ASECOND OPINION: EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY IN AMERICAIntroductionAs the largest historical contributor to climate change over the last two centuries (Matthews et al. 5), America has an exceptional responsibility to address this pressing global issue. However, it also faces an exceptional challenge to doing so from vocal religious segments of its population. This essay explores the connection between Evangelical Christianity and climate change policy in America, seeking to understand how religious beliefs manifest in the political sphere to support certain policy positions over others. It begins by examining evidence for the popular assumption that Evangelical Christian beliefs and climate change policies are fundamentally antithetical. Then, it considers the theological explanations for this position and wider links to economic and political interests. Lastly, it outlines the alternative narrative of an emerging Evangelical movement in support of environmental activism. This analysis will argue that contrary to conventional beliefs, Evangelical Christianity and climate change policy are not incompatible. Rather, interpretations of scripture can be effectively used to mobilize Evangelicals towards supporting environmental causes.Evangelicalism and climate change policy as antitheticalIn2014, seven out of ten Americans identified as Christian, with Evangelicals in particular comprising approximatelya quarter of the national population (Smith 3). These demographics make them averitable voting force on any political issue. However, with respect to climatechange policy, American Evangelicals have a reputation of taking positionsagainst environmental regulation and areknown for denying the existence of man-made climate change. These positions are observed amongst Evangelicals at theindividual, congregational, elite, and national levels.Forinstance, a 2015 Pew Report based on a survey of 2002 adults across the countryfound that white Evangelicals were the least likely to believe the Earth wasgetting warmer due to human activity compared to other religious affiliations (Funkand Alper 33). Only 28% of the group supported this belief, which issignificantly lower than the overall average of 50% out of all adults surveyed(Funk and Alper 33). White Evangelicals were also the group with the highestproportion of respondents that felt there was no solid evidence of globalwarming (Funk and Alper 33). Interestingly, this group was the most supportiveof environmentally destructive activities such as offshore oil drilling as well,with 70% of respondents supporting the practice (Funk and Alper 37).Importantly, even after “controlling for political and demographic factors,”evangelicals were more supportive of offshore drilling than the religiouslyunaffiliated (Funk and Alper 37). Statistically then, it appears individualEvangelical Americans tend to hold opinions positioning them in opposition toclimate change policy.Atthe congregational level, a study of two Evangelical churches in the AmericanSouthwest reinforces these findings. Comparing environmental views between a mostlywhite, middle-class Southern Baptist church and a lower socioeconomic statusAfrican American Baptist church, the study discovered consistent attitudes ofapathy towards the environment (Peifer, Ecklund, and Fullerton 378). Interviewsrevealed reasons for this apathy as being theological in nature, but also tiedto political affiliations and cynical perceptions of the climate issue asexclusively Democratic (Peifer, Ecklund, and Fullerton 388). Moreover, amongmembers of the African-American Baptistchurch interviewed, leaders believed the apathy derived from “difficultmaterial circumstances” of laity who did not have the economic means to makepro-environmental choices, while the laity often demonstrated “low levels ofscientific knowledge” in general about the issue at hand (Peifer, Ecklund, andFullerton 390). Regardless of these variations in reasons, racial andsocioeconomic differences between the two congregations did not change overall negativeopinions toward environmental protection.Asfor Evangelical elites taking a similar position, the Cornwall Alliance for theStewardship of Creation is a key case in point. The self-proclaimed “network ofover 60 Christian theologians, natural scientists, economists, and otherscholars” is led by Edward Calvin Beisner (Cornwall Alliance, “Who We Are”) andknown for its anti-environmental work. For instance, its September 2015petition entitled “Forget Climate Change, Energy Empowers the Poor” claimedthat climate change policies “fight a non-problem” and divert resources awayfrom “[helping] the world’s poor meet muchmore urgent needs” (Cornwall Alliance, “Petition”). A more recent publicationby Beisner in March 2017 has also supported President Donald Trump’s “ExecutiveOrder on Energy Independence,” praising its enabling of more intensehydrocarbon fuel development, which will supposedly create jobs and reducingimports from countries supporting terrorism (“Trump’s Energy IndependenceOrder”). As seen through its initiatives, this network of Evangelicals holdingexpert designations within their fields takes a vocal position against climatepolicies.At the national level, the current administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, is a committed Evangelical Christian, having served as a deacon for the First Baptist Church of Broken Arrow in his home state of Oklahoma (Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General, “About Scott Pruitt”). His anti-climate policy position can be traced back to his time as Attorney General, when he was known for filing numerous challenges to the EPA on the behalf of the oil and gas industry (Pooley, “Donald Trump’s EPA Pick”). As head of the EPA, he has since publicly criticized the Paris Agreement as being “a bad deal,” (Johnson, “Paris Climate Change Agreement”) and claimed carbon emissions in America were down to acceptable pre-1994 levels due to energy sector innovations allowing for clean coal burning as opposed to government regulations (Lee, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt”). While Pruitt’s views on the environment and climate change are not necessarily representative of those of all Evangelicals, he nonetheless boasts support from a significant number of them. For instance, an open letter supporting his appointment to his current position was signed by 143 “expert signers”, as well as 355 citizens as of April 8, 2017 (Cornwall Alliance, “Sign Open Letter Supporting Scott Pruitt for EPA Administrator”). Theological explanations for antithetical positionAnalyzing interviews withand publications by these individuals, congregations, and organizations, there appear to be three maintheological justifications against climate change policy and environmentalregulation. These include the fear of pantheism, a specific interpretation of passagesin the Book of Genesis to emphasizedominion, and eschatological beliefs. With respect to the first justification,Christianity is defined by monotheism distinct from early Pagan religions thatpersonified nature into multiple gods (Zaleha and Szasz 21). As such, itconsiders the Creator as separate from its creation (Phillips 321), with humansoccupying the hierarchical position “a little lower than God” but above therest of his creations (Zaleha and Szasz 21). Environmental activism, accordingto some understandings of this hierarchy, constitutesan inversion of this hierarchy, with humans worshiping nature instead of theCreator. As a result, it is denounced by some Evangelicals as “pantheism” or“paganism” (Simmons 45).Withrespect to the second justification, Evangelicals have interpreted passages inGenesis to underscore humanity’s rights as opposed to responsibilities overnature. They emphasize Genesis 1:28 andthe God-given right to “rule” and “subdue” the earth and its resources, asopposed to Genesis 2:15 and the responsibility to “tend” and “keep” the Gardenof Eden (Wilkinson 70).  Hence, groupssuch as Southern Baptists have understood the scripture as meriting their unimpededownership and access to natural resources for economic development (Zaleha andSzasz 24). Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance has gone further to superimpose thespirit of the first passage onto the second, suggesting that humans are meantto transform wilderness into garden without worrying about consequences ofenvironmental deterioration (McCammack 648). Under this interpretation,stewardship is not about using natural resources in a sustainable manner butabout “[exercising] active dominion” over them for the sole purpose offulfilling human interests (McCammack 648). Asfor the third justification, some Evangelicals use their eschatological beliefsto justify apathy towards the environment. This is in part due to the logicthat since humanity is predisposed to “inevitable and imminent rapture,” withthe world to be “completely annihilated,”it is meaningless to be concerned about the environment (Simmons 63). Instead, itis argued that Evangelicals should be focusing on more pressing matters in thetime being, such as converting as many people as possible to the faith (Simmons63). Eschatological beliefs also contribute to the assertion that compared tothe scale of the “coming cosmic drama,” environmental issues are notsignificant and do not warrant much attention, despite the pressing reports ofthe secular media (Zaleha 25). This final category of theologicaljustifications for environmental disregard appears the most extreme anddifficult to challenge.Political and economic connectionsNonetheless,theological explanations in isolation do not fully account for the position ofEvangelicals who oppose action on climate change. Rather, these beliefsinteract with a wider set of political and economic interests in the publicsphere. For instance, they occur against the backdrop of a political polarization process whereby certainEvangelicals associate environmental protection with liberal politics and apackage of other issues they do not support. One of these issues is areluctance to see greater degrees of American involvement in internationalpolicy. In addition, they occur in a political arena marked by an increasingalliance between Evangelical premillennialists,Republicans, and the fossil fuel sector. Each of these wider political andeconomic elements will now be examined in turn.Theimportance of Evangelicals’ political affiliations to their environmentalpositions is evident in Peifer, Eckland, and Fullerton’s study of two Americancongregations previously mentioned in this paper. In the study, White SouthernBaptists demonstrated cynicism towards Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth because it primarily criticized prominentRepublican leaders such as Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and James Inhofe forcontradicting the claims of scientists, leading them to discredit the issue ofglobal warming as nothing more than anti-Republican politicking (Peifer,Eckland, and Fullerton 388). Yet, African American Baptists interviewed weremore comfortable with liberal politics, and hence more receptive to the ideasof the film (Peifer, Eckland, and Fullerton 388). These findings demonstratethat in addition to theological beliefs, political ones impact Evangelical’s opinionsabout climate change as well. Moreover,Sabrina Danielsen’s study of Evangelical beliefs between 1984 to 2010 suggests thatenvironmental issues have become increasingly politicizedover time. Specifically, her content analysis of three popular Evangelicalperiodicals found that earlier discussions about the environment between1988-95 were mostly theological, while those in 2004-10 were more political,“with an awareness of Republican versus Democrat political fights in the UnitedStates” (Danielsen 209). World, for instance, claimed that “thecurrent environmental movement has been hijacked by the far left” alongside“the whole agenda of today’s socialists, feminists, gays, abortionists, andpacifists” (Danielsen 209). Hence, Evangelical aversion to environmental issuesmust be understood in terms of wider political polarizationbetween packages of conservative and liberal values.Thisphenomenon is especially evident in the Evangelical opposition to internationalclimate change measures. An analysis of the 2011 Faith and Global Challengessurvey and the 2010 Chicago Council Global View survey found that Evangelicalsconsistently opposed actions on climate change that were international innature, but only actions that were domestic in nature if they were explicitlyrelated to carbon taxation (Chaudoin, Smith, and Urpelainen). Chaudoin, Smith, and Urpelainen consider a theologicalexplanation for this finding, drawing from the premillennial idea that globalcooperation and world government would “fulfillbiblical prophesy, paving the way for the Antichrist as the world dictator”(447). However, they also consider this finding in the historical tradition ofEvangelical criticism of the United Nations as a tool of the “New Age Movement”aimed at promoting issues such as abortion and contraceptionand destroying “national sovereignty and the traditional family” (Chaudoin,Smith, and Urpelainen 448). This second explanation coincides well with trendsof political polarization of the issue.It suggests that Evangelicals perceive an alignment of environmental causeswith internationalism and a series of other liberal causes they do not support,forming the basis of their rejection of environmental policies.Simultaneously,there is also evidence of an increasing alliance of Evangelical elites, RepublicanParty elites, and fossil fuel interests in a coalition of convenience. Asalluded to through earlier mention of Scott Pruitt’s contentious record asAttorney General, Evangelical opponents of climate change policy have been anatural partner for the energy sector,especially as they have climbed the ranks within the Republican Party and theAmerican government. This is not just an emerging coalition. As early as 2003,for instance, President George W. Bush’s budget provided “billions in subsidiesfor oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy” and reduced funds for research onalternative forms of energy, trends which continued with his 2005 Energy Bill(Leduc 258). Moreover, his administration actively worked with the industry todiscredit climate change research, “[watering] down the 2003 State of the Environment Report” withmaterial derived from a report “commissioned by the American PetroleumInstitute” (Leduc 262). As a staunch self-professed Christian and member of theRepublican Party, Bush’s presidency epitomizesthe right-wing coalition of anti-environmental actors.Tiesbetween the Cornwall Alliance, the Republican Party, and large energy companiesfurther indicate the strength of this coalition. A recent investigation foundthat the group was registered under a larger non-profit organization known as the James Partnership run by Republican ChrisRogers, whose public relations firm is associated with a host of otherright-wing groups (Wilkinson 71). Interestingly, he is known for hiscollaboration with David Rothbard, president of the Committee for aConstructive Tomorrow (CFACT) which “actively works to discredit climate changeand mitigation strategies” (Wilkinson 71). CFACT, in turn, receives significantfunding from companies including ExxonMobil and Chevron, as well as Scaifefamily foundations which is “rooted inwealth from Gulf and oil and steel interests” (Fang, “Exclusive: The OilyOperators”. This nebulous web of relations corresponds to what William Connollycalls a “powerful machine as evangelical and corporate sensibilities resonatetogether, drawing each into a larger movement that dampens the importance ofdifferences between them” (871). Within this machine, Evangelicals fearing aleft-wing coalition of causes antithetical to their beliefs are actively drawninto an opposing right-wing coalition, positioned directly in opposition toenvironmental causes.An alternative narrativeThusfar, this essay has painted a harrowing picture of American Evangelicalattitudes towards climate change, reinforced by an entrenchedpolitical-economic alliance promoting fossil fuel interests. However, thereality is the Cornwall Alliance and its affiliates do not represent allEvangelical views about the environment. Instead, there exists an alternativegroup of Americans challenging the conservative Evangelical narrative. They areknown as the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), and accept the idea ofclimate change, as well as interpret bible scripture as necessitating action toreduce carbon emissions (McCammack 467). In 2006, the EEN launched its landmarkEvangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), with a statement affirming the reality ofman-made global warming, the particularly detrimental consequences of climatechange for the poor, the relation of climate change activism to Christianbeliefs, and the urgency for action (Gushee 195-196). The same year, this initiativewas approved by the National Evangelical Association (Billings and Samson 2). Thework of the EEN and its resulting support indicates that there is a legitimateEvangelical basis for environmental protection and policies to address globalwarming.Notably,this movement provides distinct rebuttals to the theological positions ofEvangelical Americans denouncing environmental activism. With respect to pantheism,a decade ago the EEN focused on drawing attention to the plight of endangeredspecies (McCammack 650), giving credence to accusations of paganism and natureworship. However, its ECI has since made the consequences of climate on thepoor a central focus of its campaign, acknowledging the important place ofhumans in the Christian hierarchy. While the conservative bloc of Evangelicalshas traditionally used the cost of implementing policies on the poor to supportits opposition to environmental activism (Phillips 322), the liberal bloc hasshifted the terms of this debate by emphasizingthe larger costs of inaction on the poor in the medium and long term. They havealso reconceptualized the notion of“idolatrous loyalty” to denounce libertarianism and capitalism as ideologiesdistracting Christians from their moral responsibilities (Gushee 196). Thesearguments effectively challenge the notion of a singular scriptural “truth” againstenvironmental protection, and call into question the Cornwall Alliance’sconvenient ties to political and economic interests under the guise of Evangelicalbeliefs.Inresponse to interpretations of the bible emphasizingdominion, Evangelical environmentalists have also responded with passages likeJob 39-41, suggesting that God “delights in creatures which have no human-apparent usefulness” (EvangelicalEnvironmental Network, “Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation”).Hence, despite humanity’s position above nature, they purport that it still hasa responsibility to respect and care fornature in a similar vein to the Creator. Yet, they argue that humans have“perverted” the notion of stewardship through their greed, with detrimentaleffects not only on the environment but on other humans (EvangelicalEnvironmental Network, “Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation”). Toaddress these sins, Evangelical environmentalists refer to Jesus’s teachingswhich emphasize that life is not solelyabout seeking abundance, instead advocating for lifestyles of “humility,forbearance, self-restraint, andfrugality” (Evangelical Environmental Network, “Evangelical Declaration on theCare of Creation”. These interpretations of the scripture understandstewardship as distinct from uninhibited dominion, creating a theologicalfoundation for the support of environmental regulation. Finally,Evangelical environmentalists have challenged any fundamental incompatibilitybetween holding eschatological beliefs and caring for the physical world. Conversely,they have demonstrated a recognition that “belief in a literal rapture,Christ’s return, and even the eventual recreation of the earth itself do not inany way really theologically entail environmental apathy and disregard”(Simmons 64), since no part of the bible directly instructs such apathy.Following this logic, they insist that the bible should not be held as anexcuse to escape earthly tasks such as stewardship, but rather an affirmationof the need to faithfully continue these tasks until Christ’s return.Therefore, even without abandoning beliefs about the end times, there areliteralistic interpretations of scripture that support a continued role forenvironmental protection and addressing climate change.Thecase study of the Christians for the Mountains (CFTM) movement demonstratesthese principles and the alternative narrative of Evangelical environmentalismin action. According to its website, CFTM is a “network of persons advocatingthat Christians and their churches recognizetheir God-given responsibility to live compatibly, sustainably, and gratefullyjoyous upon this God’s earth” (Christians for the Mountains, “Our Mission”. Moreover,it is a grassroots organization, whichbegan with a pure volunteer base asopposed to through support from corporate interests like the Cornwall Alliance.Billings and Samson highlight how CFTM produces videos that bring attention tothe negative consequences of mountaintopremoval coal mining while “indirectly asserting . . . theology and ethicsthrough background hymns and the superimposition of printed but unspokenBiblical captions” (Billings and Samson 16). As such, their messages reachother Evangelicals in a powerful but non-overbearing manner. In this way, CFTMexemplifies pro-environmental activism that effectively communicates itsmessage, in spite of its Evangelical roots.ConclusionInitially,this essay revealed substantial evidence of Evangelical opposition to climatepolicy in America. However, it has also suggested that much of this oppositionis likely due to political polarizationof the issue as opposed to purely theological prescriptions againstenvironmental protection. Ultimately, the conflicting interpretations ofscripture on this topic may confirm the cynical view that there is no biblicaltruth as to whether or not Evangelicals should support climate policies. Nonetheless,it means that at the very least, there is room for debate and the opportunityto appeal to interpretations that support more sustainable forms of economy,politics, and life. There is also a precedent for this at the grassroots level,as demonstrated by the work of Christians for the Mountains. For environmentalgroups hoping to bolster their bases, then, Evangelical Americans are not alost cause. By exposing the ulterior interests of political and economic elitestied to groups like the Cornwall Alliance, and supporting the work of Christianenvironmental groups, more Evangelical Christians may be persuaded yet tochange their views and join the green movement.WorksCitedBeisner, E. Calvin. 2017. “Trump’s Energy Independence Order: A Boon to America and the Environment.” Cornwall Alliance. http://cornwallalliance.org/2017/03/trumps-energy-independence-order-a-boon-to-america-and-the-environment/ (April 1, 2017).Billings, Dwight B., and Will Samson. 2012. “Evangelical Christians and the Environment: “Christians for the Mountains” and the Appalachian Movement against Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining.” Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 16(): 1–29.Chaudoin, Stephen, David T. Smith, and Johannes Urpelainen. 2013. “American Evangelicals and Domestic versus International Climate Policy.” Review of International Organizations 9(December): 441–469.Christians for the Mountains. 2012. “Our Mission.” Christians for the Mountains. http://www.christiansforthemountains.org/site/Topics/About/ourMission.html (April 5, 2017).Connolly, William. 2005. “The Evangelical-Capitalist Resonance Machine.” Political Theory 33(December): 869-886.Cornwall Alliance. 2015. “Petition: Forget ‘Climate Change’, Energy Empowers the Poor!” Cornwall Alliance. http://cornwallalliance.org/landmark-documents/petition-forget-climate-change-energy-empowers-the-poor/ (March 31, 2017).———. 2017. “Sign Open Letter Supporting Scott Pruitt for EPA Administrator.” Cornwall Alliance. http://cornwallalliance.org/2017/01/sign-open-letter-supporting-scott-pruitt-for-epa-administrator/ (March 31, 2017). ———. 2017. “Who We Are: Cornwall Alliance Key Staff.” Cornwall Alliance. http://cornwallalliance.org/about/who-we-are/ (March 31, 2017).Danielsen, Sabrina. 2013. “Fracturing Over Creation Care? Shifting Environmental Beliefs Among Evangelicals, 1984–2010.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 52(): 198-215.Evangelical Environmental Network. 2006. “Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation.” Evangelical Environmental Network. http://www.creationcare.org/evangelical_declaration_on_the_care_of_creation (April 5, 2017).Fang, Lee. 2010. “Exclusive: The Oily Operators Behind The Religious Climate Change Denial Front Group, Cornwall Alliance.” ThinkProgress, June 15.https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-the-oily-operators-behind-the-religious-climate-change-denial-front-group-cornwall-6caf65708c53 (April 1, 2017).Funk, Cary, and Becka A. Alper. 2015. “Religion and Science: Highly Religious Americans are Less Likely Than Others to See Conflict Between Faith and Science.” Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/22/science-and-religion/ (March 30, 2017).Gushee, David P. 2008. The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center. Waco (TX): Baylor University Press.Johnston, Ian. 2017. “Paris Climate Change Agreement is a ‘Bad Deal’, Says Pro-Fossil Fuels EPA Chief Scott Pruitt.” Independent, March 27. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/paris-agreement-scott-pruitt-climate-change-bad-deal-fossil-fuels-global-warming-a7651856.html (March 30, 2017).Leduc, Timothy B. 2007. “Fuelling America’s Climatic Apocalypse.”  Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 11(): 255–283.Lee, Michelle Ye Hee. 2017. “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s Claim that ‘Clean Coal’ Helped Reduce Carbon Emissions.” Washington Post, April 5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/04/05/epa-administrator-scott-pruitts-claim-that-clean-coal-helped-reduce-carbon-emissions/?utm_term=.d18cc8c3e2b6 (April 6, 2017).McCammack, Brian. 2007.“Hot Damned America: Evangelicalism and the Climate Change Policy Debate.” American Quarterly 59(September): 645-668.Matthews, H. Damon., Tanya L. Graham, Serge Keverian, Cassandra Lamontagne, Donny Seto, and Trevor J. Smith. 2014. “National Contributions to Observed Global Warming.” Environmental Research Letters 9(January): 1-9.Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General.N.d. “About Scott Pruitt.” Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General. https://www.oag.ok.gov/oagweb.nsf/profile.html(March 30, 2017). Peifer, Jared L., Elaine H. Ecklund, and Cara Fullerton. 2014. “How Evangelicals from Two Churches in the American Southwest Frame their Relationship with the Environment.” Review of Religious Research 56(September): 373–397.Phillips, Benjamin B. 2009. “Getting into Hot Water: Evangelicals and Global Warming.” Journal of Markets & Morality 12(Fall): 315-335.Pooley, Eric. 2017. “Donald Trump’s EPA Pick Imperils Science—And Earth.” Time, January 17. http://time.com/4635162/scott-pruitt-science-denial/ (April 1, 2017). Simmons, J. Aaron. 2009. “Evangelical Environmentalism: Oxymoron or Opportunity?” Worldviews 13(): 40-71.Smith, Gregory. 2015. “America’s Changing Religious Landscape: Christians Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow.” Pew Research Center. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/ (March 30, 2017).Wilkinson, Katharine. 2012. Between God and Green: How Evangelicals are Cultivating a Middle Ground on Climate Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Zaleha, Bernard Daley and Andrew Szasz. 2015. “Why Conservative Christians Don’t Believe in Climate Change.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(): 19-30.Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more