The Religious Environmental Movement: Its Current State and Future
Madeline Priest
Comm 744 Public Communication Seminar
Professor Montgomery
May 3, 2011
1
Abstract
This study analyzes the current state of the United States environmental movement and
the relatively new emergence of a religious environmental movement. Two case studies were
analyzed, the Catholic green movement, and the evangelical Christian Creation Care movement.
The two religious environmental movements discussed were compared and differences in
approach were a focus of research, which was qualitative in nature. It was concluded that the
future success of the United States environmental movement will depend on the transition
from an issue-based approach to an ethical-based one. It was also concluded that in order for
the environmental movement to have a greater impact, it will need to work with religious
leaders and faith groups to help promote environmental reforms and behaviors. Evangelicals, it
was determined, are the best religious group to target with such messaging. While there is
potential in working with Catholics, this potential is not as great as with evangelicals.
2
Literature Review
The heyday of the United States environmental movement took place in the 1970s. It
was a very powerful and effective time for the movement, with an emphasis on impactful
legislation. The movement had great success with, “the passage of a series of powerful
environmental laws too numerous to list, from the Endangered Species Act to the Clean Air and
Clean Water Acts to the National Environmental Policy Act” (Shellenberger & Nordhaus, 2004).
The focus on passing one major piece of legislation during the 1970s was effective; however, in
recent years this tactic has been less successful. The United States environmental movement
has continued to operate the way it did in the 1970s, and as a result the movement is too policy
oriented and focused on short-term legislative “fixes” as opposed to finding long-term ways to
convince people that there is a need for environmentally friendly measures and practices.
Another issue that the environmental movement faces is that there is the belief that if
the public was informed and understood the science behind an issue such as climate change
then they would support legislation to combat the problem. Environmental groups have
formulated messaging that gives facts about specific problems, and have used them to help
inform the public about an issue and its respective legislation. “The entire landscape in which
politics plays out has changed radically in the last 30 years, yet the environmental movement
acts as though proposals based on ‘sound science’ will be sufficient to overcome ideological and
industry opposition” (Shellenberger & Nordhaus, 2004). Unfortunately, this is not the case, and
therefore, new tactics need to be implemented in order to convince the public and politicians
that action needs to be taken to combat environmental abuses.
3
Problems have arisen for the proponents of the environmental movement because the
problems highlighted are highly technical, as are the solutions proposed for them. This makes it
harder for people who have little interest in environmental concerns (who happen to be the
people who need to be targeted with messaging) making them the least likely to pay attention
to information presented by environmentalists that have a technical basis. Currently the
environmental movement in the United States has focused on issue-based environmentalism,
as it has done since it began to take root, in the 1970s. Issue-based environmentalism can be
defined as a form of environmentalism which “focuses very specifically on a certain
environmental topic, such as global climate change or water pollution, and calls for actions to
be taken with respect to that particular issue. The primary approach to this type of advocacy is
through scientific, technical, legal, and policy arenas” (Smith & Pulver, 2009). The problem with
this type of environmentalism and the messages it promotes, is that, as previously mentioned,
it has ceased to be effective at promoting widespread behavior changes and legislation in
recent years, but also that it does not promote environmental values, and therefore lacks the
ability to forge long-term care about the environment.
Due to the ineffectiveness of issue-based environmentalism in recent years, there are
many who believe that there is a newfound need for a restructuring of the overall
environmental movement. Some within the environmental movement propose a switch from
issue-based environmentalism to an ethics-based approach. It is argued that “the
environmental crisis cannot effectively be addressed without a change in individual and societal
ethics that guide how humans relate to the earth” (Pulver, 2009). It is for this reason that a
4
switch to advocating for more ethics-based environmentalism is gaining popularity among
environmentalists.
Ethics-based environmentalism can be defined as a form of environmentalism which
“calls for broad attitudinal and lifestyle changes to be made and seeks to provide individuals
with a generalized framework within which to view their responsibility to others and to the
natural world” (Pulver, 2009). By promoting the ethical concerns and obligations to help
reverse problems such as climate change, the possibility of long-term behavior and attitude
changes are greatly increased. As opposed to issue-based environmentalism, which limits the
environmentalism movement due to the lack of long-term behavior change it is able to achieve
with the greater American public, ethics-based environmentalism can potentially alter people’s
mindsets in regards to environmentalism and may lead to lifelong behavior changes.
In order to implement ethics-based environmentalism, there is a need for strong
opinion leaders, narratives, and basic ethical arguments for environmentally friendly practices
and legislation. “If environmentalists hope to become more than a special interest we must
start framing our proposals around core American values and start seeing our own values as
central to what motivates and guides our politics” (Shellenberger and Nordhaus, 2004). In
order to convince people, many of whom do not currently care about environmental concerns,
to adopt more environmentally friendly practices at home or support environmental legislation,
they need to feel a personal connection to the problem in some way or another. It is for this
reason that narratives work so well at promoting such emotional connections. Currently, the
basis and arguments promoting such feelings are lacking in the environmental cause. While
many people claim to care about the environment, they do not necessarily have the motivation
5
to fully get behind the movement or make the changes necessary to reverse problems such as
climate change. Studies have shown that the majority of Americans believe that there is a
moral obligation to nature and a need to preserve it (Booth, 2009). “A primary diagnosis must
be that people are insufficiently motivated by their beliefs and sympathies to act” (Booth,
2009).
Many within the environmental movement agree that narratives are effective at
promoting behavior change and that there needs to be an ethical argument for
environmentalism in general. It is for this reason that religion and religious leaders, who have
not typically been involved with the environmental movement, and are often viewed as being
extremely skeptical of the movement and the science community (which plays a large role in
the environmental movement) are now playing a role in the environmental movement. While
it may seem, for these reasons, a strange partnership, there has been a major push for
environmentalism within many major religions.
This religious environmental movement that has emerged uses religious doctrine as the
basis for the argument that it is God’s will that people of faith work to protect the environment
and the earth (i.e., his creation) from desecration. This movement has great potential from a
communications standpoint, and subsequently, in terms of the actions it can potentially
promote. Environmental communication can be defined as “the pragmatic and constitutive
vehicle for our understanding of the environmental as well as our relationships to the natural
world; it is the symbolic medium that we use in constructing environmental problems and
negotiating society’s different responses to them” (Cox, 2007). This definition is important
6
when considering how religions have communicated about environmental concerns from an
ethical standpoint.
Many within the environmental movement see the potential in using religious leaders to
advocate for their cause not only because of the potential reach and audience, which is millions
of people within the United States alone, but because the basic nature of religion lends itself to
effective communication. The narrative is already there; the bible can be used as the story, and
the messaging needed (i.e., God wants people to care for the earth, not destroy it) can be also
found in the bible. In a study conducted on the American culture as it relates to the sacredness
of nature, the findings were that “regardless of whether one actually believes in biblical
Creation, it is the best vehicle we have to express this value” (Pulver, 2009). Additionally, this
same study found that “most Americans view nature according to the spiritual or religious
values that they hold, regardless of their political ideology” (Pulver, 2009). This reinforces the
belief that there is great potential in implementing the use of ethics-based environmentalism.
Overlooking the possible impact and advancement of the environmental movement by taking
advantage of this ethics-based environmentalism at this point in time most likely would be a
mistake. Historically, when religious groups have gotten behind social issues, great change has
been possible, and implemented (Pulver, 2009).
While there seems to be great potential for ethics-based environmentalism in the
United States, there are also concerns about using money and other resources to target
religious groups. The highly religious are not a group that has strongly supported
environmental protection measures and behaviors in the past. In fact, some studies have
shown that “individuals’ literal belief in the Bible predicts lower concern on a variety of
7
environmental indicators” (Woodrum and Hoban, 2004). This means that environmental
communicators and those within a religion, who are advocating for environmentalism from
people of their faith, will have to understand what types of communication, framing, and basis
for their arguments are most effective with their target audience.
This paper studies two distinct religious groups, Catholics and evangelical Christians, and
their respective environmental movements. One advocate for an evangelical Creation Care or,
religious environmentalism, Richard Cizik, will also be discussed, to better understand the
mindset of evangelicals, and how to best sell other evangelicals on the idea of environmental
legislation and practices. Messaging, the leaders of both movements, and their potential will
be analyzed.
8
Evangelical Christian Section
Traditionally, evangelical Christians have not been associated with environmental
protection reforms and practices. Instead, it is a religious group associated with a politically
conservative agenda which tends not to strongly support legislation in support of climate
change initiatives. However, this trend is starting to change as a new generation of evangelicals
is coming out in support of behavioral changes and legislation to help combat climate change.
The impact that evangelicals can make on the broader environmental movement is potentially
a very strong one. “As thirty million evangelical Christians-and all those who consider
themselves people of faith-grow in their understanding that God holds us accountable for care
of his creation, we will begin to see positive changes on an unprecedented scale” (Simmons,
2009). Whether this will hold to be true or not cannot yet be determined, but it is a largely
untapped resource for the general environmental movement in the United States.
When discussing the rise of the concept known as Creation Care within the evangelical
Christian community, it is important to remember what makes evangelicals different from the
general Christian population in the United States. Evangelical Christians are distinct because
they are “characterized by four fundamental qualities: Biblicism-a particular regard for the bible
as the source of all spiritual truth; crucicentrism-a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the
cross; conversionism-the belief that individual human beings need to be converted to Christ;
activism-the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in practical outcomes” (Bookless,
2008). This is a group believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible. They are also a powerful
religious group, and, therefore should be a major target audience for environmentalists to
9
reach out to regarding climate change initiatives. This strict interpretation of the Bible makes
the strategies of how evangelicals should be targeted for the most part quite clear. Key
messages must come from the Bible, hence the growing debate over God’s will toward
stewardship of the earth, and most specifically, God’s intent as it relates to Genesis.
It must be acknowledged that there is a strong division within the evangelical Christian
community over whether climate change is manmade, and whether this change in weather (to
being more extreme) is a good or a bad thing (e.g., whether it means that humans are
destroying God’s creation, or whether it is actually a good thing and is a sign that the second
coming is about to occur). “To some, all these disasters are a sign that Jesus must be coming
back soon. Climate change simply means we need to evangelize the world more quickly”
(Bookless, 2008). The source of the main debate outlined is the interpretation of Genesis, with
evangelicals taking two main stances towards the religious document. In Genesis, it is stated
that “God saw that everything he made was ‘good’ (Gen. 1:20-25, also 1:9, 12, 18). God saw
that it was ‘very good’” (Gen. 1:31). Those within the evangelical Christian community who
believe that it is God’s will that humans take care of and preserve the natural state of the earth
point to this phrase as proving that environmental protection is necessary because it was
deemed so by God. “And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good”
(Simmons, 2009). According to evangelicals who support this interpretation, this means that
because the earth is God’s creation and he has stated how he has deemed it as “very good” it is
necessary to protect this creation that God both made and values. It has been noted that
“contrary to the common evangelical opinion that if it doesn’t concern humans (and in
particular their souls) then it is not really of any significance, here we find God looking at light,
10
the division of the dry land from the waters the multitude of flora, the sun, moon, and stars,
fish of the sea, birds of the air, and all the other non-human animals and labeling it all ‘good’”
(Simmons, 2009).
Another section of Genesis that has garnered much attention and has brought about
much debate among evangelical Christians is the passage concerning the role of humans on
earth. While some evangelical Christians interpret Genesis as saying that humans are superior
to the rest of nature and can use it to their full advantage, others interpret Genesis as meaning
that humans should use this superiority to help protect God’s creation. Those who hold the
latter belief are the members of the evangelical community who support climate change
legislation and initiatives. “Evangelical environmentalists contend that the basic and primary
ethical principle that can plausibly be drawn from the opening of the Bible is that the natural
world is intrinsically valuable” (Simmons, 2009).
As previously stated, for evangelical Christians, whose interpretation of the Bible is a
literal one; if they can be convinced this is the will of God (to preserve the natural value of the
earth) than it will be the best way to convince this group that environmental protections are
necessary. Additionally, in convincing evangelical Christians that Genesis teaches humans that
they are indeed part of the world order as opposed to completely above it, care for the
environment and all its creatures will be stressed.
It is important to understand the basis for either evangelical Christians being for or
against climate change initiatives. This judgment, as previously stated, is based largely on an
evangelical’s interpretation of Genesis, and whether they believe that the earth is theirs to
protect or to essentially exploit to their full advantage. The question for those in the
11
evangelical community who support climate change initiatives, and those in the environmental
movement in general, is how to reach this large and influential audience.
The first step in convincing evangelical Christians to support climate change initiatives is
to convince them that it is God’s will that they take care of and preserve the earth and the
creatures that he created. This must be done by not only enforcing the interpretation of
Genesis that tells evangelicals that the earth should be preserved, but by framing the issue of
climate change and the changes that people need to make in a way that resonates with them.
“Frames are interpretive storylines that set a specific train of thought in motion,
communicating why an issue might be a problem, who or what might be responsible for it, and
what should be done about it” (Nisbet, 2009). Framing the issue of climate change in a way
that makes the problem relevant to evangelicals, and in particular, their religious beliefs, are
paramount in importance. Effectively framing an issue such as climate change is essential
because “audiences rely on frames to make sense of and discuss an issue” (Nisbet, 2009).
The proponents of climate change initiatives within the evangelical community have
framed the issue in a way that will elicit a better and more supportive reaction from
evangelicals as a larger group. Instead of referring to the problem as a specifically
environmental one, (i.e., or climate change), they have instead used the term “creation care.”
This is very important, as evangelicals have historically been apprehensive and unsupportive of
environmentalists in the traditional sense. Framing the issue as creation care holds humans
responsible for God’s creation. This goes along with the view that the earth was given to man,
but man is only its secondary owner. “God is owner, and we are leaseholders-tenants within
God’s world” (Bookless, 2008). In terms of what God deemed humans’ use of the earth, it
12
should be stressed, and is being stressed by creation care proponents, that “our use of natural
resources in our lifestyles and our travel should be with restraint and respect. If this is God’s
world, we are walking on holy ground, rather than on a neutral stage for our own human
dramas” (Bookless, 2008). In addition, framing the issue of climate change as creation care not
only alerts people that God is involved (creation) but also creates an identity for evangelicals
who want to be more environmentally friendly that is distinct and separate from the
mainstream environmental movement. It avoids possible alienation within the evangelical
community who would not want to follow policies historically associated with traditional
environmentalists. The term creation care “expresses the theological basis of their concern for
the Earth as God’s creation. In so doing, they are challenging that issue’s traditional secular and
liberal boundaries” (Wilkinson, 2010). This departure in connotation away from liberalism is
important because evangelical Christians, on the whole, are overwhelmingly politically
conservative, and if the issue is referred to as climate change or environmentalism, then
evangelicals most likely associate it with general liberalism and issues associated with it that
they strongly disagree with, such as abortion and regulative measures. With Creation Care the
idea is separated from liberalism.
The shift in ideology regarding climate change, or creation care, among many
evangelical Christians may seem baffling for a group that has historically been opposed to
issues of this nature. However, as a younger generation of evangelicals develops a louder voice
in the overall community, there comes a shift in certain sentiments. This certainly seems to be
the case with younger evangelicals. Unlike their parents, younger evangelicals tend to believe
that climate change is real and should be addressed, just as they tend to break from older
13
generations when it comes to issues regarding homosexuality. “Over the past decade, a
growing number of young U.S. evangelicals have started to shift the movement’s focus from a
two-pronged ministry against abortion and gay rights to a more holistic worldview that
addresses environmental issues under the banner of ‘creation care’’ (Harmon, 2009). While
evangelicals still overwhelmingly vote Republican, and are still very socially and politically
conservative in nature, there are areas where non-religious groups can have a great impact and
help to swing opinion among them. One such area is certainly Creation Care. Knowing that it is
this younger generation that is going to potentially be the most receptive to environmental
concerns and action is important, as they are the ones that will need to be targeted in the
future. This is not to say that older evangelicals need not be targeted as well, but merely that
this movement for the most part seems to be coming not from evangelical leaders, but from
more of a grassroots movement within the broader evangelical community. It will simply be
harder to reach older evangelicals, who are needed as they provide current leadership in the
evangelical community.
The potential benefits and gains of working with evangelical Christians are, it appears,
well worth the effort it will take to reach the older members of this particular religious
community. This move by many in the evangelical community towards stewardship of the
earth and creation care, however, did not appear overnight. It was instead, “born out of a 40
year evolution of American evangelicals’ engagement with environmental issues” (Wilkinson,
2010). The start of this push for environmentally friendly initiatives and stewardship began as it
continues: with the debate over the meaning of Genesis. In the 1960’s an evangelical, Lynn
White, authored a piece entitled “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” in which he made
14
the claim that it was the fault of humans and Genesis itself that earth was being destroyed.
Many evangelicals had a strong reaction to these claims. More specifically, they felt there was
a strong need to defend their religion. As a result, there was a call made within the evangelical
community for a reinterpretation of Genesis; one that called for environmental responsibility
and stewardship of the earth (Wilkinson, 2010). The start of these environmentally friendly
sentiments within the evangelical community is important to understand if one is to
communicate effectively with its members.
The issue of creation care as stressed by evangelicals began to receive national attention
in the 1990s. It was during this time that many evangelical environmental organizations were
founded, such as the Evangelical Environmental Network, known as the EEN (Wilkinson, 2010).
It was also during the 1990s that national attention was especially drawn to the cause of
creation care when, in the 1995-1996 session of congress (which at the time was controlled by
Republicans), the debate over the Endangered Species Act was brought to the political
forefront and the public eye through increasing media attention. The Evangelical
Environmental Network took a firm stance regarding the issue, as they defended the
Endangered Species Act, calling it the “Noah’s Ark of our day” (Wilkinson, 2010). This strong
stance on the Endangered Species Act was followed by a push towards creation care by the
organization. Other evangelical Christian organizations started to follow suit. This included the
National Association of Evangelicals, which, under the leadership of Richard Cizik as the Vice
President of Government Affairs, strongly pushed the issue of Creation Care. It seems to be
working so far, and “evangelicals are increasingly appreciating that failure to care for creation
has been a major factor in diminishing responses to the gospel as it relates to individuals, and
15
that practical demonstrations of God’s love for all creation are not only important in their own
right, but have great evangelistic potential” (Bookless, 2008).
Another monumental year for the proponents of Creation Care was 2006. That was the
year during which the ECI, or the Evangelical Climate Initiative, was founded. The ECI was made
up of 86 prominent evangelical leaders, including megachurch pastor Rick Warren, who
declared their commitment to creation care with the statement “Climate Change: An
Evangelical Call to Action” and was accompanied by a full page ad in the New York Times
(Wilkinson, 2010). The need for creation care was not put in scientific terms or language, and
the argument was not based around proposed support for one piece of legislation or another,
which would be considered issue-based environmentalism tactics. Instead, it was put in terms
of an evangelical Christian’s moral obligations to help preserve the earth (God’s beloved
creation). This is sure to be a much more successful frame with the evangelical audience, and is
what “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action” emphasized. “The ECI seeks to reframe
the issue in evangelical terms, to spread its message in the public square, and to promote
action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change impacts” (Wilkinson,
2010). This was an interesting piece and choice of newspaper to get the message about the
new initiative out to the public. Both the “Call to Action” and the choice of the New York Times
are not considered to be typical for evangelicals. This shows the new path that evangelicals
have started to take as it relates to environmental concern.
The “Call to Action” consists of the following points: Human-induced climate change is
real; the consequences of climate change will be significant, and will hit the poor the hardest;
Christian moral convictions demand our response to the climate change problem; the need to
16
act now is urgent. Governments, businesses, churches, and individuals all have a role to play in
addressing climate change-starting now (Wilkinson, 2010). As can been seen from the strong
language used, especially in the statement that climate change is real and manmade, the
leaders behind the “Call to Action” are confronting and refuting claims that one, climate change
is either not real or not caused by humans, and two, that extreme weather and the degradation
of the earth means that there will be a second coming, and therefore it is a good thing and
nothing should be done to combat it. Another strong Christian message conveyed is the idea
that one must care for one’s neighbor, and especially those in need.
The tactics that have been used by evangelical Christians who have chosen to push the
idea of Creation Care are founded on moral arguments based on the Bible and its moral
implications. This is, as previously discussed, ethics based environmentalism, and why the
evangelical Christian environmental movement (Creation Care) is an important case study
because it shows the potential and future of implementing this kind of communication and
persuasion technique. This movement also shows the importance of opinion leaders in an
ethics based environmental campaign. After all, evangelicals have at their disposal natural
opinion leaders, their religious leaders, who have great influence over their respective
congregations and followers. If these leaders tell their congregations that creation care is a
fundamental part of the Bible, and therefore God’s will, as well as what actions need to be
taken to combat environmental degradation, there is a much better chance that they will be
listened to over traditional environmentalists, a group that many evangelicals are wary to listen
to, if at all.
17
An important communications tactic when attempting to reach an audience, especially
one that has typically not been extremely receptive or interested in a particular message or
idea is the use of narrative. Stories are very effective at making an inactive audience an active
one, and having the Bible and stories such as Genesis and Noah’s Ark at their disposal gives the
environmental messaging a greater appeal for members of the evangelical community. “By
locating climate within an ongoing religious narrative of creation and its care, the ‘Call to
Action’ casts Christians as actors who have agency to write the next chapter through their
actions” (Wilkinson, 2010).
When analyzing the environmental religious movement, and more specifically, the
evangelical Christian offshoot of it, what is quite interesting is the ability and effort made by
evangelicals to work with a group that they are typically known for disagreeing with: scientists.
This relationship has many components, from evangelicals in the United States working with
prominent scientists, to the UN-sponsored Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which was held
largely in part due to the efforts of Brazilian evangelicals, and fused traditional
environmentalism with religion (Sirico, 1994). Carl Sagan, for example, has called for an
“uncommon marriage between science and religion,” which shows the willingness not only of
evangelicals to work with scientists, but of the science community’s willingness and eagerness
to work with evangelicals.
Not only has the creation care movement meant that evangelicals have worked with
groups who they have typically been known for knocking heads with, such as those in the
science community, but they have also worked with another such group: political liberals. An
example of this new partnership is the collaboration between the Christian Coalition, and
18
Democratic senators such as John Kerry. In fact, it was the unlikely pairing of John Kerry and
Lindsay Graham who worked together to publish a very influential op-ed in the New York Times
advocating for climate change initiatives entitled “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change
Legislation)” in October 2009. The frame used in this piece is that not only is climate change
real and a manmade problem, but more importantly, that it is responsible for sending American
jobs overseas. It is argued that there is an essential and immediate need for investment in
alternative energy such as wind, solar, and nuclear, as this will help to drive the United States’
global competitiveness. In the op-ed, this argument was enforced with the line, “even climate
skeptics should realize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy
efficiency strengthens our national security” (Kerry and Graham, 2009). This is a very smart
frame when targeting a group (evangelicals overwhelmingly vote Republican) that is most likely
to strongly support national security precautions.
Another argument made in the op-ed relates to the poor, and the duty Americans have
to help those in need. Poor people will feel the impacts of climate change at a compounded
rate compared to the rest of America. This is also an argument that can strongly appeal to
evangelicals, whose religion establishes that one must help those in need. The op-ed was not
only widely read due to its placement in the New York Times, but it was also surely read by
many evangelicals, as it was also reposted on the Christian Coalition website. This op-ed, and
the unlikely pairing of those who authored it, is important because it shows the potential for
evangelicals to work with more liberal, non-evangelicals who have a more traditional
environmentalist view, such as John Kerry.
19
The evangelical Creation Care movement also has great potential because of the action
steps that its leaders have laid out for evangelicals. The Evangelical Covenant Church, for
example, which has taken on a leading role in the larger evangelical Creation Care movement,
details a few easy steps that people can take in order to help be better stewards of the earth.
The Covenant Church issued a “resolution on creation-care” in which these steps were
documented. “The resolution urges Evangelical Covenant members to practice recycling,
carpooling and ‘advocacy for God’s creation’ in churches, workplaces and governments”
(Christian Century, 2007). Not only does this resolution outline the importance of Creation
Care and action steps (which are essential if a message is to be both received, and lead to
action) but it also sends a message to the non-evangelicals in the United States. According to
Adam Rohler, a pastor-delegate and influential evangelical, “ ‘I now have a document that says
not only do I think that faith and scripture have something to say but also there may be a
denomination *that+ may be willing to think it through with you’” (Christian Century, 2007). It
seems that for now, action steps such as the ones that were addressed in the “resolution on
creation care” are being taken seriously by members of the evangelical community. For
example, “Reverend Sally Bingham, founder of Interfaith Power and Light in California noted
dramatic progress in her energy conservation initiatives over the past four years. The program
she launched, which encourages parishes in California to reduce their demand for electricity
and heating fuel, has grown from 140 participating congregations in 2002 to 400 in 2006. On a
parallel track, it has spread to 16 other states and the District of Columbia” (Sullivan, 2006).
This example is just one of many from around the United States.
20
The evangelical Creation Care movement shows much promise in terms of what can
potentially be accomplished and the large number of people potentially reached. There are,
however, evangelicals who oppose creation care, and the challenge is convincing them that it is
God’s will that man takes care of and preserves the earth. Arguments made by opponents of
Creation Care and the initiatives regarding it include the sentiment that there are other, more
pressing matters for the evangelical community to deal with before creation care is addressed
(Leith, 2008). There is also the issue that some within the evangelical community question the
science behind issues such as climate change. For example, the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
(ISA) issued a statement which claimed that human carbon dioxide emissions, and further,
humans were not the main source of climate change. Additionally, this same statement argued
that the effects of global warming on the poor were in fact greatly exaggerated by scientists
and environmentalists (Blunt, 2006).
Although these, along with arguments that Genesis gives humans full reign over the
earth and its resources, and that environmental protection is unnecessary, can potentially act
as roadblocks to the efforts of the evangelical creation care movement, there is still great
promise. Already, many in the evangelical community have been receptive to environmental
messaging and green behavior changes. Further, the fact that these environmentally friendly
sentiments are coming in the form of a bottom-up approach makes it likely that the movement
will continue to take hold and become more widespread and embraced.
21
Richard Cizik Section
In 2011, Richard Cizik was forced to resign as Vice President of Governmental Affairs for
the National Association of Evangelicals, an organization that represents 45,000 U.S. churches
as well as over 30 million members (Bazilchuk, 2007). Cizik stepped down after he made
comments indicating that he was in support of civil unions for same sex couples on National
Public Radio’s Fresh Air (Religion News Service, 2008). It is suggested by many that a large
number of NAE members were clamoring for Cizik’s resignation long before his comments on
Fresh Air. This is due to Cizik’s role in so called Creation Care, or the idea that it is Christian duty
to be stewards of the environmental and earth and to protect it from human desecration.
Richard Cizik has emerged as a champion for this idea of creation care, and
consequently, the overall religious environmental movement. Cizik defines a Christian
Evangelical as “those who, first of all, believe the Bible is authoritative. It’s infallible. This is a
theological distinction which separates evangelicals from, say, mainline Protestantism, which
generally avers from that kind of designation of the Bible as the authoritative word of God”
(Cizik, PBS interview, 2011). It is this same, strict literal interpretation of the Bible that allows
him to champion his creation care cause so passionately. However, Cizik was not always an
advocate for Creation Care.
Cizik went through what he calls a “conversion experience” to his Creation Care
mentality. “In 2002, I had a conversion to the science of climate change, and, as a
consequence, I’ve become not just a spokesperson of some sort for addressing climate change,
but I happen to be articulating a re-engagement with science because our evangelical
22
forefathers rejected science” (Cizik, PBS interview, 2011). This re-engagement with science was
a stance not popular among many in the evangelical community, especially older members.
Richard Land, for example, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious
Liberty Commission, was quoted as saying “hopefully *now+ we’ll see a little more Francis
Schaeffer and a little less Al Gore” ( Pulliam, 2009).
Cizik’s strong stance on climate change is an interesting and influential one. His
conversion experience provides for a compelling narrative and potential influence on other
evangelicals not yet committed or trusting of climate change and environmental initiatives, and
he has partnered with the science community to help spread his message. Traditionally, the
science community and evangelicals have not worked in tandem often, and usually are on polar
opposite sides of the political spectrum on issues. In fact, Cizik explains the widely held opinion
that many evangelicals have in regards to environmentalists. “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, *and four+ there’s a certain doom and gloom about environmentalists. They
tend to prophecies of doom that don’t happen” (Cizik interview, New York Times Magazine,
2005). It is this distrust of traditional environmentalists and environmental groups that have
caused Cizik, although he supports initiatives to combat climate change, which he strongly
believes to be real, as well as the science behind it, to label his mission differently. He does not
consider himself an environmentalist. Cizik instead refers to the issue as Creation Care, which
sits better with evangelicals. By framing the issue this way, the idea that environmentalism is
simply a cause championed by the liberal-leaning, non-religious, it becomes a Christian issue.
23
“Cizik quotes the Bible, carefully referring to ‘creation care’ rather than climate change or
global warming, and advocates a brand of pro life politics that extends well beyond human
conception, up through the care of God’s creation itself” (Anderson, 2008).
Cizik has partnered with scientists and was even on the cover of Time Magazine with
Eric Chivian. The emphasis of the article was how “scientists and evangelicals slept side by
side” in Alaska to examine firsthand the effects of climate change (Anderson, 2008).
Additionally, while working for the National Association of Evangelicals, Cizik was the leading
organizer behind a coalition of scientists, evangelicals, and climate researchers, whose mission
it was to inform the public and lawmakers on the dangers of climate change. The two faces of
the coalition were, as expected, Richard Cizik, and Eric Chivian, Director of the Harvard Center
on Health and the Global Environment. According to Chivian, “Whether you believe life was
created in a millisecond or over three and a half billion years- that wasn’t the issue…the issue
was that life on Earth is in periled, and that we had to do something together” (Bazilchuk,
2007). This partnership is an especially important one, because it shows that it is possible for
evangelical Christians and scientists can work together toward the common goal of combating
climate change. Cizik comments on what he feels is the start of a relationship between
evangelicals and science, saying, “I happen to be articulating a re-engagement with science
because our evangelical forefathers rejected science…and we can’t simply say anymore ‘Well,
religion and science are inevitably pitted against one another, and we opt for religion over
science” (Cizik interview, NPR). Cizik speaks of this stressed and often combative relationship
between the science community and evangelical Christians. However, according to Cizik, there
is hope that this relationship will be a positive one, not on all issues by any means, but certainly
24
on the issue of climate change. As previously stated, Cizik has done much to bring evangelicals
and scientists together. Cizik describes the partnership in a way that helps to fully encompass
the issue. “*Harvard] provides the background science and research, and [the evangelicals]
present it in a context that makes sense from a religious standpoint” (Bazilchuk, 2007).
This statement by Cizik shows the importance of framing the issue of climate change in a
way that evangelicals will respond to and not dismiss, while still relying on scientific evidence
proving that there is a real problem. As is the case with evangelicals creation care leaders
trying to convince others of their faith that climate change is real and there is a religious
obligation to do something about it, Cizik stresses the impact climate change will have on
humans. “We cannot love our neighbor if we allow the consequences of climate change,
pollution, habitat destruction, species extinction, and the spread of human infection and
diseases to go unabated” (Bazilchuk, 2007). For evangelicals, this is a strong argument, and
most importantly, it is based on the Bible, which, by nature of the evangelical faith, is sure to
have the most sway in an argument.
As with the opinion that one cannot love thy neighbor and destroy the earth, Cizik, as
well as other evangelical Christian leaders who support creation care, base their belief that
humans need to protect the earth on the Bible and its teachings. As evangelical Christians rely
on a literal interpretation of the Bible to guide them morally, this appears to be the most
effective way to reach this particular audience. A particularly strong stance is taken by Cizik,
who has been quoted as saying that “to deplete our resources, to harm our world by
environmental degradation, is an offense against God. That’s what the Scriptures say.
Therefore, if we are all obedient to the Scriptures, there is no time to wait, no time to stall, no
25
time to deliberate” (Cizik interview,The Great Warming). Again, Cizik is making an argument
that evangelicals will most likely be the most receptive to, since it comes from the Bible, and,
according to evangelicals, therefore cannot technically be disputed. An important point that
Cizik makes that relates to this mentality and viewpoint, is that only God can change a person’s
mind when it comes to the issue of climate. This was the case with his “conversion” to creation
care and overall stewardship of the earth through more environmentally friendly practices and
living. “I would say that this newfound passion, this concern for Creation Care as we call it,
comes straight from God and the Holy Spirit who is regenerating people’s hearts to realize the
imperative of the scriptures to care for God’s world in new ways. It comes from God himself.
He has changed my heart too” (Cizik interview, The Great Warming). When trying to reach
evangelicals and “convert” them to the belief that climate change is a real problem and steps
need to be taken to combat it, the argument must be carefully crafted and framed. From Cizik’s
explanation, it seems that the only real way that evangelicals will make the changes necessary
to reverse climate change will have to be made based on what they feel God’s will is.
Arguments based solely around scientific evidence and even some moral appeals will not be
very effective. It is for this reason that opinion leaders within the evangelical community are
needed for steps to be taken to combat climate change. It is the job of opinion leaders like
Richard Cizik to convince other evangelicals that Creation Care is, as he puts it, a moral issue.
Although Cizik shows that evangelicals, a group not known in the past for their sense of
environmentalism, have the great potential to become champions for the fight against climate
change, there are major roadblocks that must be overcome before this can happen. One such
issue is carving an individual identity for evangelicals within the larger environmental
26
movement. As Cizik explains, many evangelicals recoil when they think of traditional
environmentalism and its major proponents. This has to do with the political affiliation
common for environmentalists to have, namely that they are mostly known for being liberal in
ideology and in support of many initiatives that evangelicals are virulently opposed to. This
belief, coupled with the fact that many evangelicals at this point in time have not had a pastor
who stresses the importance of creation care, have made it hard for many evangelicals to
accept the importance of creation care. Cizik explains that evangelicals need to work on
creating their own identity as their own kind of environmentalists, and on their own terms.
These must be separate from mainstream environmentalists, although, as he continually
stresses, it is both possible and essential that evangelicals and environmentalists, and scientists
join forces to help restore and preserve the earth. He says that “Evangelicals need to have a
sense that they are speaking out of their own tradition, their own religious and Biblical
tradition—that they are not simply ‘me too’ environmentalists” (Cizik interview, The Great
Warming).
There are also debates about what issues are most important for evangelicals to focus
on, and environmentalism thus far has not ranked at the top of this list. Another problem the
proponents of creation care face in “converting” others to their cause according to Cizik is that
many in the evangelical community oppose regulation of all kinds, and therefore are very likely
to oppose regulation regarding environmental initiatives (Cizik interview, The Great Warming).
Another issue that has to be overcome has to do with the attitudes that some members of the
evangelical community have labeled the idea of Creation Care as being one of a nature that is
anti-capitalist (Cizik interview, Views: On God). This argument, made by some evangelicals, can
27
be connected to the idea that the implementation of creation care initiatives would cause more
government regulation. Unfortunately for those within the evangelical community who
support such initiatives, this frame of anti-government regulation interference in individuals’
lives, is a very strong one. Cizik references this anti-regulation sentiment that exists among
many Republicans and evangelicals as he discusses the fact that there is a disconnect between
the severity of the climate change issue and the lack of action about it. He notes that “there is
an ideological predisposition against regulation” (Cizik interview, The Great Warming).
Cizik also, however, comments on the influence that having a shift in the attitudes of the
evangelical community towards climate change could have. He notes the extremely large
number of evangelicals there are in the United States, but more importantly, what a large
percentage of the Republican Party is made up of evangelical Christians. In an interview
conducted during George W. Bush’s presidency, Cizik noted that, “Evangelicals make up a
hundred million Americans. They are from forty to fifty percent of the conservative base of the
GOP, and thus far have given President Bush a “pass” on global warming” (Cizik interview,
Views: On God). This is where Cizik also thinks there is great hope for the religious
environmental movement. As the younger generation of evangelicals is more environmentally
conscious than older ones, this may in turn drive the Republican Party to become more
environmentally inclined as a whole. Since so much of the Republican Party’s membership and
core base are evangelicals, if those evangelicals demand that their party adopt environmental
initiatives, key leaders will be forced to do so or anger, or even potentially lose, their base. “So
if the largest single population group in the Republican coalition were to say ‘This is important,
we want you, as our leaders in the Republican Party, to take leadership on climate change, on
28
clean air, on pure water, on the stewardship of our natural resources’, if evangelical Christians
were to say that, I daresay Republicans will listen. The Republicans running for the White
House in 2008 will have to listen” (Cizik interview, The Great Warming). He also goes on to
mention that members of the evangelical community have expressed that if key religious
leaders, such as one’s own pastor, supported a piece of legislation, then they would feel
inclined to back it as well, and said they would take action steps such as expressing these
concerns with their political representatives. Given the large number of evangelical Christians
in the United States, this could have huge legislative implications if they could be convinced to
take such actions.
The analysis of the evangelical community and its overall attitude concerning climate
change, or Creation Care by Richard Cizik is a very important and useful tool for
environmentalists. Understanding how this group thinks about environmentalist, the overall
movement, and the concerns associated with it, are of the utmost importance when trying to
communicate about climate change with evangelical Christians. While Cizik is a controversial
figure among evangelicals, he has done much to publicize creation care and to bring the issue
to the forefront of discussions within the evangelical community. Cizik shows how evangelicals,
scientists, and mainstream environmentalists can work together for the common cause of
protecting the earth, while keeping a distinctly Christian and Biblical based argument behind
the reasoning for Creation Care. When working with evangelical groups in the future, it is
essential that public communications professionals reference his insights as to how this group
thinks, operates, and what arguments its members find convincing and why.
29
Catholic Section
While the subsections of the religious environmental movement that are being
discussed in this paper (evangelical Christians and Catholics) have much in common in terms of
the arguments behind their advocating for more environmentally friendly practices, they are
also quite different in nature. The largest difference between the two seems to be where the
main messaging and arguments for these new, more green behaviors are coming from. In the
case of the evangelical Christian Creation Care movement, the basis for the movement is mostly
rooted in the younger generation of evangelicals, and older members of the community are
slower at adopting this sentiment. In the Catholic faith, however, the appeals for
environmental stewardship have come in a more top-down approach, with the greatest push
coming from the Vatican. Several popes have called for environmental initiatives to get passed
and for their followers to adopt environmental behaviors, with the biggest push coming from
Pope John Paull II.
As with the evangelical Christian Creation Care movement, the basis for environmental
stewardship is based off of the Bible and, therefore, what Catholics believe to be God’s will
regarding the earth and its care. The interpretation of Genesis is essential when arguing for
stewardship of the earth and the creatures in nature. In Catholicism’s green movement, the
Vatican has proclaimed that Genesis calls for humans to care for the earth and protect it. There
is also an emphasis on the story of Noah’s Ark. The Vatican has noted that Noah’s Ark teaches
humans that they are connected with the animals of the earth, and that non-human care is
extremely important (Pearce, 2009).
30
In addition to the Catholic interpretation of Genesis which supports environmental
stewardship, there is also another basis for this belief. When the Vatican issues statements on
the environment and Catholics’ obligation and moral duty to preserve it, there is particular
reference to St. Francis of Assisi, whom Pope John Paul II in 1979 proclaimed “the patron saint
of those who promote ecology, acknowledging the genuine respect St Francis held for the
integrity of creation” (Effa, 2008). Additionally, St. Francis is mentioned in many speeches
concerning the need for environmental practices by Catholics. According to Pope John Paul II,
“as a friend of the poor who was loved by God’s creatures, Saint Francis invited all of creationanimals, plants, natural forces, even Brother Sun and Sister Moon- to give honor and praise to
the Lord” (World Day of Peace, 1990). References to St. Francis of Assisi are part of a greater
argument by the Vatican that not only is the basis for living green rooted in the Bible, but it has
been the work and will of Catholics for many years. In fact, Catholics who argue for
environmentally friendly measures tend to stress that this is an idea and belief that is in no way
new. Many other saints are also mentioned frequently by the Vatican as having had a deep
respect for the environment. “The stewardship of nature has long been in the Catholic
tradition. Many of the saints spoke passionately for a deep respect for nature as a method of
knowing God” (Pearce, 2009). The list of saints for which this is the case is an impressively long
one, and helps to show Catholics just how important this idea of environmental stewardship
and respect has been historically.
The language used by the Vatican in advocating for environmental stewardship is rooted
in the Catholic religion, and increases the likelihood that Catholics will actually heed the advice
and listen to the messages being issued. When John Paul II made a particularly strong push for
31
his followers to care for the environment, he called for an “‘ecological conversion’ and coupled
the mandate of caring for nature with the development of a peaceful society” (Effa, 2008). By
labeling people’s acceptance that it is a moral duty to care for the earth as a “conversion,”
there is a very strong ethical and religious statement being made. It is an emotionally loaded
term, which not only piques peoples’ attention, but it is a term that has strong meaning. By
labeling it this way, John Paul II classified environmental care as a priority for Catholics.
Additionally, an intelligent framing move was deployed by linking this idea of environmental
stewardship with the idea of a peaceful society. This way, people can associate environmental
care with peace, which makes for a positive connotation.
The arguments made by the Vatican concerning environmental stewardship as
previously stated, are rooted in the Bible and the interpretation that it is God’s will to protect
the earth and its non-human inhabitants. However, there are some other very important
aspects to this call for environmentally friendly habits and lifestyles. These, as is to be
expected, are also rooted in Catholic ideals. It is stressed by the Vatican that care for the
environment was a moral obligation and duty for Catholics and this argument has been made
on multiple levels. Pope John Paul II framed the issue as one where followers would have to
“convert” to this new idea of environmental care and he also described the degradation of the
earth and subsequently the unfair distribution of its natural resources as a “moral failure”. “To
remedy this, he advanced a traditional Catholic response to injustice: repentance and
conversion” (Warner, 2008). Again, this is very strong language that has a significant and
special meaning for those of the Catholic faith.
32
Popes who have strongly supported the stewardship of the environment like Pope John
Paul II have stressed other Catholic ideals when explaining why this stewardship is so
important. These include the argument that the poor are the ones who will be the most
affected as a result of the degradation of the environment, and it is the duty of Catholics to take
care of those in need. This is also connected to the idea of social justice, which, when
advocating for environmental stewardship, is particularly stressed by the Vatican. The well
being of future generations is also emphasized by Catholic proponents of environmental
stewardship. It is argued that it is unfair and selfish for the current generations to exploit
earth’s resources while destroying them for future generations. It is stressed that future
generations deserve a clean and healthy environment. This can be summed up with the idea
that “Stewardship of God’s creation and care for future generations, as well as for the needs of
the poor, the weak, and the vulnerable” is of the utmost importance and is in alignment with
Catholic ideals (Effa, 2008). In a 2002 statement, Declaration on Environmental Ethics, for
example, Pope John Paul II emphasized that “we, and much more, our children and future
generations are entitled to a better world, a world free from degradation, violence and
bloodshed, a world of generosity and love.”
By making this statement about care for the earth as being essential due to the impact
it will have for future generations, he reframes the issue so that it will be associated with a
broader image of a better world. This in turn gives the idea a better, more positive connotation
for Catholics. By framing the issue in a way that strikes a chord with parents, the chances of the
conveyed message as being well received is increased. Pope John Paul II repeatedly
emphasized that parents are doing a disservice to their children by desecrating the earth.
33
Pope John Paul II stressed the need for environmental stewardship throughout this time
as the authority of the Catholic Church, and this was evident in his 1990 address on the World
Day of Peace. The speech made included messages that were not sugar coated in the slightest
and instead used strong language to shame Catholics into adopting more environmentally
friendly habits. The Pope stated that that world peace was being threatened, not just by
obvious issues such as war, but by a “lack of due respect for nature.” He also went on to say
that a world that allows for such environmental degradation “is a seedbed for collective
selfishness, disregard for others and dishonesty” (Pope John Paul II, 1990). The Pope’s
emphasis on the selfish nature neglecting the environment is an important aspect of his
address, and it plays on a Catholic ideal: that one is supposed to not only take care of those in
need, and more specifically the poor, and in general, concern for others.
Another main component of the Pope’s World Day of Peace address is that there is a
moral obligation to caring for the earth and nature. This is an important use of framing for the
overall issue. The Pope did not simply say that it was the duty of Catholics to help preserve the
earth or that the environment is being destroyed and there is a great need to do something to
combat that. Instead, the emphasis is on morality and what is expected of people of the
Catholic faith. When communicating with a religious group such as those of the Catholic faith,
this type of ethical appeal is most likely far more effective than providing scientific evidence for
global warming and environmental destruction.
Additionally, the implications that environmental degradation will have on people’s
health is also mentioned. This is also very important messaging, and like many of the Pope’s
arguments for the need of environmental stewardship, ties in with other Catholic ideals. In this
34
case, the health implications of climate change will have an especially acute impact on the
poor, and helping those in need is already an issue stressed by the Catholic Church, and goes
hand in hand with the need for a just social system. “It is manifestly unjust that a privileged
few should continue to accumulate excess goods, squandering available resources, while
masses of people are living in conditions of misery at the very lowest level of subsistence”
(Pope John Paul II, 1990).
What is interesting about not only this speech, but also about the direction and
messages of Pope John Paul II concerning climate change, is how although this type of appeal is
an ethics-based one, it is a new direction for environmentalism. Additionally, there are aspects
within the Catholic environmental movement that are in keeping with arguments made by the
traditional environmental movement. The Pope calls for “simplicity, moderation, and
discipline, as well as a spirit of sacrifice” (Pope John Paul II, 1990). This idea of moderation, and
more importantly, discipline, is an idea that the general environmental movement in the United
States has emphasized. It is also part of the Pope’s argument for environmental stewardship
that, although in line with traditional Catholic ideals, is unfortunately least likely to resonate
with the Catholic base, at least in the United States. The idea that people will have to make
sacrifices in order to help protect and preserve the earth and nature has not been a popular
one with the American public historically. In fact, it is one of the reasons why the general
environmental movement has run into problems in recent years. Stressing this idea of sacrifice
in order to protect the environment has led to opposition and has opened up the movement to
attacks such as the argument that it is pro-regulation (which is extremely unpopular in the
current political climate) and will cost the public economically.
35
When explaining to the Catholic base why it is so vital that they work to promote
environmental stewardship, it is essential that above all, the argument is based on what is
God’s will. The Catholic Church has done this by stressing, as evangelical Creation Care
proponents do, that the correct interpretation of Genesis tells man to care for God’s creation,
the earth. “These famous words of Genesis entrust the earth to man’s use, not abuse. They do
not make man the absolute arbiter of the earth’s governance, but the Creator’s ‘co-worker’: a
stupendous mission, but one which is also marked by precise boundaries that can never be
transgressed with impunity” (Earth is Entrusted, 2000).
Pope John Paul II targeted several different audiences in his call for environmental care
and stewardship. First and foremost, he aimed at convincing Catholics that climate change was
real and its reversal paramount. However, he also reached out to non-Catholics, and the nonreligious. In an address in 1990, Pope John Paul II stated that “I would hope that even those
who do not share these same beliefs will find in these pages a common ground for reflection
and action” (Peace with God the Creator, 1990). This outreach was important because it shows
the willingness of the Catholic Church to work with non-Catholics in combating climate change,
potentially opening the door for collaboration with the general environmental movement.
Another group that Pope John Paul II directed statements towards during his time as
head of the Catholic Church was politicians. He stressed that not only was climate change and
environmental degradation a problem that needed to be addressed on the individual level (e.g.,
lifestyle changes) but that it was a problem that states and legislators needed to take
responsibility for and take action to solve. “Religions, governments, and institutions are faced
by many different situations; but on the basis of the principle of subsidiary all of them can take
36
on some tasks, some part of the shared effort” (Common Declaration on Environmental Ethics,
2002).
During John Paul II’s time as pope, he issued many edicts concerning the dangers of
climate change and the duty of Catholics to help reverse this destructive trend. What becomes
apparent when reviewing these statements is how carefully the language used was crafted, and
how it is distinctively Catholic. This distinctive quality and voice is extremely important, as it
helps to give the Catholic faith a unique and almost niche position within the broader
environmental movement. It is dubious that Catholics will favor a strong association with
traditional environmental groups, and having a distinctly Catholic angle on the issue is bound to
have more of an effect on Catholics and be better received. Pope John Paul II did this by not
only outlining why it was a moral and religious duty of Catholics to be environmental stewards,
but, as previously mentioned, through the specific language used in these statements. He
described the need for Catholics to “repent” for their environmentally destructive and selfish
ways, which is a very Catholic concept. “He advanced a traditional Catholic response to
injustice: repentance and conversion” (Warner, 2008). The Pope also commented on how
Catholics needed to once again “find humility” as well as a “new culture” (Declaration on
Environmental Ethics, 2002). Pope John Paul II reiterated this sentiment many times in
different edicts and speeches. He noted that “a genuine conversion in Christ will enable us to
change the way we think and act” (Common Declaration on Environmental Ethics, 2002).
Additionally, it should be noted that the Pope, in keeping with the general religious
sentiments stated repeatedly, emphasized the fact that the most impactful influence is God. In
his 2002 statement , the Declaration on Environmental Ethics, Pope John Paul II noted that,
37
“aware of the value of prayer, we must implore God the Creator to enlighten people
everywhere regarding the duty to respect and carefully guard creation.” This statement brings
the issue back to what the Pope decrees is God’s will, which, for people of the Catholic faith,
should be the most important argument for environmental stewardship.
Pope John Paul II made a giant push for the Catholic Church to support environmental
initiatives, and to work with politicians, scientists, other religious groups, and the non-religious
in order to do so. Besides the leadership of the Pope, the Catholic Church has another highly
influential group strongly promoting the environmental cause. This group is that of U.S.
Catholic bishops who meet annually at a highly influential and publicized conference called the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The group defines itself as “an assembly of the
hierarchy of the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands who jointly exercise certain pastoral
functions on behalf of the Christian faithful of the United States. The purpose of the Conference
is to promote the greater good which the Church offers humankind, especially through forms
and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place”
(www.nccbuscc.org). This group has made the promotion of environmental stewardship a top
priority, and has helped to further the cause in the Catholic community.
The detailed statements of the U.S. Catholic Bishops regarding climate change and
environmental stewardship saw their start in 1990. Over the years it developed further, and
now is a multi-layered argument based on issues of morality and justice. In fact, “since 1993,
the Catholic bishops across the United States have been building a network of concern for the
environment” (Grazer, 2004). As is the case with Pope John Paul II’s argument for
environmental stewardship, which he intertwined with other issues that are Catholic in nature,
38
so are the arguments posed by the U.S. Catholic Bishops. “The bishops are seeking to create an
authentically Catholic voice in the environmental debate, one that focuses on the human
person’s place in nature and that puts the needs of the poor and vulnerable front and center”
(Grazer, 2004). It is noted by the U.S. Catholic Bishops that “environmental issues are also
linked to other basic problems…humanity faces problems in five interrelated fields: energy,
economics, equity, and ethics” (www.nccbuscc.org).
In statements issued by the U.S. Catholic Bishops, it is stressed that protecting the
environment is a moral issue, it is the fault of humans, and that action needs to be taken to
combat it. The ethics behind the argument for environmental stewardship are based on
religious sentiments and teachings. One main basis for concern, according to the U.S. Catholic
Bishops, is that “it is the poor and the powerless who most directly bear the burden of current
environmental carelessness” (www.nccbuscc.org). This is very much in tandem with what the
Vatican and Pope John Paul II reiterated throughout his time as head of the Catholic Church.
This sentiment is repeatedly noted in statements by the U.S. Catholic Bishops, who in another
statement wrote that “poor people suffer acutely from the loss of soil fertility, pollution of
rivers and urban streets, and the destruction of forest resources” (www.nccbuscc.org). As
previously mentioned, the Catholic Church teaches its followers to show special concern for the
poor, and as such, it is important for the U.S. Catholic Bishops to emphasize the effects of
environmental degradation on this group.
The role that the U.S. Catholic Bishops played and continue to play in the push for
environmental stewardship among Catholics is one that compliments the messages that Pope
John Paul II stressed during his time as head of the Catholic Church. When referring to the U.S.
39
Catholic Bishops, it is noted that “the program responds to the environmental challenge of
Pope John Paul II, notably his 1990 message, ‘The Ecological crisis: A Common Responsibility’”
(Grazer, 2004). The main arguments presented by the Catholic Bishops, are that preserving the
earth is essential because it is God’s will, the negative effects of climate change will most
greatly affect the poor, it is unjust to allow an unfair distribution of natural resources (which is a
result of climate change), it is unfair not to leave a clean earth for future generations, and the
need for people to sacrifice in order to help reverse the effects of climate change. The U.S.
Catholic Bishops supporting the same environmental initiatives that Pope John Paul II
advocated for helps to provide for an argument and mindset that is held across the board
within the top of the religious hierarchy of the Catholic Church. The U.S. Catholic Bishops “are
seeking a way by which a community of faith can harness ethical values and everyday
experience to live more in harmony with creation” (Grazer, 2004). This goal and messaging
allows for a cohesive message on the subject from the Catholic Church.
The efforts made by Pope John Paul II and the U.S. Catholic Bishops have had an effect
on the attitudes of Catholics regarding environmental initiatives and lifestyle changes in order
to help combat climate change. Environmentally friendly practices are being adopted by
different churches and Catholic subgroups. For example, “in the National Council of Catholic
Women, local Catholic women’s groups are addressing environmental health hazards and
threats to poor children, like lead and asthma” (Grazer, 2004). The movement has also spread
to other countries, an example being the Philippines, where a new water conservation program
has been implemented and headed by Catholic leaders (Allen, 2008). Parishes are also
constructing churches from recycled and eco friendly materials, and are encouraging their
40
followers to practice environmentally friendly habits (Allen, 2008). These are just a few
examples of how Catholics have answered both John Paul II’s and the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ call
for environmental stewardship. If more Catholics would become committed to exercising more
environmentally friendly practices, it could have a potentially huge impact. “With 1.1 billion of
the world’s population and about 70 million of us here in the United States, Catholics could
make a significant dent in humanity’s carbon footprint” (Cones, 2007).
Despite the great potential for a major environmental impact, the Catholic
environmental movement, there is a major resistance to the concept from a large portion of
Catholics. Much of this resistance has to do with the science behind climate change. In fact,
“some prominent Catholics aren’t convinced of the science underlying the environmental
movement and they wonder if ecological advocacy strays from the church’s religious mission”
(Allen, 2008). Keeping this in mind, it is essential that for the Catholic faith to truly become
stewards of the earth there be a purely Catholic argument voice and argument for such
practices. This is what Pope John Paul II and the U.S. Catholic Bishops have attempted to
accomplish. What is needed is “a ‘distinctively Catholic’ response to environmental problems
to emphasize collective, social responsibility built organically on this religious tradition; it
should reinforce Catholic religious identity and not be confused with other forms of
environmental leadership consisting of mere ideology and idealism” (Warner, 2008).
41
Discussion
Both the Evangelical Christian Creation Care movement and the Catholic environmental
movement have much in common. They both, as would be expected, use religious themes and
doctrine as the basis for the argument that there is a need for environmental stewardship.
Each specifically reference Genesis as proof that it is God’s will that humans protect and
preserve his creation, the earth. The arguments presented for environmental stewardship from
both the Catholic Church and the advocates of the evangelical idea of creation care are
multifaceted. They play on the ideas and values that each religious emphasizes. Besides the
basic idea that protecting the earth and environment from degradation is a moral issue, and is
God’s will, and therefore essential, are other aspects to this overall moral argument.
Both the Catholic Church and the evangelical Creation Care movement focus on
religious ideals like caring for those who are less fortunate, specifically the poor. The point that
environmental degradation will have the strongest, negative effect on the poor is a major focus
of almost all the speeches and statements issued by both movements regarding the issue. It is
also stressed that followers of these faiths should want to help preserve the earth in order to
provide a better environment for their children. It seems that this point will resonate with
these religious groups, who already stress the importance of family and life in general.
The current direction of the United States environmental movement is one based on
advocating for one piece of legislation at a time, and the movement is in need of a revamping
and new energy. The direction of the movement needs to be one that younger generations can
get behind and more involved in, and this means a shift in leadership and how the movement
42
works overall. The move towards a more ethics-based environmental approach would likely
help to revitalize a movement that has had major setbacks in recent years, such as the defeat of
Cap and Trade in 2009. The onset of a bad economy has also put environmental concerns on
the backburner in terms of media attention and importance to the American people. Given
these circumstances, it is essential that environmentalists try new approaches to get the
general public to not only once again put environmental concerns on peoples’ radars, but to get
the public to make them a priority. Appealing to the morality of specific audiences appears to
be the best way to do this. If someone who is religious can be convinced that it is their moral
obligation as ordained by God to be more environmentally friendly, it surely will have a greater
effect than simply telling them that they should be environmentally conscious because it is
good for the earth, or that science shows climate change is a major problem that must be
negated.
Ethics-based environmentalism has, as demonstrated by this analysis, great potential if
traditional environmentalists fully understand how to communicate with religious groups, what
frames are effective, and additionally, what tactics will alienate this group. Working with
religious opinion leaders such as Richard Cizik can help traditional environmentalists
understand the mindset of evangelical Christians when it comes to environmental concerns.
The same is true for working with Catholics and their respective opinion leaders. A better,
more effective approach can be formulated once environmentalists fully understand this target
audience.
This new, ethics-based approach to environmentalism should be pursued and
implemented by the traditional environmental movement in the United States. Analysis of
43
both the evangelical Christian creation care movement and the Catholic environmental
movement shows the potential they have to revitalize environmentalism in the United States.
However, it seems that the evangelical movement has taken root and has a more solid
following and enthusiasm behind it than the respective Catholic movement does. This is due to
the major difference between the two religions and their respective environmental
movements. The evangelical creation care movement is being led by the younger generation of
evangelicals, who are becoming the strongest advocates for more environmentally friendly
behaviors. It is a movement that is bottom-up, meaning that it is more of a grassroots effort.
Younger evangelicals are the loudest voices for environmental measures, and therefore the
potential future of the movement looks to be a promising one from the perspective of
traditional environmentalists. It is also a group that shows, for the most part (at least among
younger evangelicals), a willingness to work with scientists, liberals, and those outside of the
evangelical community in general to further the cause. If environmental groups have a limited
amount of money and resources and cannot focus on all religious groups to target, the
evangelical community is the group that should be most heavily targeted and collaborated with.
The Catholic environmental movement differs from the evangelical Christian Creation
Care movement in that it is a top-down communications approach. The call for environmental
stewardship comes primarily from top religious leaders, such as the U.S. Catholic Bishops and
historically from popes, with the biggest advocate being Pope John Paul II. While the
movement and its messages seem to have taken hold with some members of the Catholic
community, overall the movement is not catching on with the religion as a whole. Unlike the
evangelical creation care movement, it is not the youth of the faith who are pushing for change.
44
If environmental groups have the funds and other resources to target Catholics, there is some
potential for this movement to take hold and have a positive impact on the general
environmental movement in the United States. However, this group is simply not as receptive
to environmental messaging as other religious groups have been, and do not have the same
kind of promise that the evangelical Christian Creation Care movement has.
The U.S. environmental movement is at a crossroads. Either environmental groups can
continue to push for specific legislation regarding issues such as climate change, or they can
start to take an ethics-based approach to their arguments. Working with religious groups and
their respective opinion leaders could help bring environmental concerns back to the forefront
of American politics, concern, and media attention. There is great potential for this relatively
new religious environmental movement, and there is also great promise that traditional
environmentalists can and should work with those in the religious community to further a very
important cause.
45
Methodology
The study of the religious environmental movement in regards to the Catholic faith and
evangelical Christians was conducted using a qualitative research approach. Articles were
found by searching online databases. Interviews with prominent religious leaders were found
using legitimate online resources where full transcripts were available. Statements issued by
the Vatican were found on the official Vatican website.
Interviews, articles on the state and history of the environmental movement, and
statements issued by the Vatican were compiled and analyzed. The research method was
qualitative, with an emphasis on looking for patterns between the Catholic and evangelical
Christian green movements, and additionally, how the movements differ.
Limitations
The limitations of this study related to the relatively short amount of time there was to
complete it and the vast amount of research and articles available. It was a challenge deciding
which speeches, interviews, and statements were the best to focus on for this capstone, and
which ones were composed of points already made and therefore were simply repetitive and
unnecessary. Further, this capstone only focuses on two faiths playing a role in the larger
religious environmental movement. If there had more time available to complete this
capstone, more major faiths would have been included in the discussion and analysis
46
Works Cited
Allen Jr., J. L. (2008). Green teachings, initiatives take hold among Catholics worldwide. (Cover story).
National Catholic Reporter, 44(25), 5-7. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Anderson, L. (2008). Eric Chivian & Richard Cizik. (Cover story). Time, 171(19), 88-89. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Bazilchuk, N. (2007). New Voice for the Environment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(4), A190.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Blunt, S. (2006). Cool on Climate Change. Christianity Today, 50(10), 26-27. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Bookless, D. (2008). Christian Mission and Environmental Issues: An Evangelical Reflection. Mission
Studies: Journal of the International Association for Mission Studies, 25(1), 37-52.
doi:10.1163/157338308X293891
Booth, C. (2009). A MOTIVATIONAL TURN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS. Ethics & the Environment,
14(1), 53-78. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Cizik, R. (2008, January). Warming Up to 'Creation Care'. Science & Spirit. pp. 66-68. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost..
Cones, B. (2007). How green is your faith?. U.S. Catholic, 72(10), 8. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Deborah, S. (2005). THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: 4-3-05: QUESTIONS FOR RICHARD CIZIK; Earthy Evangelist.
New York Times Magazine, 17. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Doherty, Brian and Doyle, Timothy (2006). ‘Beyond borders: Transnational politics, social movements
and modern environmentalisms’, Environmental Politics, 15: 5, 697-712.
Effa, A. (2008). The Greening of Mission. (Cover story). International Bulletin of Missionary Research,
32(4), 171-176. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
47
Evangelical Covenant Church adds voice on care of environment. (2007). Christian Century, 124(15), 14.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Grazer, W. E. (2004). Environmental Justice: A Catholic Voice. (Cover story). America, 190(2), 12-15.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Harmon, A. (2009). Reduce, Reuse, Religion?. Advocate, (1026), 64-66. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
KERRY, J., & GRAHAM, L. (2009, October 11). Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation). New York
Times. p. 11. Retrieved from EBSCOhost..
NAE rebuffs critics, affirming Cizik and a wider agenda. (2007). Christian Century, 124(7), 13. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost.
Nisbet, Matthew. (2009, March-April). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public
Engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development.
Pearce, J. M., Santini, A. L., & DeSilva, J. M. (2009). Solar Photovoltaic Energy for Mitigation of Climate
Change: A Catalytic Application of Catholic Social Thought. Worldviews: Environment Culture
Religion, 13(1), 92-118. doi:10.1163/156853508X394526
Pulliam, S. (2009). A Costly Shift. Christianity Today, 53(2), 11. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Pope John Paul II. (2002, June). Common Declaration on Environmental Ethics.
Speech presented in Rome, Italy.
Pope John Paul II. (2000, November). Earth is Entrusted to Man’s Use, Not Abuse.
Speech presented in Rome, Italy.
Pope John Paul II. (1990, January). Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All of Creation.
Speech presented in Rome, Italy.
Shellenberger, M., & Nordhaus, T. (2005). The Death of Environmentalism. Social Policy, 35(3), 19-30.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
48
Simmons, J. (2009). Evangelical Environmentalism: Oxymoron or Opportunity?. Worldviews:
Environment Culture Religion, 13(1), 40-71. doi:10.1163/156853508X394508
Sirico, R. A. (1994). THE GREENING OF AMERICAN FAITH. National Review, 46(16), 42-47. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Smith, A. M., & Pulver, S. (2009). Ethics-Based Environmentalism in Practice: Religious-Environmental
Organizations in the United States. Worldviews: Environment Culture Religion, 13(2), 145-179.
doi:10.1163/156853509X438580
Snell, M. (2006). Acts of Faith. Sierra, 91(1), 24-111. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sullivan, N. (2006). Messing with God's Creation. E: The Environmental Magazine, 17(3), 15-18.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
The Great Warming Interview. Interview with Richard Cizik.
www.thegreatwarming.com/revrichardcizik.html.
The Jesus Factor. Interview with Richard Cizik. www.pbs.org
Tippett, K. (2011). [Interview with Richard Cizik]. http://being.publicradio.org
Warner, K. (2008). The Greening of American Catholicism: Identity, Conversion, and Continuity. Religion
& American Culture, 18(1), 113-142. doi:10.1525/rac.2008.18.1.113
Wilkinson, K. K. (2010). Climate's Salvation? Why and How American Evangelicals are Engaging with
Climate Change. Environment, 52(2), 47-57. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Woodrum, E., & Hoban, T. (1994). THEOLOGY AND RELIGIOSITY EFFECTS ON ENVIRONMENTALISM.
Review of Religious Research, 35(3), 193. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
www.nccbuscc.org
49