Three weeks ago, he chatted up the concept with NPR's Scott Simon (whom I wholly adore, but that's a topic for another post).
This past weekend, he got his mug and his pitch in The New York Times Magazine, via a Q&A with Deborah Solomon. An excerpt:
Q: What is wrong with [the] term [environmentalism]?The evangelicals don't want to play with the enviros, and -- sad, but true -- that's probably smart strategizing. The Christian right already knows how to get Bush's attention, and Rove's devotion. Can any green groups say the same?A: It's not the term. It's the environmentalists themselves. I was recently speaking with the leadership of the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation, and I told them, ''Gentlemen, I respect you, but at this point don't plan on any formal collaborations.''
Q: Why? Because they lean to the left?
A: Environmentalists have a bad reputation among evangelical Christians for four reasons. One, they rely on big-government solutions. Two, their alliance with population-control movements. Three, they keep kooky religious company.
Q: What is your idea of a kooky religion?
A: Some environmentalists are pantheists who believe creation itself is holy, not the Creator.
Q: And what's No. 4?
A: There's a certain gloom and doom about environmentalists. They tend to prophecies of doom that don't happen. Look at the movie "The Day After Tomorrow," in which New York City freezes over.
Comments
View as Threaded
Biodiversivist Posted 7:07 am
05 Apr 2005
He did make one point that I had to agree with. Environmentalists are overly dependent on the government to fix our problems. Yet, the vast majority of all of the new nature preserves created around the world over the last decade are the result of efforts by NGOs. Our government just walked right into a public owned preserve without batting an eye. Had that preserve been owned by a private concern, a conservation NGO, it would have been much harder to take the oil. People have a strong tendency to support private property rights. Zoning laws are just as ephemeral. They all fall to profit motive pressure in the end as well. If you want to save what is left of our biodiversity, get it into the hands of NGOs. Government is not our friend anymore. Government is not going to save our biodiversity. http://wwww.saveourbiodiversity
Permalink
dawn burns Posted 7:42 am
05 Apr 2005
I wish them the best with their message, and I won't resort to panning them or their methods to do it.
ps yes, doom & gloom is a problem...but so is denial.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 5:12 pm
05 Apr 2005
Re religion, the U.S. is at a level of religious superstition equivalent to a medieval peasant society. The worst thing about this is that religions teach that the body and spirit (or soul) are separate, so that it really doesn't matter what happens to the physical world, because what's important is what happens to your soul after you die. This evil teaching must be reversed so that people will once again have proper respect for the natural world.
Re the movie, come on, it was a MOVIE!!! You've fallen into the right wing, anti-environmental trap that someone can't even make a movie without environmentalists being called doomsayers or some such name. Sheesh people, lighten up! (Beside, well respected theoretical physicist Michio Kaku showed how the scenario in the movie could actually happen, though the chances were very slim.)
Permalink
wallrock Posted 6:32 am
06 Apr 2005
Permalink
birdboy Posted 10:13 am
06 Apr 2005
Next, their belief, as I understand it, is that God will provide for as many people as we can make, as long as we subscribe to the 'correct' faith. They see no limit to growth, and all that matters is populating the earth with humans- move over animals and plants that don't serve our needs. There is no recognition of the connection between the health of all species and the future of humanity- only reliance on God to balance nature (in our favor).
As for 'kooky' religions, this is the classic evangelical 'us and them' doctrine; when pressed, they will claim that anyone who does not follow their dogma is evil, seduced by Satan (who is their creation), and so of course they will not associate with such low-life. This is where discrimination comes in- they'd be happy if all 'non-subscibers' dropped off the face of the (infinite) planet.
But yes, folks like me are too gloomy. A church in my neighborhood flaunts these words to the street
"Disregard the depressing forcasts of self-appointed prophets of doom".
Presumably the 'self-appointed' are the scientists who report the probable outcome of sluggish or no change; only God is allowed to make such predictions, and therefore it is safe to ignore the silly (godless) scientists.
There's a basic conflict here in their beliefs; they say we should protect and preserve Creation, but not because it is holy, simply because it is the work of the creator. Yet the creator put it here for one reason only- to support limitless human expansion. Yet the threat to creation is humanity- but creation serves humanity. If I were a computer, I would self-destruct here.
In spite of their discrimation and faulty logic, they could probably accomplish more than real enviro's in this cultural climate, so I am hopefull. But it is sad that they reject us because we might see God in Nature, limits to growth, or evil in profit motives.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
meanandgreen Posted 11:59 am
10 Apr 2005
Anyway, here are some excerpts from the Evangelical Environmental Network's declaration:
"Because we worship and honor the Creator, we seek to cherish and care for the creation.
"Because we have sinned, we have failed in our stewardship of creation. Therefore we repent of the way we have polluted, distorted, or destroyed so much of the Creator's work."
"Many of these degradations are signs that we are pressing against the finite limits God has set for creation. With continued population growth, these degradations will become more severe. Our responsibility is not only to bear and nurture children, but to nurture their home on earth."
"The Creator's concern is for all creatures. God declares all creation "good" (Gen. 1:31); promises care in a covenant with all creatures (Gen. 9:9-17); delights in creatures which have no human apparent usefulness (Job 39-41); and wills, in Christ, "to reconcile all things to himself" (Col.1:20)."
Permalink