Tune in 12

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   JackH Posted 12:18 pm
   10 Oct 2006

   Environmentalism, Christianity, and PurityI'm sure it'll be an interesting special, although I wonder what is with the American media's obsession with evangelicals like Cizik and Warren, as if they're the first and only Christians who've ever considered the environment worthy of serious concern.  
   I do have a simple question, and it's one I've had from reading Gristmill for quite a while now.  My question is:
   Am I allowed to be an environmentalist?  I'm no evangelical, but I am a Christian (God knows an imperfect one :).  
   Just about any time Christianity comes up in Gristmill, the scorn and condemnation is such that I seriously wonder whether I - and a whole lot of other people - am welcome in the environmental movement.  The strangest thing is that quite often, the condemnation has little to do with the environment.  The message seems to be that if I disagree with you on, say, gay marriage or some other talk-show-host-red-meat-but-ultimately-unimportant issue, I'm not welcome on the same side on environmental issues, which I happen to think are the most vital issues facing the human race.  Linkages are made with, say, animal rights, and the argument is attempted that if one does not buy into one element of the "broad popular vanguard revolutionary front", one is not welcome at all.  
   I personally think this drive for purity is suicidal.  I think back to my days being a fellow traveller of the anti-globalization movement (I was here in Seattle in 1999, but I was too chicken to go downtown for the protest).  I remember how exciting the idea of "Teamsters and Turtles Together At Last" was, and how, finally, the social divisions that opened during the Sixties were healing in the service of the cause of global justice.  But the trustafarians almost immediately started pushing out their new allies with making linkages to utterly unrelated issues (what is with the "Free Mumia!" stuff?), and mere months later, during the IMF meeting in DC, the dreadlocked white kids vastly outnumbered the "hardhats".  The global justice movement in the U.S. was dead long before September 11, 2001, and it wasn't killed by the big corporations - it was killed by the insistence on purity by wannabe radicals.  It had become exactly what right-wing talk show hosts parodied it as - a place full of smelly affluent white kids picking up hippie chicks while spouting incoherent slogans about "Bushitler".  It was a joke, and it was nothing like what got started in Seattle, and nothing like what was going on in the rest of the world, from India to South Korea to Brazil.  
   The environment's far too vital an issue to let this happen to.  You guys need all the allies you can get.  Remember, the vast majority of the planet is full of religious people (even in China, underground religious groups spread like wildfire).  There have already been quite a few religious figures who've come out in favor of caring for the environment, from the Dalai Lama to, even more forcefully and consistently, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.  Millions of people on the ground are fighting the good fight, even if they don't share the belief systems of the First World's intelligensia.  
   Which brings me back to my original question: Am I allowed to be an environmentalist?  

   Permalink

2. 

   hayduke1 Posted 3:01 pm
   10 Oct 2006

   christian envirosdo what's right, don't worry about labels.
   
   remember the common good, remember sustainability, remember truth, and don't forget the future.
   
   
   
   Keep it Wild!

   Permalink

3. 

   David Roberts Posted 3:06 pm
   10 Oct 2006

   JackHI will have much to say in answer to your question, soon. Thank you for asking it with such grace.
   
   www.grist.org

   Permalink

4. 

   caniscandida Posted 3:50 pm
   10 Oct 2006

   Cizik, red meat, et aliaOn Patrick Goldstein's piece in the LA Times:
   1. It struck me as a bit of a contradiction that, on the one hand, we are supposed to accept that Evangelicals are "free-thinkers," and on the other, we are supposed to understand that they listen above all to their pastors.
   I like listening to my RC pastor, but I certainly do not agree with him on everything.  I like reading the words of David Roberts and company, but I certainly do not agree with them on everything.  So what am I missing, about the relationship between Evangelicals and their pastors, that they can remain free-thinkers even while accepting their pastors as the most important influence in their moral lives?
   
   
   The comment that Evangelicals did not want to go hear Al Gore, because they wanted the message on global warming to be a "moral" message coming from their pastors, is to me offensive.  Stupid too.  But definitely offensive.  It deserves a very strong rebuke and a very plain-spoken response.  Al Gore has gone to great efforts to say that global warming is for him an extremely grave moral issue, and ought to be considered so by everyone.
   It gives me serious doubts, not to say creepy feelings, that, when Cizik ran his documentary for the Pennsylvania legislators, incumbents and challengers, and Casey showed up but Santorum did not, Cizik got yelled at by the GOP for "going over to the other side."  The party of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney is a very frightening beast.  And I wonder if Bill Moyers realizes it.
   
   
   (Re Pennsylvania: The Christian Science Monitor's reporter just announced that the Philadelphia suburbs, i.e. where I was hatched and raised, are Ground Zero in the 2006 elections.  My mother will surely cancel out my father; but maybe it would be better to go down there and make sure she gets to vote, and he gets distracted.)
   Dear JackH,
   I am a Christian, a Catholic, and have declared it many times in Gristmill.  I am also an environmentalist (not an especially effective one, so far; and anyway I am chucking that term in favor of "earth-slut," thanks to an excellent suggestion from Willa).  No one has told me that I do not deserve to be included in the environmentalist community, on account of my being a religionist.  To be sure, a small number of writers have expressed intellectual misgivings with religion as an allegedly false mental exercise, and resistance to the sociological and political pressures exerted by religious groups.  That is justifiable, and we people of religion should make an effort to understand their comments seriously and generously.  But I assure you, I cannot testify to observing any attempt in Gristmill to exclude me, or other religionists, from this community.
   I am very glad that you mentioned Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch.  The Eastern Orthodox have long been my best and truest teachers in theology and spirituality.  (Though not usually in political and social matters.  Bartholomew's environmentalist pronouncements are exceptional, but still quite compatible with Orthodox traditions.)  Bartholomew certainly deserves a Grist profile.  He also deserves to be listened to by his brother, Benedict of Rome.
   Finally: You may not have intended the implication of a certain sentence of yours.  Grammatically, it looks like you are saying that gay marriage is a "red meat" topic for talk-show hosts and is "ultimately unimportant."  Let us be clear, same-sex marriage may or may not be "red meat," but it is an extremely important topic, for every American, straight or gay.  And may I go on to add, the legalization of same-sex marriage is extremely desirable, for every American, straight or gay.
   
   Chickens are our cousins!
   
   So are other sensitive animals!
   
   Enough is enough!
   
   No more factory farms!

   Permalink

5. 

   ebrown53717 Posted 12:39 am
   11 Oct 2006

   Here's the problem, caniscandida...I am in exactly the same position that JackH is in.  I am a Christian - evangelical in fact - and (or maybe but) strongly convinced, with EO Wilson, that the environmental situation demands that we all - all! - join hands.  We are villagers living behind a dike in Holland, and the dike is springing leaks.  In this situation, worldview or theology or gay marriage are irrelevant.  If the dike goes, none of this will matter.
   But you have walked into the trap JackH is talking about with your reference to gay marriage being "extremely desireable."  Some of us do not agree.  Cannot agree.  The reasons are deep and complex, but they are there.  Tying this issue - or any similar one - to the environment is a distraction.
   We Christians who are concerned have major problems on the opposite side of the argument - our conservative brethren (and sisteren!) who similarly insist that they cannot work with those who disagree with them on, say, abortion or gay marriage.  
   Enough already!  Let's set this aside and get out there and plug the dike!  There will be plenty of time to argue these viewpoints (and maybe to learn to appreciate each other) over coffee and hot chocolate at the end of the day.  
   To JackH:  
   
   Above comments not withstanding, there are enough Christians waking up to this issue - and plenty of middle of the road environmentalists encouraging us - that we can move ahead on our own. And some of us are. It is not, after all, a closed movement or even a defined movement as a political party is. We need no one's "permission" to be environmental or to "care for creation".  Let's just do it!
   
   Ed
   
   http://careofcreation.org

   Permalink

6. 

   caniscandida Posted 8:55 am
   11 Oct 2006

   "living behind a dike"Having a lesbian as a neighbor can be a great thing.  Get friendly with her, take over a tray of brownies, or a pot of minestrone, and before long she will gladly be doing all your household repairs.
   (oooh, my bad)
   (But remember, I was not the one to use the word "dike" in the same paragraph with "gay marriage.")
   Dear Ed,
   I appreciate that we have major, serious differences of opinion on certain social, ethical, religious issues which are extra-environmental.  And I appreciate that in the face of imminent disaster ("living behind a dike," the Dutch kind, when it is leaking), every other matter must be postponed.
   But the dike analogy is not perfect.  One imagines that when the alarm sounds and a Dutch town is alerted to the possibility of the collapse of a dike, everyone drops everything and rushes out to do what can be done.  Fine.  In our global situation, on the other hand, the urgency is indeed there, but the urgency does not work at the same time scale.  Life goes on.  Social justice remains crucially important, ever demanding our attention.
   I am honestly reluctant to assume I can figure out JackH's intentions.  Hopefully he/she will let us know if the plain meaning of the sentence to which I referred is the intended meaning.
   And to that I would add that it was JackH, not I, who brought up the matter of same-sex marriage.  I agree, Ed, that there is no obvious reason to refer to that matter when we are all mainly focused on environmental concerns.  But when there seemed to be an off-handed suggestion that the matter was "unimportant," it was necessary to respond.
   I do most heartily believe that all Americans will be benefited, if and when we Americans grant equal rights to all Americans, in accord with the fundamental American political project.  But professing that, in a community of environmentalists, is certainly not equivalent to walking into any "trap" of divisiveness: I do not at all maintain that all friends at the environmentalist dike must agree on such matters first before they may begin to plug the holes.
   I would gladly welcome the opportunity to sit down with you, to "visit" as they say out West, to argue but also to learn and to appreciate and to become friends.  But if I were to add to your beverage menu (so far there is only coffee and hot chocolate), say, beer, a glass of pinot noir,  a margarita, a martini, would that not raise the eyebrows of certain Protestant Christians?
   
   Chickens are our cousins!
   
   So are other sensitive animals!
   
   Enough is enough!
   
   No more factory farms!

   Permalink

7. 

   iaurmelloneug Posted 3:11 am
   17 Oct 2006

   Moved me to tearsHi everyone! I'm a bit new here. I'm one of these evangelical Christians who, over the last few years, has become convinced that to care for the environment is not only "green," but "godly," and that it's not just a "liberal" issue, it's a "biblical" issue. (And if the glove does not fit, then you must ....) I've begun to look for opportunities within my own community of faith - a Southern Baptist one - please don't shoot - to articulate a biblical ethic of environmental stewardship, which is to watch over it, and to take care of it, according to Genesis 2.15. I've had the chance to speak on this twice in my church (because I'm one of the pastors), and once at a multi-church conference. (My introductory remarks, in fact, when I was speaking at the multi-church conference, cited a Grist article a coupla years back called "The Godly Must Be Crazy.") This conviction has also pushed me out into the community. I've also joined a group of folks in Southern California called Save Coyote Hills, which is attempting to convince the City of Fullerton to do right by the California gnatcatcher and to stop Chevron's plan to turn the West Coyote Hills into higher-end housing. Watching Bill Moyers' "Is God Green?" was sort of like a culmination of the last few years' personal growth for me. The documentary moved me to tears. It was beautiful and encouraging. There is a growing group of us evangelical Christians out there who believe passionately that God calls followers of Jesus to be good stewards of creation. And even if you and I disagree on theological matters, I look forward to working alongside you to protect the environment. Climate change and the alarming rates of species extinction leave us little time to debate whether we can work together or not. We have to! Time is running out.

   Permalink

8. 

   bookerly Posted 7:44 am
   17 Oct 2006

   Wanting to be an environmentalist
      It seems to me that if non-religious environmentalists and Christians (and we seem to be talking about white Christians here mostly) are going to work together, they need to be sensitive to each other's hot spots.
      If Christians don't want to hear anti-religious remarks from non-religious environmentalists, that makes sense.
      And if non-religious environmentalists don't want to listen to anti-gay, anti-women, or "if you don't believe you're going to hell" remarks, that also makes sense.
      After all, it wasn't really that there were no athiests in fox holes, it was that they shut up and passed the ammunition.
   patrick

   Permalink

9. 

   iaurmelloneug Posted 1:26 am
   18 Oct 2006

   Asians, too?That's true, it does seem to be mostly Anglo evangelicals so far. As for me, I'm an Asian American pastoring a 99% Asian American church. I'm hoping this will gain momentum among folks from the Asian American community, as well as the Anglo community.

   Permalink

10. 

    bookerly Posted 6:57 pm
    18 Oct 2006

    Asian American Churches
    
      Dear Jaurmellongeug,
           Thanks for the input.  What do your members say?  What generally kind of church is it?
           Most of the Asian American environmentalists I know are not religious, and most of the Asian American religious folks I know do not self identify as environmentalists (which I attribute more to the white mainstream environmental movement than to them).
           It would be interesting to hear more about how you see the situation.  (I am in Beijing, and one of my good friends is a Christian vegetarian environmentalist, but she is exceptional).
    patrick

    Permalink

11. 

    caniscandida Posted 8:58 pm
    19 Oct 2006

    welcome!Dear JGG,
    any friend of Bill Moyers is a friend of mine.  Welcome!  
    
    Chickens are our cousins!
    
    So are other sensitive animals!
    
    Enough is enough!
    
    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

12. 

    willa Posted 9:49 pm
    19 Oct 2006

    common causeThe thing about making common cause with people we otherwise can't agree with:  Americans suck at it.  Hello, two-arty system?  We apparently couldn't handle a system where a bunch of small parties have to form a coalition before any government can ever get anything done, because (and I am the first one guilty of this) we simply cannot shut our mouths for long enough at a stretch.  Our opinions are just too important!
    That said, criticizing the behavior doesn't mean I think it's unequivocally wrong.  For instance, while I absolutely think I should be working on the same side as Christian environmentalists even if they think gay marriage is wrong, I have a very, very hard time with it in practice, because it is...drumroll please...too important.  
    And, as CanisCandida says, timescale matters; it may be too late for my gay friends to get a fair shot at things I think they deserve as soon as the next couple of years if I don't stand up for them.  The complete ruination of the earth is expected to take a little longer than that.  WEll, and it's harder to conceptualize, so despite being more important than anything else in the long run, it suffers from our collective imagination deficit.
    The major force keeping our divisive attitudes of importance going strong in America today, I think, is that somehow we've gone from having strong opinions to trying to impose them on others, in a way I think we haven't seen since Puritan New England.  I wouldn't be willing to fight so hard for things like gay marriage if the other side wasn't trying to ban them, and likewise, if liberals weren't trying to force gay marriage down the Christians' throats, they would care a lot less about it.  The escalation, though, is already in motion and no one knows how to stop it.  We are tied together in so many ways, we can't help tearing one another apart.
    I would be happy to let Christians do their thing, except their thing involves (among other things) using my tax dollars to teach their kids things I think are flat-out wrong (and yes, I get that this is not th emajority of Christians--it's just an example).  Many, if not most, Christians in this country would be perfectly happy to let gay people do whatever they wanted to do as long as it didn't involve their government or their churches, but since that's exactly what's involved in what gay people want to do, the issue is inherently thorny.    So it's all well and good to say "live and let live", to become a libertarian and espouse letting people do whatever the heck they want as long as they don't step on your toes, but in reality, stepping on people's toes is at the very heart of what we all often want to do.
    So it's hard, very hard, to say you're going to work with someone for the long-term, vitally important good...when tomorrow, or next year, they may be working against you on something of urgent importance.
    Of course, we should still try.

    Permalink