Evangelicals Going Green

[leftyladyfrommo]

I guess this is the newest movement in the Evangelical Sphere. And I know the Pope came out arguing for conservation of the earth, too.

And I'm not an Evangelical but boy do I support them on this. If they want to get out there and plant trees and work to stop pollution then more power to them. There are millions of Evangelicals - and if they all get out there and work to stop pollution and deforestation - then "you go guys."

I just can't figure out what took them so long. One would think that if you were a big believer in God then one would think it was important to protect his creation.

But the weird argument on the other side seems to be that men were given dominion over the earth. And there are times when it is God's will for the earth to be damaged and polluted. (I find that logic incomprehensible but there seem to be a lot of people who claim to be Evangelical who are also huge supporters of big industry)

[Toots]

1. I doubt it..until they figure a way to make Robertson and Falwell rich off

it, it ain't gunna happen. Robertson needs to be driven around in either his super stretch limo or his personal helicopter and Falwell needs his five thousand dollar suits...Earth First: we'll rape the other planets later..

[leftyladyfrommo]

4. I don't have much use for Falwell. He seems so sleazy to me.

And I heard that Pat Robertson was even talking about global warming not too long ago. The weather is getting so wierd that its kind of hard to just ignore the facts.

[ck4829]

6. Pat Robertson believes in Global Warming now

He said he 'converted' back in August.

[Tellurian]

2. Reading and understanding the thinking here..

gives you the ammunition to make a clear connection of the importance of treating the earth
as a family treasure. The earth is more than just our home, but a place for all systems to thrive.
I had never made the connection myself until I read Shiva's article:

Posted by JCrowley (on anothe thread)

Two myths that keep the world poor


Vandana Shiva

<snip>

This is a totally false history of poverty. The poor are not those who have been “left behind”; they are the ones who have been robbed. The wealth accumulated by Europe and North America are largely based on riches taken from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Without the destruction of India’s rich textile industry, without the takeover of the spice trade, without the genocide of the native American tribes, without African slavery, the Industrial Revolution would not have resulted in new riches for Europe or North America. It was this violent takeover of Third World resources and markets that created wealth in the North and poverty in the South.

Two of the great economic myths of our time allow people to deny this intimate link, and spread misconceptions about what poverty is. First, the destruction of nature and of people’s ability to look after themselves are blamed not on industrial growth and economic colonialism, but on poor people themselves. Poverty, it is stated, causes environmental destruction. The disease is then offered as a cure: further economic growth is supposed to solve the very problems of poverty and ecological decline that it gave rise to in the first place. This is the message at the heart of Sachs’ analysis.

The second myth is an assumption that if you consume what you produce, you do not really produce, at least not economically speaking. If I grow my own food, and do not sell it, then it doesn’t contribute to GDP, and therefore does not contribute towards “growth”. People are perceived as “poor” if they eat food they have grown rather than commercially distributed junk foods sold by global agri-business. They are seen as poor if they live in self-built housing made from ecologically well-adapted materials like bamboo and mud rather than in cinder block or cement houses. They are seen as poor if they wear garments manufactured from handmade natural fibres rather than synthetics.

<snip>

However much we choose to forget or deny it, all people in all societies still depend on nature. Without clean water, fertile soils and genetic diversity, human survival is not possible. Today, economic development is destroying these onetime commons, resulting in the creation of a new contradiction: development deprives the very people it professes to help of their traditional land and means of sustenance, forcing them to survive in an increasingly eroded natural world.

http://www.odemagazine.com/article.php?aID=4192

[Vidar]

3. Good article. Thanks for posting.

[Tellurian]

7. You're welcome, Vidar..

I'm really thankful for Shiva's insight.
Her logic makes perfect sense.

[KansDem]

5. Televangelicals have been "going green" for years...

Or, I should say, "going for the green."

[leftyladyfrommo]

8. Some seem to be seeing beyond the greed.

I really hope so. We environmentalist can use all the help we can get.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. My BIL doesn't believe in global warming and thinks the earth is

ours to abuse as we will. Yes, he's an evangelical. But I do know other evangelicals who feel stewardship of the earth is extremely important.

[StoryTeller]

10. My husband and I are both green

And we still consider ourselves "evangelicals" from a theological standpoint, since the word is originally a theological word, not a political one. (I always feel that I need to make that distinction clear, for obvious reasons!)

I grew up in an evangelical community that scorned all those "tree huggers" and thought that the environmental groups were a bunch of crazy new agers. This sort of antipathy never did make sense to me because exactly what the OP is saying--it makes much more sense logically that if you believe the earth is God's creation, and if you claim to worship and love God, then you wouldn't want to destroy what He created.

I think it goes back to people fixating on the idea of "having dominion over" the earth--as some Bible translations phrase it. I think it may even be connected in with the emphasis many evangelicals have of gaining political power, becoming wealthy, and preserving our culture instead of simply following the concepts and teachings of the Bible.

But yeah, it's changing. I still hear some of the "tree-hugger" disdain, but less and less. And not at my church. I also wonder how many evangelicals always disagreed, but their voices just could not be heard over the others.

[leftyladyfrommo]

12. Interesting comments.

I have noticed with the Evangelicals that I know that many of them are pretty into getting wealthy. Its interesting that you should mention that. I have always found that to be problematic from a theological point of view. That and being political.

[nam78_two]

11. I support anyone who goes green! k&r/nt