellstedt, Corwin E. Smidt, and John C. Green, “Theological Perspectives and Environmentalism Among Religious Activists,” “Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,” Vol. 32, No. 4 (December 1993), pp. 373-82; and “Faith and the Environment: Religious Beliefs and Attitudes on Environmental Policy,” “American Journal of Political Science,” Vol. 39, No. 2 (May 1995), pp. 364-81.
FAITH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES
1988-89 Clergy Studies
RELIGIOUS TRADITION
Evangelical:
Most Important 17%
Address Often 34%
Strict Laws 53%
Mainline:
Most Important 25%
Address Often 62%
Strict Laws 88%
THEOLOGY
Premillennialist:
Most Important 11%
Address Often 27%
Strict Laws 50%
Nonpremillennialist:
Most Important 18%
Address Often 62%
Strict Laws 90%
RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT
Fundamentalist:
Most Important 6%
Address Often 28%
Strict Laws 45%
Liberal:
Most Important 32%
Address Often 72%
Strict Laws 94%
1990-91 Religious Activist Study
CLERGY RELIGIOUS TRADITION
Evangelical:
Important Problem 15%
Top Priority 21%
Strict Laws 54%
Mainline:
Important Problem 36%
Top Priority 58%
Strict Laws 88%
Catholic:
Important Problem 23%
Top Priority 61%
Strict Laws 91%
LAITY RELIGIOUS TRADITION
Evangelical:
Important Problem 13%
Top Priority 20%
Strict Laws 46%
Mainline:
Important Problem 28%
Top Priority 49%
Strict Laws 74%
Catholic:
Important Problem 31%
Top Priority 52%
Strict Laws 82%
1988-89 Democratic and Republican Political Activist Study
RELIGIOUS TRADITION
Evangelical:
Member Group 20%
Spend More 30%
Close to Sierra Club 22%
Mainline:
Member Group 33%
Spend More 34%
Close to Sierra Club 30%
Catholic:
Member Group 28%
Spend More 53%
Close to Sierra Club 44%
Secular:
Member Group 56%
Spend More 67%
Close to Sierra Club 61%
National Election Study, 1994: Churchgoing & Secular Voters
RELIGIOUS TRADITION
Evangelical:
Increase Spending 20%
Close to Environmentalists 40%
Mainline:
Increase Spending 26%
Close to Environmentalists 48%
Catholic:
Increase Spending 33%
Close to Environmentalists 48%
Secular:
Increase Spending 42%
Close to Environmentalists 62%
Copyright (c) 1996 Christianity Today, Inc./BOOKS and CULTURE
