A
SECOND OPINION: EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY IN AMERICA
Introduction
As the largest historical contributor to climate change over the last two centuries (Matthews et al. 5), America has an exceptional responsibility to address this pressing global issue. However, it also faces an exceptional challenge to doing so from vocal religious segments of its population. This essay explores the connection between Evangelical Christianity and climate change policy in America, seeking to understand how religious beliefs manifest in the political sphere to support certain policy positions over others. It begins by examining evidence for the popular assumption that Evangelical Christian beliefs and climate change policies are fundamentally antithetical. Then, it considers the theological explanations for this position and wider links to economic and political interests. Lastly, it outlines the alternative narrative of an emerging Evangelical movement in support of environmental activism. This analysis will argue that contrary to conventional beliefs, Evangelical Christianity and climate change policy are not incompatible. Rather, interpretations of scripture can be effectively used to mobilize Evangelicals towards supporting environmental causes.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Evangelicalism and climate change policy as antithetical
In
2014, seven out of ten Americans identified as Christian, with Evangelicals in particular comprising approximately
a quarter of the national population (Smith 3). These demographics make them a
veritable voting force on any political issue. However, with respect to climate
change policy, American Evangelicals have a reputation of taking positions
against environmental regulation and are
known for denying the existence of man-made climate change. These positions are observed amongst Evangelicals at the
individual, congregational, elite, and national levels.
For
instance, a 2015 Pew Report based on a survey of 2002 adults across the country
found that white Evangelicals were the least likely to believe the Earth was
getting warmer due to human activity compared to other religious affiliations (Funk
and Alper 33). Only 28% of the group supported this belief, which is
significantly lower than the overall average of 50% out of all adults surveyed
(Funk and Alper 33). White Evangelicals were also the group with the highest
proportion of respondents that felt there was no solid evidence of global
warming (Funk and Alper 33). Interestingly, this group was the most supportive
of environmentally destructive activities such as offshore oil drilling as well,
with 70% of respondents supporting the practice (Funk and Alper 37).
Importantly, even after “controlling for political and demographic factors,”
evangelicals were more supportive of offshore drilling than the religiously
unaffiliated (Funk and Alper 37). Statistically then, it appears individual
Evangelical Americans tend to hold opinions positioning them in opposition to
climate change policy.
At
the congregational level, a study of two Evangelical churches in the American
Southwest reinforces these findings. Comparing environmental views between a mostly
white, middle-class Southern Baptist church and a lower socioeconomic status
African American Baptist church, the study discovered consistent attitudes of
apathy towards the environment (Peifer, Ecklund, and Fullerton 378). Interviews
revealed reasons for this apathy as being theological in nature, but also tied
to political affiliations and cynical perceptions of the climate issue as
exclusively Democratic (Peifer, Ecklund, and Fullerton 388). Moreover, among
members of the African-American Baptist
church interviewed, leaders believed the apathy derived from “difficult
material circumstances” of laity who did not have the economic means to make
pro-environmental choices, while the laity often demonstrated “low levels of
scientific knowledge” in general about the issue at hand (Peifer, Ecklund, and
Fullerton 390). Regardless of these variations in reasons, racial and
socioeconomic differences between the two congregations did not change overall negative
opinions toward environmental protection.
As
for Evangelical elites taking a similar position, the Cornwall Alliance for the
Stewardship of Creation is a key case in point. The self-proclaimed “network of
over 60 Christian theologians, natural scientists, economists, and other
scholars” is led by Edward Calvin Beisner (Cornwall Alliance, “Who We Are”) and
known for its anti-environmental work. For instance, its September 2015
petition entitled “Forget Climate Change, Energy Empowers the Poor” claimed
that climate change policies “fight a non-problem” and divert resources away
from “[helping] the world’s poor meet much
more urgent needs” (Cornwall Alliance, “Petition”). A more recent publication
by Beisner in March 2017 has also supported President Donald Trump’s “Executive
Order on Energy Independence,” praising its enabling of more intense
hydrocarbon fuel development, which will supposedly create jobs and reducing
imports from countries supporting terrorism (“Trump’s Energy Independence
Order”). As seen through its initiatives, this network of Evangelicals holding
expert designations within their fields takes a vocal position against climate
policies.
At the national level, the current administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, is a committed Evangelical Christian, having served as a deacon for the First Baptist Church of Broken Arrow in his home state of Oklahoma (Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General, “About Scott Pruitt”). His anti-climate policy position can be traced back to his time as Attorney General, when he was known for filing numerous challenges to the EPA on the behalf of the oil and gas industry (Pooley, “Donald Trump’s EPA Pick”). As head of the EPA, he has since publicly criticized the Paris Agreement as being “a bad deal,” (Johnson, “Paris Climate Change Agreement”) and claimed carbon emissions in America were down to acceptable pre-1994 levels due to energy sector innovations allowing for clean coal burning as opposed to government regulations (Lee, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt”). While Pruitt’s views on the environment and climate change are not necessarily representative of those of all Evangelicals, he nonetheless boasts support from a significant number of them. For instance, an open letter supporting his appointment to his current position was signed by 143 “expert signers”, as well as 355 citizens as of April 8, 2017 (Cornwall Alliance, “Sign Open Letter Supporting Scott Pruitt for EPA Administrator”).
Theological explanations for antithetical position
Analyzing interviews with
and publications by these individuals, congregations, and organizations, there appear to be three main
theological justifications against climate change policy and environmental
regulation. These include the fear of pantheism, a specific interpretation of passages
in the Book of Genesis to emphasize
dominion, and eschatological beliefs. With respect to the first justification,
Christianity is defined by monotheism distinct from early Pagan religions that
personified nature into multiple gods (Zaleha and Szasz 21). As such, it
considers the Creator as separate from its creation (Phillips 321), with humans
occupying the hierarchical position “a little lower than God” but above the
rest of his creations (Zaleha and Szasz 21). Environmental activism, according
to some understandings of this hierarchy, constitutes
an inversion of this hierarchy, with humans worshiping nature instead of the
Creator. As a result, it is denounced by some Evangelicals as “pantheism” or
“paganism” (Simmons 45).
With
respect to the second justification, Evangelicals have interpreted passages in
Genesis to underscore humanity’s rights as opposed to responsibilities over
nature. They emphasize Genesis 1:28 and
the God-given right to “rule” and “subdue” the earth and its resources, as
opposed to Genesis 2:15 and the responsibility to “tend” and “keep” the Garden
of Eden (Wilkinson 70).  Hence, groups
such as Southern Baptists have understood the scripture as meriting their unimpeded
ownership and access to natural resources for economic development (Zaleha and
Szasz 24). Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance has gone further to superimpose the
spirit of the first passage onto the second, suggesting that humans are meant
to transform wilderness into garden without worrying about consequences of
environmental deterioration (McCammack 648). Under this interpretation,
stewardship is not about using natural resources in a sustainable manner but
about “[exercising] active dominion” over them for the sole purpose of
fulfilling human interests (McCammack 648).
As
for the third justification, some Evangelicals use their eschatological beliefs
to justify apathy towards the environment. This is in part due to the logic
that since humanity is predisposed to “inevitable and imminent rapture,” with
the world to be “completely annihilated,”
it is meaningless to be concerned about the environment (Simmons 63). Instead, it
is argued that Evangelicals should be focusing on more pressing matters in the
time being, such as converting as many people as possible to the faith (Simmons
63). Eschatological beliefs also contribute to the assertion that compared to
the scale of the “coming cosmic drama,” environmental issues are not
significant and do not warrant much attention, despite the pressing reports of
the secular media (Zaleha 25). This final category of theological
justifications for environmental disregard appears the most extreme and
difficult to challenge.
Political and economic connections
Nonetheless,
theological explanations in isolation do not fully account for the position of
Evangelicals who oppose action on climate change. Rather, these beliefs
interact with a wider set of political and economic interests in the public
sphere. For instance, they occur against the backdrop of a political polarization process whereby certain
Evangelicals associate environmental protection with liberal politics and a
package of other issues they do not support. One of these issues is a
reluctance to see greater degrees of American involvement in international
policy. In addition, they occur in a political arena marked by an increasing
alliance between Evangelical premillennialists,
Republicans, and the fossil fuel sector. Each of these wider political and
economic elements will now be examined in turn.
The
importance of Evangelicals’ political affiliations to their environmental
positions is evident in Peifer, Eckland, and Fullerton’s study of two American
congregations previously mentioned in this paper. In the study, White Southern
Baptists demonstrated cynicism towards Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth because it primarily criticized prominent
Republican leaders such as Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and James Inhofe for
contradicting the claims of scientists, leading them to discredit the issue of
global warming as nothing more than anti-Republican politicking (Peifer,
Eckland, and Fullerton 388). Yet, African American Baptists interviewed were
more comfortable with liberal politics, and hence more receptive to the ideas
of the film (Peifer, Eckland, and Fullerton 388). These findings demonstrate
that in addition to theological beliefs, political ones impact Evangelical’s opinions
about climate change as well.
Moreover,
Sabrina Danielsen’s study of Evangelical beliefs between 1984 to 2010 suggests that
environmental issues have become increasingly politicized
over time. Specifically, her content analysis of three popular Evangelical
periodicals found that earlier discussions about the environment between
1988-95 were mostly theological, while those in 2004-10 were more political,
“with an awareness of Republican versus Democrat political fights in the United
States” (Danielsen 209). World, for instance, claimed that “the
current environmental movement has been hijacked by the far left” alongside
“the whole agenda of today’s socialists, feminists, gays, abortionists, and
pacifists” (Danielsen 209). Hence, Evangelical aversion to environmental issues
must be understood in terms of wider political polarization
between packages of conservative and liberal values.
This
phenomenon is especially evident in the Evangelical opposition to international
climate change measures. An analysis of the 2011 Faith and Global Challenges
survey and the 2010 Chicago Council Global View survey found that Evangelicals
consistently opposed actions on climate change that were international in
nature, but only actions that were domestic in nature if they were explicitly
related to carbon taxation (Chaudoin, Smith, and Urpelainen). Chaudoin, Smith, and Urpelainen consider a theological
explanation for this finding, drawing from the premillennial idea that global
cooperation and world government would “fulfill
biblical prophesy, paving the way for the Antichrist as the world dictator”
(447). However, they also consider this finding in the historical tradition of
Evangelical criticism of the United Nations as a tool of the “New Age Movement”
aimed at promoting issues such as abortion and contraception
and destroying “national sovereignty and the traditional family” (Chaudoin,
Smith, and Urpelainen 448). This second explanation coincides well with trends
of political polarization of the issue.
It suggests that Evangelicals perceive an alignment of environmental causes
with internationalism and a series of other liberal causes they do not support,
forming the basis of their rejection of environmental policies.
Simultaneously,
there is also evidence of an increasing alliance of Evangelical elites, Republican
Party elites, and fossil fuel interests in a coalition of convenience. As
alluded to through earlier mention of Scott Pruitt’s contentious record as
Attorney General, Evangelical opponents of climate change policy have been a
natural partner for the energy sector,
especially as they have climbed the ranks within the Republican Party and the
American government. This is not just an emerging coalition. As early as 2003,
for instance, President George W. Bush’s budget provided “billions in subsidies
for oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy” and reduced funds for research on
alternative forms of energy, trends which continued with his 2005 Energy Bill
(Leduc 258). Moreover, his administration actively worked with the industry to
discredit climate change research, “[watering] down the 2003 State of the Environment Report” with
material derived from a report “commissioned by the American Petroleum
Institute” (Leduc 262). As a staunch self-professed Christian and member of the
Republican Party, Bush’s presidency epitomizes
the right-wing coalition of anti-environmental actors.
Ties
between the Cornwall Alliance, the Republican Party, and large energy companies
further indicate the strength of this coalition. A recent investigation found
that the group was registered under a larger non-profit organization known as the James Partnership run by Republican Chris
Rogers, whose public relations firm is associated with a host of other
right-wing groups (Wilkinson 71). Interestingly, he is known for his
collaboration with David Rothbard, president of the Committee for a
Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) which “actively works to discredit climate change
and mitigation strategies” (Wilkinson 71). CFACT, in turn, receives significant
funding from companies including ExxonMobil and Chevron, as well as Scaife
family foundations which is “rooted in
wealth from Gulf and oil and steel interests” (Fang, “Exclusive: The Oily
Operators”. This nebulous web of relations corresponds to what William Connolly
calls a “powerful machine as evangelical and corporate sensibilities resonate
together, drawing each into a larger movement that dampens the importance of
differences between them” (871). Within this machine, Evangelicals fearing a
left-wing coalition of causes antithetical to their beliefs are actively drawn
into an opposing right-wing coalition, positioned directly in opposition to
environmental causes.
An alternative narrative
Thus
far, this essay has painted a harrowing picture of American Evangelical
attitudes towards climate change, reinforced by an entrenched
political-economic alliance promoting fossil fuel interests. However, the
reality is the Cornwall Alliance and its affiliates do not represent all
Evangelical views about the environment. Instead, there exists an alternative
group of Americans challenging the conservative Evangelical narrative. They are
known as the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), and accept the idea of
climate change, as well as interpret bible scripture as necessitating action to
reduce carbon emissions (McCammack 467). In 2006, the EEN launched its landmark
Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), with a statement affirming the reality of
man-made global warming, the particularly detrimental consequences of climate
change for the poor, the relation of climate change activism to Christian
beliefs, and the urgency for action (Gushee 195-196). The same year, this initiative
was approved by the National Evangelical Association (Billings and Samson 2). The
work of the EEN and its resulting support indicates that there is a legitimate
Evangelical basis for environmental protection and policies to address global
warming.
Notably,
this movement provides distinct rebuttals to the theological positions of
Evangelical Americans denouncing environmental activism. With respect to pantheism,
a decade ago the EEN focused on drawing attention to the plight of endangered
species (McCammack 650), giving credence to accusations of paganism and nature
worship. However, its ECI has since made the consequences of climate on the
poor a central focus of its campaign, acknowledging the important place of
humans in the Christian hierarchy. While the conservative bloc of Evangelicals
has traditionally used the cost of implementing policies on the poor to support
its opposition to environmental activism (Phillips 322), the liberal bloc has
shifted the terms of this debate by emphasizing
the larger costs of inaction on the poor in the medium and long term. They have
also reconceptualized the notion of
“idolatrous loyalty” to denounce libertarianism and capitalism as ideologies
distracting Christians from their moral responsibilities (Gushee 196). These
arguments effectively challenge the notion of a singular scriptural “truth” against
environmental protection, and call into question the Cornwall Alliance’s
convenient ties to political and economic interests under the guise of Evangelical
beliefs.
In
response to interpretations of the bible emphasizing
dominion, Evangelical environmentalists have also responded with passages like
Job 39-41, suggesting that God “delights in creatures which have no human-apparent usefulness” (Evangelical
Environmental Network, “Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation”).
Hence, despite humanity’s position above nature, they purport that it still has
a responsibility to respect and care for
nature in a similar vein to the Creator. Yet, they argue that humans have
“perverted” the notion of stewardship through their greed, with detrimental
effects not only on the environment but on other humans (Evangelical
Environmental Network, “Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation”). To
address these sins, Evangelical environmentalists refer to Jesus’s teachings
which emphasize that life is not solely
about seeking abundance, instead advocating for lifestyles of “humility,
forbearance, self-restraint, and
frugality” (Evangelical Environmental Network, “Evangelical Declaration on the
Care of Creation”. These interpretations of the scripture understand
stewardship as distinct from uninhibited dominion, creating a theological
foundation for the support of environmental regulation.
Finally,
Evangelical environmentalists have challenged any fundamental incompatibility
between holding eschatological beliefs and caring for the physical world. Conversely,
they have demonstrated a recognition that “belief in a literal rapture,
Christ’s return, and even the eventual recreation of the earth itself do not in
any way really theologically entail environmental apathy and disregard”
(Simmons 64), since no part of the bible directly instructs such apathy.
Following this logic, they insist that the bible should not be held as an
excuse to escape earthly tasks such as stewardship, but rather an affirmation
of the need to faithfully continue these tasks until Christ’s return.
Therefore, even without abandoning beliefs about the end times, there are
literalistic interpretations of scripture that support a continued role for
environmental protection and addressing climate change.
The
case study of the Christians for the Mountains (CFTM) movement demonstrates
these principles and the alternative narrative of Evangelical environmentalism
in action. According to its website, CFTM is a “network of persons advocating
that Christians and their churches recognize
their God-given responsibility to live compatibly, sustainably, and gratefully
joyous upon this God’s earth” (Christians for the Mountains, “Our Mission”. Moreover,
it is a grassroots organization, which
began with a pure volunteer base as
opposed to through support from corporate interests like the Cornwall Alliance.
Billings and Samson highlight how CFTM produces videos that bring attention to
the negative consequences of mountaintop
removal coal mining while “indirectly asserting . . . theology and ethics
through background hymns and the superimposition of printed but unspoken
Biblical captions” (Billings and Samson 16). As such, their messages reach
other Evangelicals in a powerful but non-overbearing manner. In this way, CFTM
exemplifies pro-environmental activism that effectively communicates its
message, in spite of its Evangelical roots.
Conclusion
Initially,
this essay revealed substantial evidence of Evangelical opposition to climate
policy in America. However, it has also suggested that much of this opposition
is likely due to political polarization
of the issue as opposed to purely theological prescriptions against
environmental protection. Ultimately, the conflicting interpretations of
scripture on this topic may confirm the cynical view that there is no biblical
truth as to whether or not Evangelicals should support climate policies. Nonetheless,
it means that at the very least, there is room for debate and the opportunity
to appeal to interpretations that support more sustainable forms of economy,
politics, and life. There is also a precedent for this at the grassroots level,
as demonstrated by the work of Christians for the Mountains. For environmental
groups hoping to bolster their bases, then, Evangelical Americans are not a
lost cause. By exposing the ulterior interests of political and economic elites
tied to groups like the Cornwall Alliance, and supporting the work of Christian
environmental groups, more Evangelical Christians may be persuaded yet to
change their views and join the green movement.Works
Cited
Beisner, E. Calvin. 2017. “Trump’s Energy Independence Order: A Boon to America and the Environment.” Cornwall Alliance. http://cornwallalliance.org/2017/03/trumps-energy-independence-order-a-boon-to-america-and-the-environment/ (April 1, 2017).Billings, Dwight B., and Will Samson. 2012. “Evangelical Christians and the Environment: “Christians for the Mountains” and the Appalachian Movement against Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining.” Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 16(): 1–29.Chaudoin, Stephen, David T. Smith, and Johannes Urpelainen. 2013. “American Evangelicals and Domestic versus International Climate Policy.” Review of International Organizations 9(December): 441–469.Christians for the Mountains. 2012. “Our Mission.” Christians for the Mountains. http://www.christiansforthemountains.org/site/Topics/About/ourMission.html (April 5, 2017).Connolly, William. 2005. “The Evangelical-Capitalist Resonance Machine.” Political Theory 33(December): 869-886.Cornwall Alliance. 2015. “Petition: Forget ‘Climate Change’, Energy Empowers the Poor!” Cornwall Alliance. http://cornwallalliance.org/landmark-documents/petition-forget-climate-change-energy-empowers-the-poor/ (March 31, 2017).———. 2017. “Sign Open Letter Supporting Scott Pruitt for EPA Administrator.” Cornwall Alliance. http://cornwallalliance.org/2017/01/sign-open-letter-supporting-scott-pruitt-for-epa-administrator/ (March 31, 2017). ———. 2017. “Who We Are: Cornwall Alliance Key Staff.” Cornwall Alliance. http://cornwallalliance.org/about/who-we-are/ (March 31, 2017).Danielsen, Sabrina. 2013. “Fracturing Over Creation Care? Shifting Environmental Beliefs Among Evangelicals, 1984–2010.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 52(): 198-215.Evangelical Environmental Network. 2006. “Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation.” Evangelical Environmental Network. http://www.creationcare.org/evangelical_declaration_on_the_care_of_creation (April 5, 2017).Fang, Lee. 2010. “Exclusive: The Oily Operators Behind The Religious Climate Change Denial Front Group, Cornwall Alliance.” ThinkProgress, June 15.https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-the-oily-operators-behind-the-religious-climate-change-denial-front-group-cornwall-6caf65708c53 (April 1, 2017).Funk, Cary, and Becka A. Alper. 2015. “Religion and Science: Highly Religious Americans are Less Likely Than Others to See Conflict Between Faith and Science.” Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/22/science-and-religion/ (March 30, 2017).Gushee, David P. 2008. The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center. Waco (TX): Baylor University Press.Johnston, Ian. 2017. “Paris Climate Change Agreement is a ‘Bad Deal’, Says Pro-Fossil Fuels EPA Chief Scott Pruitt.” Independent, March 27. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/paris-agreement-scott-pruitt-climate-change-bad-deal-fossil-fuels-global-warming-a7651856.html (March 30, 2017).Leduc, Timothy B. 2007. “Fuelling America’s Climatic Apocalypse.”  Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 11(): 255–283.Lee, Michelle Ye Hee. 2017. “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s Claim that ‘Clean Coal’ Helped Reduce Carbon Emissions.” Washington Post, April 5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/04/05/epa-administrator-scott-pruitts-claim-that-clean-coal-helped-reduce-carbon-emissions/?utm_term=.d18cc8c3e2b6 (April 6, 2017).McCammack, Brian. 2007.“Hot Damned America: Evangelicalism and the Climate Change Policy Debate.” American Quarterly 59(September): 645-668.Matthews, H. Damon., Tanya L. Graham, Serge Keverian, Cassandra Lamontagne, Donny Seto, and Trevor J. Smith. 2014. “National Contributions to Observed Global Warming.” Environmental Research Letters 9(January): 1-9.Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General.N.d. “About Scott Pruitt.” Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General. https://www.oag.ok.gov/oagweb.nsf/profile.html(March 30, 2017). Peifer, Jared L., Elaine H. Ecklund, and Cara Fullerton. 2014. “How Evangelicals from Two Churches in the American Southwest Frame their Relationship with the Environment.” Review of Religious Research 56(September): 373–397.Phillips, Benjamin B. 2009. “Getting into Hot Water: Evangelicals and Global Warming.” Journal of Markets & Morality 12(Fall): 315-335.Pooley, Eric. 2017. “Donald Trump’s EPA Pick Imperils Science—And Earth.” Time, January 17. http://time.com/4635162/scott-pruitt-science-denial/ (April 1, 2017). Simmons, J. Aaron. 2009. “Evangelical Environmentalism: Oxymoron or Opportunity?” Worldviews 13(): 40-71.Smith, Gregory. 2015. “America’s Changing Religious Landscape: Christians Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow.” Pew Research Center. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/ (March 30, 2017).Wilkinson, Katharine. 2012. Between God and Green: How Evangelicals are Cultivating a Middle Ground on Climate Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Zaleha, Bernard Daley and Andrew Szasz. 2015. “Why Conservative Christians Don’t Believe in Climate Change.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(): 19-30.