Recently American Evangelicals have begun warming to the goals of the environmental movement. While environmentalists and Christians share the same goals on many issues, Christians should recognize the fundamentally unbiblical premises that many ecological activists believe in. These premises often lead environmentalists to embrace policies that scripture suggests Christians should not support. Christians should carefully distinguish mankind's responsibilities as responsible stewards of God's creation and policies favored by environmental activists.

The Biblical Foundations of Creation Care
In recent years Evangelicals have placed increasing emphasis on the importance of caring for the God's creation. Christianity Today has editorialized against global warming. Prominent Evangelicals such as Chuck Colson and James Dobson signed the "Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility" which states that,

Because clean air, pure water and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation.¹

The motivation for this movement, termed "creation care" has solid biblical foundations in the concept of stewardship. The Lord gave humanity dominion over the earth, and with that authority the responsibility to care for the earth wisely. Wanton pollution and needlessly wasted resources do not represent love for our neighbors or respect for God's creation. However, Christians need to exercise caution when working with environmentalists. The philosophy motivating many prominent environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund, is profoundly unchristian and directly at odds with the Biblical vision of stewardship. It leads many environmentalists to embrace both policies and flawed science that Christians should reject.

The Philosophical Roots of Environmentalism
The leaders and activists of many American environmentalist groups adhere or are sympathetic to the philosophy of deep-ecology. This philosophy holds that,

The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves … Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.³

In other words, deep ecologists do not believe that God created the earth and gave humanity the responsibility to care for and use it wisely. Instead they hold to the subtly different belief that the natural environment itself has inherent value that human activity disrupts.

To the deep ecologist, man is not a steward of the Lord's creation, nor is human life more important that animal life, but humanity is a cancer on the planet whose interference necessarily harms the earth. This leads environmentalists to support policies that would reduce the earth's population, oppose virtually all forms of development, equate the worth of humans and animals, and exalt the protection of nature as the highest good, irrespective of its human cost.

In Their Own Words
Anyone who doubts that the environmentalist movement truly holds these positions should consider the words of some of its leaders. Paul Watson, one of the founders of Greenpeace declared, "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."⁴ David Foreman, the founder of Earth First! and a former Sierra Club board member, writes that,

An individual human life has no more intrinsic value than does an individual Grizzly Bear life. Human suffering resulting from drought and famine in Ethiopia is tragic, yes, but the destruction there of other creatures and habitat is even more tragic.⁵

Prince Phillip, the founder of the World Wildlife Fund, stated, "If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."⁶ John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal, states, "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."⁷

Nor are these quotes isolated opinions by environmentalist leaders. They typify the organizations as a whole. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, left the organization because deep ecologists came to dominate it. He writes that,

In the name of 'deep ecology' many environmentalists have taken a sharp turn to the ultra-left … the human species is characterized as a 'cancer' on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good … This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be 'good' if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.⁸

Patrick Moore created Greenpeace from the ground up. He understands what it stands for today, which is why left the organization he founded.

The Biblical Perspective on the Earth
It goes without saying that the Bible directly rejects this philosophy. God gave mankind dominion over the earth, commanding us to,

Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."⁹

With this authority comes the profound responsibility to exercise it responsibly, but God does not see human activity as a cancer on the planet. Indeed He commands us fill the earth. Nor did Jesus come to die to save beings essentially equivalent to slugs. Jesus clearly states that the Father values human life far more than animal life "So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows."¹⁰

God also makes it clear that, when used for appropriate purposes, it is acceptable to kill large numbers of animals, since he commanded the Israelites to make mass animal sacrifices. Further, the Old Testament shows that there are times when it is important and acceptable to develop the earth God has given us stewardship of. The author of 1 Kings 5 records how Solomon quarried for stone and logged numerous cedar and cypress trees to construct the Temple in Jerusalem. It was not wrong to cut down those trees or mine that stone, despite the fact it disrupted the environment. God commanded it, and it represented a responsible use of man's authority as steward over the earth.

Christians Should Exercise Caution When Working With Environmentalists
This does not mean that Christians and environmentalists do not share any common goals, or should not cooperate to prevent abuse of man's stewardship authority. However, Christians need to understand that environmentalists approach these issues from a fundamentally different and unbiblical perspective, and thus approach environmentalist positions with a degree of skepticism. Environmentalists want to mobilize Christian voters to advance their agenda. The Washington Post reports as much, noting

After the election last fall, leaders of the country's major environmental groups spent an entire day at a meeting in Washington trying to figure out how to talk to evangelicals.¹¹

Christians need to make sure that their in their desire to care for the Lord's creation they do not support environmentalist policies that oppose Biblical principles.

For example, Christians should not join environmentalist campaigns to reduce "overpopulation" because Christians know that the concept makes no Biblical sense, and contradicts God's express command to fill the earth. Unless the earth cannot physically sustain any more human life, it is not overpopulated, since God created the earth to sustain mankind and delights in human life.

Similarly, Christians should understand that many environmentalists consider energy use an intrinsic evil because it disrupts nature. Christians know that stewardship means responsible development of the earth for man's benefit and the glory of God, preserving God's creation for future generations, but not retreating from all human activity. Christians should see nothing wrong with responsible energy use. Warming water in a baptismal font, keeping the lights on at night during a Bible study, or powering factories that produce goods and employ workers who would otherwise be without jobs are all perfectly responsible activities, not crimes against the earth. Christians should see environmental stewardship as a responsibility to balance against other responsibilities, not the highest good.

Environmentalists Embrace Poverty
Perhaps nowhere do Christian and environmentalist principles collide more than on the issue of poverty. The Lord repeatedly commands His servants to care for the poor, and to provide for them. (Deut. 24:14, Psalm 140:12, Isaiah 3:15, among other verses) The Bible clearly shows that while mankind should reject materialism, God does not take pleasure in poverty. Christians should not support policies that increase poverty without good reason.

Many environmentalists, however, see human activity and development as evil. Thus they believe in the virtue of poverty and want to stop other nations from achieving the same level of prosperity that America enjoys. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund openly states,

The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don't suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them."¹²

Gar Smith, editor of the Earth Island Institute's online magazine The Edge argues,

There is a lot of quality to be had in poverty … There is a solution to climate change and pollution. We saw it happen to Russia when their economy collapsed. Their industrial plants closed down, the skies got clear. Their air is a lot cleaner now.¹³

Christians should not sympathize with these goals. Stopping Haiti, Somalia, or Bangladesh "right where they are," would condemn hundreds of millions around the world to lives of perpetual grinding poverty. There is no way to economically mitigate the suffering these nations would experience if their economic development ceased today.

Nothing in the Bible suggests that responsible stewardship of the earth means Christians should embrace privation. Instead, Christians should support a world where every Indian and Chinese family has the resources to buy electricity, running water, and a car to drive to work in. God does not condemn human activity and development of the earth. He commanded Adam to "fill the earth and subdue it." He wants Christians to use that authority responsibly and care for his creation, not to abdicate their stewardship.

Conclusions
Christians and environmentalists do share many goals. Both would oppose wanton dumping of toxic waste in rivers and streams, the senseless slaughter of the American Buffalo, or other abuses of the environment. But they do so for very different reasons; one with an understanding of the importance of good stewardship of the earth God has given mankind dominion over, the other from a belief that condemns virtually all human activity as intrinsically evil. Christians must make sure that when they work with environmentalists they are not misled into supporting policies that violate the God's vision of stewardship, of their responsibility to care for the poor.

(1) "The Greening of Evangelicals," By Blaine Harden, The Washington Post, Sunday, February 6, 2005; Page A01.

(2) "Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming" By Laurie Goodstein, The New York Times, March 10, 2005.

(3) The Foundation for Deep Ecology Platform, available online at http://www.deepecology.org/deepplatform.html

(4) Quoted in Access to Energy, Vol. 10, No. 4, Dec 1982. Also found online at: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/quotes.html

(5) "Confessions of an Eco-Warrior," Dave Foreman, © 1993, page 26.

(6) Reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988. http://www.bloomington.in.us/~lgthscac/biblicalchristianity'sdefinition.htm

(7) The Environmentalists' Little Green Book, published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, © April 2000. (ISBN:0-615-11628-0)

(8) "Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement" Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace, From the March 2000 issue of the Oregon Wheat magazine. Found online at http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2001/Aug/msg00269.html

(9) Genesis 1:28, NAS translation.

(10) Matthew 10:31, NAS translation.

(11) "The Greening of Evangelicals," By Blaine Harden, The Washington Post, Sunday, February 6, 2005; Page A01.

(12) The Environmentalists' Little Green Book, published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, © April 2000. (ISBN:0-615-11628-0)

(13) "Environmentalist Laments Introduction of Electricity," By Marc Morano,
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer, August 26, 2002 http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200208\CUL20020826b.html