Would Jesus Buy a Solar Panel for the Roof of his Suburban Home?

Prospectus for the new holy alliance

BY NATHAN SCHNEIDER

Click to see full size
Illustration by Hilary Falb
enivronangelists

THE BIBLE IS NOT A TEXT known for its concern for baby seals. Most of the time, its scenery is left to the imagination. With the exception of an occasional Lebanon cedar or a mustard seed, the natural world takes a descriptive back seat to pillars of fire and healed lepers.

Environmentalism, as we have come to think of it, was not a question that the ancient sages worried much about. The alienating forces of clogged modern cities and industrial exhaust did not plague the old sages. The sections of the Bible that deal with the environment, in large part, begin way back in Genesis, where the language seems to permit two contradictory doctrines. "Male and female," freshly made on the sixth day, are commanded to "fill the earth and subdue it." They are given "dominion" over all the animals as well as sapling seeds. Exegetes interpret these lines in different ways: some draw on these and other passages to prove that the earth is ours to destroy if we please while others find evidence that we are meant to be the earth's benevolent stewards.

Long politically silent on the issue, and preferring to contend with tenuous questions of public morality, the American evangelicals have begun to show signs of interest in protecting the land and the birds and the fish of the sea. In October of 2004, the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) passed a document entitled "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," which is offered as a comprehensive description of the evangelical platform. Surprising to some, it includes responsible environmental policy, alongside the more traditional family and life issues, within a framework for expanded Christian political participation. This past March, Focus on the Family, best known for its stance against homosexual hitching, produced a press release expressing concern about global warming.

The possibility of a trend brings up real questions for the conventional left: can the evangelical front still be intellectually and culturally demonized when they are poised to bring such massive clout to one of the left's most tragically unrealized positions? The green liberals and the Christian right have long been avowed enemies, with seemingly little common ground to stand on.

The Birth Of A Nation

Conventional wisdom suggests that the evangelical platform in recent years has been specific and certain, calling to mind some of the most divisive political and moral debates of our time. As the story goes, this ever-present cadre of American bible thumpers kept silent from the end of Prohibition to Roe v. Wade, quelled by a theology of non-participation. Then miraculously in 1979, a great prophet was raised in the person of Jerry Falwell, a savvy Virginia preacher who managed to mobilize the quiet giant into an electoral machine on behalf of presidential candidate Ronald Reagan. The group he led, Moral Majority, professed to represent an interfaith coalition centered on crucial issues such as anti-abortion, prayer in schools, and support for Israel.

To Ronald Reagan, this group was a gold mine. Preachers began calling the untapped God-fearing masses to the polls. The argument ran that the liberals had finally gone too far, and American society had become poisoned. Reagan, who had a talent for speaking directly and publicly about his own faith, made sure to cast himself as the Majority's prize candidate. "You can't endorse me," he famously told a convention of evangelicals, constrained as they were by institutional tax status, "but I'll endorse you."

Nevertheless, their program did not fully pan out. Reagan introduced a school-prayer bill but did not support it in Congress, where it easily died. By the end of his two terms, there was no prayer in public school but plenty of abortions were going on. Despite building a powerful Christian political machine, the Moral Majority's language had largely failed to enact their agenda in Congress. Even so, its leadership and constituency remained loyal to Reagan and his party, believing that his kind was their best hope for conservative Christian policy in Washington.

When Moral Majority was disbanded in 1989, Pat Robertson took up the cause, building the Christian Coalition, which remains a force today. The Christian Coalition considers its "hallmark work" to be voter education, bringing into the 21st century the juggernaut that Moral Majority's name suggests: even if you disagree with us, we will outvote you.

The Clinton years were, evangelically speaking, a bit quieter. At least it appears that way given the zeal and prominence of evangelical thought in the second Bush administration. In reality, the evangelicals gained major clout during the Clinton administration when the Republicans regained control of Congress for the first time in forty years. The second George Bush has brought the evangelical movement back to the White House, and it has done much to keep him there. As Richard Cizik, vice-president of the NAE, recently told the New York Times, "If evangelicals can't convince the president, then no one can." Seemingly we are in the Roman Empire of the early 4th century, when Christians first moved precipitously from the lions' den to high office. Faith in the resurrected Son of Man, for the moment, helps a lot in getting the president on the phone.

Crafty Christians

Up to this point, the positions taken by the religious right have been narrow and predictable. They conform closely to the agreed-upon conservative economic policies, and attend most of all to family issues and moral categories. Through this carefully chosen platform, the evangelical bloc has managed to "stay the course," securing itself a lofty place in American politics.

But things change when people are in positions of power, and possibilities emerge. The NAE's statement, which shines so glowingly on the environment, defines the party line on a whole series of contemporary issues. There are others that the left might fancy besides environmentalism: the restraint of violence, human rights as accorded by the UN's Universal Declaration, and support for the "poor and vulnerable." The primary message of the text is twofold. To evangelicals, civic participation is a religious responsibility; to the rest, the evangelical movement is in politics for good.

Considering their now firmly established position, evangelicals are able to stray somewhat from the core principles of traditional family and right-to-life that put them there. On the one hand, this represents a willingness to venture beyond the nearly exclusive pact they have had with the Republican Party. Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat, owes his selection as a vice-presidential candidate in 2000, at least in part, to his commitment to many evangelical positions. On the other hand, such maneuvering by evangelicals may represent a warning shot to Republicans not to neglect the fundamental social agenda that has been at the forefront of evangelical politics since the beginning.

In any event, the evangelical movement is flexing its muscles and does not intend to be a pawn to secular political aims. The mainstream left, which has long been the muscle behind the environmental movement, may see this as an opportunity to court the ironclad Christian bloc. But many evangelicals have recognized the possibility of their strength being co-opted by so-called "environmental radicals." Others are concerned about the theological pantheism and irreligion that they have come to associate with the green left. Evangelicals are wary of the term "environmentalist" and its cultural baggage; "creation care" has become a popular replacement.

At the moment, an evangelical environmental bloc remains rather hypothetical. Despite recent proclamations by leaders and a flurry of major newspaper articles, it is Terri Schiavo who still attracts evangelical attention, not the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Even the NAE statement, which takes such groundbreaking stands for the movement, orders traditional life and family issues first among its principles. A recent Pew Forum poll suggests that since 1992 there has only been a small rise in concern for the environment among evangelicals, roughly consistent with that of other major Christian groups in the country. Nevertheless, in the last year, voices have been rising, and evangelicals have begun to appear on the radar of the Sierra Club and other environmental advocacy mainstays.

Groups like the Evangelical Environmental Care Network insist that activist environmentalism is a moral responsibility for Christians. They have initiated a campaign against SUVs, asking, "What would Jesus drive?" Increasingly, the left-leaning environmentalist mainstream is realizing that they are fighting a "culture war" rather than a merely political one, a contest for American ideals and a certain way of life. This is how the evangelicals have always seen their work. Together or against each other, both are fighting for the national soul.

_____________

Nathan Schneider B'06 knows a verse in the Bible that will solve all your financial problems.

Back to Top

the college hill independent

http://www.theindy.com