Support Grist
Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.
God & the Environment: A Grist Special Series
Main Dish

The Gospel of J. Matthew

An interview with J. Matthew Sleeth, evangelical environmentalist and author

By David Roberts
05 Oct 2006
Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
In 2000, a wealthy hospital chief of staff and evangelical Christian named J. Matthew Sleeth looked around at the life he'd built -- suburban neighborhood, huge house, two cars, lots and lots of stuff -- and decided it failed to properly honor God.

J. Matthew Sleeth: listen to the heart.
J. Matthew Sleeth: listen to the heart.

In what he describes as a religious awakening, he, his wife, and their two teenage children set about bringing their lives in line with Jesus' teachings. They moved into a smaller house, sold most of their belongings, cut their energy use by two-thirds, even began hanging their laundry out to dry.

What followed was not deprivation but a life of renewed meaning and depth. Inspired, Sleeth quit his job, wrote a book called Serve God, Save the Planet, and set off traveling around the country to spread the good news of "creation care." I caught him on the phone as he headed into Houston, where he planned to carry the message that "we have a problem." Laughing over my pun-induced groan, he spoke with the alertness, urgency, and self-deprecating humor of a man who's found something larger than himself to serve.




question Describe the personal journey that led you to write this book.

answer My background is in medicine, as an emergency-room doctor. I was director of an ER and chief of staff of a hospital.

When my wife and I were on vacation, she said, "What's the biggest problem in the world?" I said, "I think it's that the planet's dying." Really, when you're an emergency-room doctor, you're just straightening deck chairs on the Titanic, and the whole ship is going down.

God & the Environment
Introduction to the series.
Interview with Bill Moyers about his PBS special Is God Green?
Article by Bill McKibben on the spread of environmental concern among evangelicals
Interview with J. Matthew Sleeth, evangelical environmentalist and author
Interview with E.O. Wilson about his new book on religion and science
Interview with environmental scientist and evangelical leader Calvin DeWitt
Interview with Joel Hunter on broadening the evangelical agenda
So we went through a series of changes, and we went through a religious awakening. I began to look more and more to the Bible for the answers to moral problems, which I think this is. In Christianity, Christ says, give half of everything you have to the Lord and follow me. If you have two coats, give one away, and first seek the Kingdom of Heaven; don't store up treasures on earth. And between that and where I was in life as a doctor was huge gap. It also says to change yourself first, and then change somebody else. Don't see the speck in the other person's eye, but get the two-by-four out of your own.

So our family went through a process of change where we gave more than half of what we owned away, and we moved from a house -- kind of a doctor-sized house -- to one that was the size of our garage. We cut our electricity use to a 10th of the national average, and we cut our [use of] fossil fuels.

Then I started talking and writing a lot about what I was doing. The Bible-believing church in America has forgotten all of those lines, or needs to be reminded, about simplicity, frugality, and generosity toward other people who can't repay you. I try to remind folks of those lines. I thought when I started this I would simply be talking in churches, but it's 50/50 -- 50 percent environmental groups and 50 percent church-based.

question Do you have any advice for environmentalists on how to speak to religious people, evangelicals in particular?

answer When I go and talk at a conservative church, they may go from saying that there's no global warming to deciding as a church to switch their power to green power, or change light bulbs [to CFLs], that sort of thing. It literally can happen in one session.

J. Matthew Sleeth
J. Matthew Sleeth
What people say is, "Well, nobody ever told us about this. Why didn't someone tell us about this?" Environmentalists would say, "Well, they're nuts, they're not paying any attention -- it's overwhelming." But these two different groups get their news and their information from two entirely different sides of the spectrum. The folks at 60 Minutes have a different crowd than the folks at the Salem Radio Network -- and SRN has a way bigger crowd. They don't even know each other exists! It's a chasm.

When you talk to a church and you want to get a church to do something, you have to talk to the heart, and you have to use the Bible. You have to speak the language of the church. Too often folks in the environmental movement have made people of faith feel uncomfortable.

Another thing that happens over and over again: I'll speak to an environmental group, and ask them, "Is anybody here an evangelical Christian?" One person will raise their hand. But after the talk, a number of them come forward. They're scared to say it! Same thing in the church: I'll talk, and afterwards people will say, "Well, I work for the state Department of Environmental Protection, and I just kept my mouth shut."

But when somebody speaks the language of a group, they hear it. If I went and talked about greenhouse gases and global warming and 381 parts per billion of CO2 ... humans don't change their behavior based on statistics. We change our behavior based upon our hearts. The person out driving a Hummer didn't buy it because of the statistics, because there isn't anything that supports buying a Hummer. They bought it for some emotional reason.

Faith is about all those things you can't measure, whereas science is measurement. I consider myself a scientist, but the faith side of me is able to speak to things like justice and peace and love, and greed or sin or guilt. If people don't feel a little guilty and sinful about their lifestyle, we're doomed.

The amazing thing is, I get up and talk about these things like sin and guilt and the fact that this earth is a sacred thing, as it says in the Bible, and nobody has any problem with that. When you talk science, I don't know whether it's honest or not. Scientists from 100 years ago thought they were dead right about something. And you can be inadvertently wrong, you know what I mean? But we know, absolutely, that love is a good thing. You're never going to go wrong on that. You're never going to go wrong if you take Christ's advice to treat your neighbor like you want to be treated yourself.

My advice is, if you're an environmentalist, to have an earnest, listening talk with somebody of faith and find out where they are first. The worst way to get anybody to change anything is to walk up and say, "You're stupid. You need to change."

question Are you running into resistance when you try to bring these two groups together, from either side?

answer Amazingly, no. I'll bring a Bible along, and point out that the symbol of God is a tree, and of course the symbol of the Sierra Club is a tree.

I'll say that the first step everybody takes in environmental awareness, stewardship of the earth, is not to throw their trash out the window while they drive down the road. Nobody disagrees with that. And the church is at that step. They think at step one: they give a hoot, they don't pollute.

So if you want to bring those two groups together, and you suggest that the environmentalists enlist the aid of the church in cleaning up a stream, there's no controversy. Because you've started at step one. If you want to show An Inconvenient Truth, now you've started at step 60, and there's a problem.

question Your book focuses pretty exclusively on individual actions people can take to clean up their own immediate environment. But the problems we face are huge and global, and there's no way they're going to be solved without political action.

answer I agree. But what happens is that people show up at a meeting to stop a power plant from being built, and then go home and flip their light switch on. They're sending another signal -- we want the power. Politicians are very savvy about reading their constituents. They pay attention to what people really want, not what they say.

The moment you start practicing democracy at home by turning off the light switch, you become an activist saying one thing and doing the same thing. When you change the heart of people, when you get to that 5 percent that sociologists say can change a population by doing a particular behavior ... if you've got 5 percent of Americans insisting on hanging up their laundry, then you're going to have presidential hopefuls next election primary in New Hampshire, I guarantee you, hanging up laundry with somebody.

People who think that top-down change happens exclusive from bottom-up, well, there's a disconnect there. It doesn't happen that way.

question The idea is that if enough individual people change their behavior, it will send a political signal?

answer Absolutely. If we can get people to put the "conserve" back in "conservatives," you'll see the sea change everybody is hoping for. My dream is that three years from now, traditional Republicans are promising an organic chicken in every pot, and Democrats are promising two organic chickens in every pot. They both read their constituencies very well, and what we want right now is our cake and to eat it too. We're not really willing to get out of our big cars; we're not really willing to conserve. Therefore, I'm working on the heart change.

An example I use over and over again is, there's no person who tried harder, politically or with his writing, to point out the injustices of slavery than Thomas Jefferson. If you go to the Jefferson Memorial, on the right-hand side it says, "God will not long tolerate this great injustice." He tried to get rid of it in the Constitution, but I think everyone said, "Yeah, right, Tom. You're the second biggest slave-owner in America." And they went about business as usual.

In a democracy, we're supposed to have leaders that are a reflection of the populace. And that's what we're getting.

question That's kind of depressing.

answer Well, that's why I want to change the populace.

question There's a strain of evangelical Christianity -- and if you look at the sales figures for the Left Behind books, it's not small -- that believes in a certain interpretation of the Book of Revelation which says Jesus is coming back soon, the End Times are coming in our lifetime ...

answer And why bother?

question Right, why bother.

answer Why not even speed things up?

question Right. Which looks like what's happening.

answer What I do is remind folks who believe this could be the End Times that the point of the End Times is to do the Lord's work, and to redouble your efforts. I try to make it real and personal: I have everybody in the room imagine that NASA just said there's a meteor heading toward us, it's the size of a moon, and there's no way to stop it. Nothing can be done, and the Earth is going to be destroyed in four weeks. That's all the time you've got.

I ask people to truly search their hearts, ask if they think they're just going to go on a vacation to Disney World to have their kid shake the hand of a big plastic rodent, versus go to church, versus ... My guess is that there would be no homeless people downtown, that they would be inundated with invitations to come to dinner in people's houses and to church.

And I remind everybody that their own personal End Time is within 100 years, no matter who's in the audience. When Christ says, "I come quickly," he means, "Don't let me catch you sleeping." If you're like the average American that reaches age 71, you've spent 10 years of your life watching television. Christ isn't talking about literally taking a nap or sleeping your eight hours a night -- he's talking about being spiritually, mentally, asleep. A lot of us need to wake up.

You're familiar then with the Great Awakening and the Second Awakening in this country. This, I think, will be the third. I think you'll just see rapid, rapid change. I mean, when Pat Robertson's on the bandwagon, look for a big change. I don't get into name-calling of prominent televangelists who are still denying global warming, because I am positive they'll be our allies in a year or two's time.

question Another thing traditional environmentalists would say is that one of the biggest problems humanity faces, if not the biggest, is exploding population.

answer Absolutely.

question But there's a strain in Christianity generally, and particularly fundamentalist Christianity or evangelical Christianity, that emphasizes multiplying and populating the earth with big families.

answer The Bible does say, "Be fruitful and multiply." It says, "Love one another." It says, "Do the great commissioning." It says look after the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, take care of the sick. Of all the commandments given by God, the first one that humanity can check off as done is, "Be fruitful and multiply."

question [Laughs.] So we're done there.

answer We're done. We need to move on to the next one.

question Christian environmentalism springs out of the notion in the Bible of stewardship or dominion -- that mankind was given dominion over the earth and thus has an obligation to take care of it. Some traditional environmentalists might say that this notion, that humanity has some special place that's separate and above nature, and our needs take priority, is the root of the problem. Do you see any tension there?

answer I see tension, but I also see the potential for the answer.

I believe that we are slightly less than the angels, but not much less, and that we are the sentient beings on the planet, and that we do have a special place. We are made in God's image, which means that we're supposed to do the work of God here on Earth, which is to take care of all things lesser than us. That starts first with our children, and the unborn children of the next generation. When you begin to think of it like that, the onus is on us to take care of the planet. It isn't that God says, "Do whatever you want and I'll fix it up after you." You wouldn't get verses like out of Numbers [35:33-34]: "Don't pollute the land you live in, in which I also dwell."

What's happened is we've all gotten wrapped up in a lifestyle of bigger is better. There's a deep, spiritual hunger and yearning that cuts across this boundary between the church and environmentalists.

If you go and see an environmental movie and you come out numb, or feeling sad, you do what Americans do to comfort yourself. You go to the mall. You go eat. You watch a senseless, violent movie or something. But [at my talks] I see people going out crying. And that's where they go change. Those people don't go to the mall. They begin to take a look at their life, and they begin to change it. The unique thing about having a faith-driven life is that, at least in Christianity, you have this personal responsibility to God. So I tell people, this is a war to save the world we're in now, or shortly going to be declared as such. You have to look in the mirror when you brush your teeth to find the enemy, but the person who's going to save it is in the mirror, too.

You know, I was given dominion over a bike when I was a kid, but my parents didn't have enough money to give me dominion over another bike. We're beginning to wake up to the fact that there's no spare planet around to replace this one.

question It's hard to face problems when there's no enemy to fight but ourselves. That's one area where Christianity has a long and rich tradition, helping overcome that part of human nature.

answer Right. It's sensational to write about the Inquisition and forget about St. Francis. It's easy to blame Christianity for ruining the planet and forget that the Amish have got the only sustainable long-term society that exists in America.

One of the things people want to say is, "Oh, what about the Chinese? They're gonna get cars." Well, one in 17,000 Chinese owns a car. We've got 200 million of them in the United States, with 300 million people. We need to look to ourselves, absolutely. That's where you can go right to Christ: "Look not to the speck in your neighbor's eye but to the moat in your own." By the way, when Gandhi read that, he rewrote it as, "Be the change you wish to see in the world," and he gave credit to the Bible in his book The Story of My Experiments With Truth. It's human nature, but that's the corrective nature of having a belief in the Bible.

question Have you envisioned the implications if everybody took your advice?

answer Yes. We're going to have a lot more trees and a lot fewer TVs. We've got those tests from sociologists and psychologists that show that the size of a house has increased 100 percent or something in the last 50 years, and we're no happier. Einstein's definition of insanity is that you keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

I don't think that the meaning of life is things. And the Bible doesn't support that either. So if we lose things, that's where we need to go.



Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist.
< Previous | Next >
Comments: (22 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

"wrestling"

This is amazing, David, and I shall be reading this interview and writing one or another kind of response for a bit more.

Very well done!  Bravo!

Given that Bill Moyers is a hero of mine, whom I have admired for decades, and given that I am a Christian and a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion, my first reaction was, "This is totally unfair, that David gets to do this interview, and not me!"

My next reaction was, along the same lines, "He asked him all the wrong questions!  What a waste!  I would have known what to ask Bill Moyers, and clearly that stoopy ol' David did not know what he was doing!"

But my third reaction, after I read Moyers' long and thoughtful responses more carefully, was, "David did an excellent job; he elicited from Bill Moyers some very important responses that probably I would not have been able to do."

So, thank you very much David, for this interview, and for the entire series.  I look forward to reading it more at length, and likely shall find more to comment on.

At present, I would just like to point out what is to me, a Catholic and a humanist, a very odd, recurring expression, "wrestling" with a scriptural text.  The metaphor comes from a puzzling little episode that begins at Genesis 32:24, in which the future patriarch Jacob wrestles with some anthropomorphic divine Being, and this Being (an angel of God?; Yahweh himself?), in the course of the struggle, blesses Jacob, and gives him a new name, Israel (32:28).

Or something like that.

Bill Moyers talks about "wrestling" with the important text, Genesis 1:28, "And God blessed them [the male and female human beings whom he had just created], and God said unto them.  Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."  (King James Version, with its quaint punctuation.)

The literal interpretation would seem to be, first: OK, boys and girls, this is the first commandment that God is giving you: Go forth and fuck; and the point is not to have any fun doing so, but to make sure the girls get pregnant, and in due course give birth to lots and lots of babies.

Then: Notice the military/political vocabulary, "subdue" and "dominion."  The point of all these girls' getting pregnant is so that their babies will grow up and, army-like, take charge of all the plants and animals.

This Creation narrative is a text written toward the end of the Babylonian Captivity, or soon after the reintroduction of the Israelites into their homeland (late 6th century, early 5th century BCE).  The verse in question apparently serves as an aetiological myth, first, to explain why human beings have sex and as a result have babies; then, to explain why human beings are hunters, gatherers, agriculturalists, pastoralists, and fishers.

N.B., notice very well, that in Judaism, the fact that men want to have sex with women is, rather oddly, an act of obedience to a divine decree.  By contrast, in contemporary Greek theology, Aphrodite is the goddess of sexual desire, and she inspires whom she wills; so, horniness, and what one does with one's horniness, are not (immediately) moral issues.

My principal concern is that Bill Moyers should confess himself to be "wrestling" with a biblical text -- that means, what?, struggling about how to interpret it?, with an element of fear if he should arrive at a false interpretation?  If so, that strikes me as really stupid, and beneath the intelligence of the Bill Moyers that I have come to admire over the years.

He surely knows as much biblical criticism as I.  He surely knows everything that I have written here.  He surely knows that biblical texts are words written by human beings.  He surely knows that human beings who write, write all sorts of odd, crazy, socially practical things.

So what in the world is he doing, wearing himself out by "wrestling" with a verse of Genesis?

If he loves the world, if he loves the environment, if he loves humanity, if he loves all living beings, why can he not just go with that?  Why does he require some divine commission, written in a biblical text?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

iLoveMountains.org

Allen Johnson, head of Christians for the Mountains, gives his prayers and take on mountaintop removal mining on the "Go Tell it on the Mountains" section of iLoveMountains.org.

Here national religious leaders share their prayers and thoughts and stories about God's mountains.

Mr. Johnson will be heavily featured in Mr. Moyers documentary! I had the pleasure of meeting him last month, and know that he will move everyone who sees him speak to tears.

Appalachian Voices and several other regional organizations have recently put up a website called "iLoveMountains.org" in order to raise awareness about mountaintop removal. Its also a great educational resource if you want to learn more about the issues that Mr. Moyers plans to cover.

It exhibits the first ever National Memorial for the Mountains, which documents every single one of the 460+ Appalachian mountains destroyed by mountaintop removal coal-mining.

Please pay us a visit! And enjoy this short YouTube clip featuring Mr. Allen Johnson himself!


Yes, interesting

My principal concern is that Bill Moyers should confess himself to be "wrestling" with a biblical text -- that means, what?, struggling about how to interpret it?, with an element of fear if he should arrive at a false interpretation? If so, that strikes me as really stupid, and beneath the intelligence of the Bill Moyers that I have come to admire over the years.

The Bible is a collection of musings written by multiple obscure authors in languages Jesus didn't even speak hundreds of years after his death and is obviously completely open to interpretation. If Moyer's does not realize that, well, I'm with Canis.

For example, Yah-sh-ua (Hebrew) was translated to Le-s-ous (Greek) to le-so-us (Latin) and finally Je-s-us (English). The Hebrew alphabet doesn't even have a "J" sound in it. Look at the original name and the last one. They bear no resemblance to one another.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Nothing is more irritating (to me) ...

... than those who claim to know the Truth.

The Bible is a collection of musings written by multiple obscure authors

Although I am not in this camp, there are folks (lots of them) who believe that the words in the Bible are straight from the mouth of God. Might I suggest, especially in the context of the God & the Environment series, that we are careful to temper what we believe with "I believe" statements? It's a fragile bond between evangelicals and environmentalists, and needs no extra straining.

Unless, of course, scientific proof exists that the authors mused of their own accord. Then by all means, state it as fact.

biblical writings, Truth

Canis et al.:

By wrestling with difficult and contradictory passages, one can arrive at one's own truth. This is the point of "wrestling" with a text as rich as the Bible. You read things you might not quite agree with, which makes you define more carefully exactly what you believe, thus transforming and strengthening your belief. [Just like a classic liberal education.] This should be an ongoing exercise, because things and people change. Bill Moyers is doing what a responsible thinker should do: constantly re-examine his beliefs. Many of us surround ourselves with people who think the same way we do, so we get lazy about this. The same goes for things like sexual orientation, in my book: it should always be re-examined.

Even if you're not religious, "struggling" with other texts is fruitful. For me, this happens with certain novels. I re-read them and sometimes find new truths the second, third, or fourth time around.

Sarah:

Scholars do, indeed, believe that the bible was literally written by multiple authors at different times. At any rate, I remember having to remember dates and authors in my religion class in college. "Straight from the mouth of God" doesn't mean that God literally wrote the Bible (unlike the Commandments). The divergence comes when one considers how much influence (all to none) God had in what was actually put to parchment.

The "obscure" and "musings" parts are sneaky and gratuitous, I'll give you that.

A hopeful sign


   Frankly, I do not believe in God, but I welcome the idea that folks of faith will find their own ways to environmentalism, no matter what they call it.

   BTW, the idea that humans are to have "dominion" over the earth is very much a Western idea, and is not shared in the same way by much of the world's population.

pace,

patrick

Sarah,

Your point is well taken.

One of potential pitfalls of this series is that it will degenerate into a running religious argument having little or nothing to do with environmental issues or science. In hindsight, I can see that my post agreeing with Canis (an unabashed Christian) certainly fell into that category. I have edited my remark to meet your criteria that everything stated must be proceeded by "I believe" unless supported by peer reviewed scientific evidence:

The Bible is a collection of musings written writings by multiple obscure authors in languages Jesus didn't even speak hundreds of years after his death and is completely open to interpretation.

That sentence now meets your requirements for having reams of scientific evidence to back it up, although it may still offend many evangelicals. If someone had come back to my remark arguing that the Bible is the literal word of God I would not have said a word. Anyone who has tried to debate evolution with intelligent design advocates knows the meaning of the word futile. It always comes down to a matter of faith, which, because it does not rely on evidence, is immune to refutation. And rest easy, I have no intention of participating in a religious debate here or anywhere else.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Dominion


The primary message of the early Old Testament is that Man is given Dominion over the Earth.

Dominion...it means responsibility.   It means that Man has the Right to bend Nature to serve him.  And, as in any goodly owner or caretaker, there is some sense that Man should be a good taker -- for his own sake in as much as his relationship with God.

However, Dominion means first and foremost control and subservience.   Nature serves Man -- not the other way around.   This is the missing philosophic understanding of almost all environmentalists who are more like archivists trying to perserve and transform nature in to a Man-less state.

That is purely wrong.   The argument should only be how well we are being served by our charges.  We should be allowed to make note of "defects" in Nature -- where the Environmentalist only sees Perfection in Nature -- someone who understands Dominion can criticize not only Man's use of Nature, but Nature itself!

There is nothing perfect about Nature.   Every landscape is a battle of change and competion.  There is always incompleteness...nothing is static.  There is no Perfect State to go back to.

With Dominion we see a more dynamic approach to Nature -- one where Man plays a central part is shaping and Using the forces and resources.

Man gives Nature purpose, the way a Furnace gives Coal a purpose.   You cannot defend Nature apart from Man.


"unabashed" indeed!

Gosh, dear Biodiv, sometimes I feel quite abashed, and sometimes just plain bashed.

Mihan has written some wonderful things, including:
<<
By wrestling with difficult and contradictory passages, one can arrive at one's own truth. This is the point of "wrestling" with a text as rich as the Bible. You read things you might not quite agree with, which makes you define more carefully exactly what you believe, thus transforming and strengthening your belief. [Just like a classic liberal education.]
>>

Right, I entirely agree with that, and indeed that idea has been an important part of all my adult life.  At present I am feeling rather miserable, coming home following teaching two silly classes, as I see it, on the hardest book to teach in existence, Aeschylus' Agamemnon.  Well, Dante is just as hard, and I have never succeeded with him any more than with Aeschylus, but for different reasons.  But that first choral ode is a real monster.  And the second one is hardly any gentler.  So "wrestling" is not even the half of it.  I feel like a fool for assigning it.

But as for Bill Moyers and the Bible, I feel that that wrestling is very different, and is not a wrestling that I particularly respect.  And because I like Moyers a great deal, I very much hope I am wrong.  What it looks like is, he is not wrestling with a thoughtful, complicated, intelligent author whose words and thoughts are difficult to comprehend and accept.  With biblical texts, the words are clear and straightforward; and what Moyers is wrestling with, rather disgracefully in my opinion, is how to live with the option of saying NO to God.

If God is asking something unacceptable, then it is the moral responsibility of every human being to stand up and say, "God, go fuck yourself."

An aside: "Dominion" and "subdue" and "rule" (used in some translations) are challenging words.  It is most certainly important for all people in biblical traditions to come to an understanding of them, personally and with respect to their communities, as well as to allow for different interpretations.  But I would not call that kind of discussion "wrestling."

Mihan writes this amazing, wonderful sentence, the likes of which I have never ever seen:
<<
The same goes for things like sexual orientation, in my book: it should always be re-examined.
>>

That is powerful.  That is revolutionary.  In fact, I think I am going to have it printed up on cards, and slip them into the hands of certain guys ...

Mihan also says:
<<
Even if you're not religious, "struggling" with other texts is fruitful. For me, this happens with certain novels. I re-read them and sometimes find new truths the second, third, or fourth time around.
>>

Yes, this is the earlier subject again.  But I do not know what "even if you're not religious" has to do with anything.  If I were not religious, I think I would find that sentence very offensive.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Great work Grist!

Excellent to focus on this crucial area just before the election, and it will follow right into the '08 cycle.  Nobody better to do it than Moyers.

The sex scandal and coverup in the Foley case is shaking the fundament of the fundamentalists.  And now eco issues might just give progressive evangelicals a chance to swing enough votes away from the religious right.

Like it or not, that is the battleground.  The environmental movement has to get "some churchin' up".  (Cab calloway to the Blues brothers)

Are we on a mission from God?  I think it's possible anyway.  Give the benefit of the doubt to our progressive evangelical allies.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Regarding "control and subservience"

"... Dominion means first and foremost control and subservience.   Nature serves Man -- not the other way around. This is the missing philosophic understanding of almost all environmentalists who are more like archivists trying to perserve and transform nature in to a Man-less state."

One might call me an environmentalist, so I think it is safe to respond to this. I and the environmentalist I know wish to preserve nature for the sake of human survival. Without clean air and clean water, we will die. Without complete natural cycles for processing our waste, we will die. Without nature to draw upon for resources, we will die.

A problem with "control and subservience" is that we do not fully understand the role of each element in God's Creation. We might destroy a forest for "jobs", but commit suicide in the process.

Environmentalist are ultimately CONSERVATIVES. They want to preserve the natural order because it has worked well in the past. Only a radical and reckless individual would advocate making nature submit to our will when we do not even understand God's intent and what will be affected by our actions.

An environmentalist is preserving what God created for us. He or she is not assuming humans know better how to operate the natural world than God does.

Bill Moyers & Objectivity

Here's what GRIST has to say in introducing Moyers:
 "Like so many people, he seems to regard conservative evangelicals with an unresolved mix of admiration and exasperation, at once vexed by their political alliances and hopeful about their ability to pull their compatriots in a green direction." --
   I've been reading Bill Moyers and hearing his 'take' on things ever since he was Lyndon Johnson's White House spokesman. Moyers lost my respect then -- and his output consistently runs in the same rut.
   He's never "admired" conservative evangelicals although he sails under that flag when it's convenient. If I'm wrong about this, please print something Moyers has said or written of a complimentary nature about conservative Christians or Republicans.
   Current evidence is his pre-occupation with what he sees as the fine hand of Karl Rove evidenced even in this interview.
   Moyers is and always has been first and foremost a political animal. As fine as one might sift him, and as much as he might protest, or profess -- he still comes up as a partisan with a big "D"...  That's OK IF he would quit claiming to be speaking out of a conservative, evangelical foundation of belief.  But the record shows -- over decades now -- that he has always favored the liberal Democrat outlook. No matter how he tries to disguise it, the 'smell' still comes through.
    I have no problem with him having and expressing his views.  Everybody in America ought to be able to do that. I do so and readily claim a conservative, Republican (for the most part) outlook. I just get so tired of having to endure the Moyers masquerade -- and now one of my favorite grass-roots American publications bows down at the Moyers shrine. It's sad, and sickening. I'm sorry to see you go.

    Jack Buttram
    Rutherfordton NC

Best of Both Worlds

How nice to read articles about evangelism and environmentalism that don't include snide asides about any people group.

I grew up in a rich, secular household and was taught in school about Earth Day and the importance of conserving our resources. In college, I spent a year living in a small co-op with "green" friends.

After encountering God one day while alone in a meadow, I spent a long time looking for evidence before realizing the most realistic test of God's existence, for me, was to believe first and see what happened next. (Sort of the happy antithesis to the dreadful "shoot first, ask questions later" saying.) I eventually converted to Christianity.

But it was strange to suddenly be "one of them"! I had always thought all Christians were morons at best and evil at worst. (Of course, I've learned otherwise.)

Several years ago, I saw the Bible as many people's humble attempts to describe their own experiences with God. Now, after applying many parts of the Bible to my life, I'm amazed at the way seemingly ridiculous guidance can have beautiful results. I am more inclined to trust the Bible as being inspired by God.

Many of my values have changed because of my faith, some quite drastically. One that hasn't changed is my environmentalism.

The Bible doesn't say why God made Creation, but my personal opinion is He did for sheer joy. There is something about Him that is generous beyond belief. He loves extravagantly. Also, the Bible often describes the stars as singing or trees and hills as rejoicing when good things happen. It's hard for me to imagine that God would treat His own Creation with less than loving care.

In fact, as a side note, I'd argue that the environment had already become corrupted back when God kicked Adam and Eve out of Paradise and that the Earth won't be fully restored and peaceful until the "end" of time. My Bible study group has enjoyed exploring this idea. (If you're interested, start with Romans 8:19-21 as an example.)

I'm glad to see environmentalism taking hold in the evangelical community. For example, my local megachurch (www.frontline.to) used to include a Starbucks on the premises, but when missionaries informed the pastoral leadership about what's going on with greedy coffee growers, the church switched to a Christian company that offers fairly bought coffee.

I was thrilled and touched to see this happen, because sometimes it's lonely being one of the minority Christians who follow environmental news. Now if we can just get capitalism out of the church altogether. But that's another story...

Rita Nolan, 28


priorities

[Now, this is crazy talk: "Now if we can just get capitalism out of the church altogether."]

I think the reason a lot of Christians don't put environmental concerns at the top of their list is because politicians and some Christian leaders tell them not to.

I had an interesting moment when I heard Sister Helen Prejean speak. Someone asked what she thought about abortion. The questioner was obviously baiting her (I mean, she's a nun), but her response was so wise and unforced. She said that, with all the other suffering in the world, abortion is the least of our worries: when we've solved world malnutrition/hunger and gotten everyone out of poverty and established fair governments all over the world, then we can worry about abortion.

The climate crisis is like that: who cares about abortion if we're all dead or infertile?

Missing the point

First of all, I'm reading through these comments and I realize that so many of you are missing the point.  Instead of attacking fellow environmentalists because of their religious views, rejoice that more and more Christians are embracing environmental and social justice causes.  Be happy that more and more of us see justice for the poor and respect for creation as something that Jesus taught.

That said, I can't just ignore some of these posts.

"The Bible is a collection of musings written by multiple obscure authors in languages Jesus didn't even speak hundreds of years after his death..."
     This is not quite the case.  Jesus, like any well-educated Jewish man, would have been fluent in Hebrew.  In fact, the title Rabbi implies among other things, that he would have committed the entire Hebrew scriptures to memory.  

"For example, Yah-sh-ua (Hebrew) was translated to Le-s-ous (Greek) to le-so-us (Latin) and finally Je-s-us (English)."
     If you're going to discuss language, please get it right.  Also, make sure there's a point.  The Greek for Jesus was "iesous" with an accent over the "i" making it an "h" sound.  Secondly, so what?  John in Spanish is Juan.  Peter in in Spanish is Pedro, etc.  We're talking about different languages with different sounds.

getting it right

Yes, Metmerc, I had noticed those things too, but decided to let them go.

The usual transliteration of Jesus' Hebrew/Aramaic name that I have seen is "Yeshua."  But that is apparently a later development of the earlier name "Yehoshua," which comes into English as "Joshua."  If in fact the first element of the name refers to Yahweh -- and I am not sure that is beyond controversy -- , then it is possible that Biodiv saw "Yahshua" written somewhere.

He certainly did not see "Lesous" written anywhere.  

The diacritical mark written before the initial Iota in the Greek name "Iesous" is a smooth breathing, indicating that there is no aspiration, no "h" sound.

The Latin form of the name is "Iesus," not "Iesous."  Initial I in Latin was often written by scribes in a calligraphic way that evolved into the form of the letter J.  In Latin, the letter was in fact a consonant in this position, like the Y in "yes."  But in other European languages, that consonant in borrowed Latin names came to be pronounced in a number of ways.

I agree with your point that the fact that the same biblical name has different forms in different languages is no argument at all for discrediting the Bible.

But I agree with Biodiv that the circumstances in which the multiple biblical documents were written suggest that the Bible does not deserve quite the same kind of absolute authority that many Christians, and not just fundamentalists, are prepared to accord it.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

God is Gray

Patchwork Films was commissioned by Christians for the Mountains to produce a series of movies covering the subject of Mountaintop removal.

Global warming may be esoteric and difficult to touch, but witnessing thousands of acres of forestland being whacked off the face of the earth and dumped into rivers is easily described as one of the most devastating sights one can ever behold.  

Our mission was not based on theology or philosophy.  We simply went out to film what once was a mountain range and to interview the people who lived in and around the destruction areas.  At the first sight of landscape turning to moonscape our director, BJ Gudmundsson started crying so hard she had to hand off the camera for she could no longer hold it steady.

If you are agnostic you will understand that mountaintop removal makes no logical scientific sense.  You may even wonder what higher being would create such beauty then create men with the will to destroy it.  If you are a person of faith then you may find the allegiance of religious leaders who oppose eco-justice suspect.

This is not just putting molecules into the atmosphere.  This is wanton destruction of the land beneath our feet - and it is coming your way soon.  Where there is coal there will be men with dynamite.  In the past ten years over 400 mountains have been lopped off and dumped into the rivers below them.  To understand this issue you just have to see it.

So.  Is God Green?  Give the coal companies another decade and the earth will be the color of gray slate and clay and the answer to Mr. Moyer's question will be no, God is Gray.

Mountains

I live in Utah: "the hills where the Lord hides." Sorry this sounds like a shameless self-promotion because it is. This argument is at the core of the fight for human survival. What do moose have to do with it? Watch my documentary "Our Other Neighbors at
http://schreinervideo.com/OurOtherNeighbors.html

http://schreinervideo.blogspot.com
The Truth

I'm not sure who's right, but I know we have to do something. And what they're doing in Maine is pretty darn good. Sorry this sounds like a shameless self-promotion because it is. But this argument is at the core of the fight for human survival. What do moose have to do with it? Watch my documentary "Our Other Neighbors at
http://schreinervideo.com/OurOtherNeighbors.html

http://schreinervideo.blogspot.com
Dominion?

"Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong." - Sri Isopanishad, verse 1


Other Christians

I love this discussion - the topic of Christians and the environment is dear to me, as a Christian and an environmentalist.

I have found that Christians and environmentalists often have similar views on a variety of subjects.  This ranges from a distrust of the "conveniences" our culture offers us (such as fast food and credit cards) to a desire to help the needy.

My reason for posting, though, is to comment on the existence of many other Christians, who may not fall in, or even near, the evangelical camp.

Catholics, certainly, have had some leadership from Pope John Paul II.  He even touches on the "dominion" question argued here:

In fact, 'the dominion' granted to man by the Creator is not an absolute power, nor can one speak of a freedom to 'use and misuse', or to dispose of things as one pleases.  The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator himself and expressed symbolically by the prohibition not to 'eat of the fruit of the tree' (cf. Gen 2:16-17) shows clearly enough that, when it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity.

The Greek Orthodox Church Diocese of America has posted on its website excerpts from the Inter-Orthodox Consultation from 1987 in Bulgaria, among other excellent articles.

Environmental issues like air and water pollution, depletion of non-renewable resources, destruction of the ozone layer, increasing nuclear radiation, deforestation and desertification of vast areas, etc. threaten the life itself on this planet. The gifts of science and technology are being misused by human beings to the extent of abusing nature and turning today's life on earth into a hell, not only for the many millions of existing people but also for the generations to come. The voice of those who call for a just development, equal distribution of resources and ecological life­styles is being systematically suppressed.

The United Methodist Women have a similar statement:

The Bible sends a strong message that being faithful requires just and right relationships with God, other human beings and with the rest of creation. Likewise, the United Methodist Church's Social Principles and numerous General Conference resolutions call for sound stewardship of the earth and environmentally friendly lifestyles that preserve creation for the benefit of present and future generations. United Methodist Women's environmental advocacy responds to this call.

Additionally, there are many non-denominational Christians who have found God to lead them into environmental action, as well.

In the end, the reason someone becomes an environmentalist is less important than the work that person does for the environment.

-Apta

Catholic leadership?

Thanks, Apta, for returning us to this thread.  Your quotes are interesting, and mostly encouraging.  The Inter-Orthodox Consultation's words are especially fine.  They are twenty years old at this point, but the passage of time has never bothered the Orthodox.

I would not want to over-estimate the influence of the late Pope John Paul II's words on this subject, however.  For one thing, his reading of that text in Genesis is quite idiosyncratic.  More important, as I have written before, environmental issues remain a rather low moral priority among most Catholics.  Most prominent teachers among us RCs, and most people who wish to become prominent RC teachers, stick these days to a pretty narrow moral agenda, in which environmental issues do not have a place, however well deserving they truly are.

To be sure, there are a good number of relatively independent religious communities, of men and of women, who are doing excellent work.  And there are similarly a few independent-minded parish priests.  God bless them all.

But for the most part, the environment, pollution, eco-justice, biodiversity, the extinction crisis, deforestation, and, greatest of all, global warming, generally have not yet been recognized as church-worthy subjects.

Let us hope that that changes.  Very soon.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?


Also in Grist

The Week's Most Popular
From the Archives
God & the Environment, by David Roberts. A Grist special series.
Majora League, by Amanda Griscom Little. An interview with Majora Carter, founder of Sustainable South Bronx.
Don't Cry to Them, Argentina, by Kelly Hearn. Is Monsanto playing fast and loose with Roundup Ready Soybeans in Argentina?

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Jobs Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcasts
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra® | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks