The Voltage Gate

In honor of Blog Action Day...

At least that's what our paranoid friend Frank Furedi thinks in a recent essay discussing the rise of environmentalism in major religious institutions. He bitterly denounces the greening of society as a set of new moral principles, a replacement for traditional religious values, and predicts the collapse of these institutions for embracing a more ecofriendly perspective, calling it "eco-spirituality":

However, eco-spirituality cannot really compensate for the loss of traditional moral authority. Indeed the very embrace of the environmentalist agenda can only accelerate the decline of institutions that cannot give meaning to the religious doctrines on which they were founded. The shift away from God towards nature inevitably leads to a world where the pronouncements of environmentalist experts trump those of the priesthood. It will be interesting to see what will remain of traditional religion as prophecy and revelation is displaced by computerised climate models.

I'm sure that would make PZ happy.

Before we get to the theology/environmentalism argument, let's put this whole thing in context. This guy is definitely Randian in his distaste for our more ecofriendly society, warning people that environmentalism has deep ties to fascism and greater governmental controls, as he stated on a BBC documentary:

What we today call 'environmentalism' is ... based on a fear of change. It's based upon a fear of the outcome of human action. And therefore it's not surprising that when you look at the more xenophobic right-wing movements in Europe in the 19th century, including German fascism, it quite often had a very strong environmentalist dynamic to it. The most notorious environmentalists in history were the German Nazis. The Nazis ordered soldiers to plant more trees. They were the first Europeans to establish nature reserves and order the protection of hedgerows and other wildlife habitats. And they were horrified at the idea of hydroelectric dams on the Rhine. Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis were vegetarian and they passed numerous laws on animal rights.

While I agree that there is a certain irritating piety* that can arise from a personal philosophy of moderate consumption and ecological concerns, hauling out the broad brush to paint environmentalists as Nazis is a bit dramatic. If changing your lightbulbs, recycling and refraining from buying a $50,000 Tahoe are signs of a burgeoning fascist regime, I suppose it's time to get myself a fancy pressed uniform with all the fixings.

Are the parallels that he draws really accurate? Is environmentalism all about vegetarianism and planting trees, preserving the fatherland at all costs?

From person to person, our environmentalist philosophies are probably very different. As I've said before, my feelings about preserving and protecting the environment and historic ecosystems are always going to be driven by the latest research, and of late, that research has been telling us that we need to change the way we do things, especially in this country. Obviously I believe that science should guide our decisions to cope with problems like habitat destruction and pollution, and environmentalism - everyone's environmentalism - should be based on those factors, which makes the philosophy mutable in method, but driven in purpose.

And what is the purpose? To stop the abuse of our resources at the expense of the poor as well as our living links to deep history. The Earth's living systems are museums of a sort, and should be preserved (not necessarily directed) just as any of our historic relics. If it makes you feel better (or worse) to call it a moral decision, than so be it. I think it's a purpose that goes far deeper than some ineffable moral code.

Now that I've clarified things a bit, back to Furedi's original statement. There is no doubt in my mind that one of the reasons churches have become more aware of environmental issues is to fill pews and appease popular opinion. They play politics like any other organization. But I would be a fool - as Furedi is - to think that the leaders of these institutions only care about the latest hook to draw in an audience, that this is a promotional tool only. They are trying to join the world community by promoting a more healthy planet, and supporting the science that instructs policy. Environmental issues like pollution and climate change are real threats to people around the world, especially the poor, who have little resources to avoid major disruptions. If these institutions are truly concerned with the well-being of all humans, then of course they will embrace the evidence that our world is in a state of peril and do what they can to help. Can we justifiably chide them for it? I can't. Everyone's campaigning these days.

The best thing about Furedi's essay is the reaction from Christian groups on the other side of the fence, those denying global warming and finding excuses to continue to ignore our environmental problems. Albert Mohler, a Christian radio show host and blogger recently picked up on Furedi's concerns and took them to heart; he's concerned with "liberal churches" becoming so busy with saving the Earth that they'll forget to save souls.

Mohler says:

Furthermore, once a church embraces environmentalism as its central mission, its authority suffers and even greater loss because the society considers the true authorities for ecology to be scientists, not church leaders...

This isn't a problem in most "liberal churches", where reasonable folks turn to scientists for science and their pastors/the Bible for direction, instead of relying on the latter for everything from climatology to politics to cooking. And I sincerely doubt that the Pope has made environmentalism his "central mission," as Mohler claims.

Christians do bear a responsibility to be good stewards of the earth. This is not an easy responsibility to bear in the confusing context of modern ecological debates. But the church of Jesus Christ bears the responsibility to be the steward of the Gospel above all other concerns. The temptation to turn to this-worldly concerns at the expense of spiritual concerns is very strong. Beyond this, human beings will worship either the Creator or the creation. When the authority of the Bible is undermined and confidence that we can know the Creator is compromised, the creation itself looms larger and larger as a central passion.

I think that the word "delusion" has been thrown at believers at bit too much in the past couple of years and has lost its effectiveness, but Mohler's folly here is pure, unfiltered delusion. He's a politician and a salesman, trying to preserve his way of life, not a holy man seeking salvation for his fellow Christians. And I've said this before: Christians like Mohler have undermined the authority of the Bible in our society, not liberal America.

I don't like scare tactics, and Mohler and Furedi are trying to frighten people into inaction with fiction, hypothetical outcomes crafted only with their colorful imaginations. The Catholics and Episcopals and other "liberal churches" aren't replacing God with nature, they're trying to remain relevant, to stay in the game, and yes, I believe trying to help people in this world. It remains to be seen if this is a boon for them as institutions. It will certainly be a boon for us Nazi environmentalists.

*I remember student almost turning down a ride in my car because it "only" got 30 miles to the gallon. Charming.