Christianity and the environmentBeing religious does not make you greener

ARE religious leaders convincing their followers to care more about the fate of the earth? Catholic, mainstream Protestant and Orthodox Christian shepherds are trying hard to interest believers in environmental questions. But a new study suggests that among Christians in America, concern about the environment is somewhere between static and declining.

David Konisky, an associate professor at the University of Indiana, wanted to find out if there has been a “greening of Christianity” over time. As he notes in his article in the Journal of Environmental Politics, there have been many snapshot studies of religious and ecological sentiment. But little effort has gone into examining long-term trends.

Mr Konisky set out to fill that gap by micro-analysing the annual surveys of public attitudes undertaken by Gallup, a pollster, since 1999. He devised a set of eight markers by which sensitivity to the planet’s fate might be measured: whether people prioritised economic development or conservation, how they felt about pollution, whether they considered climate change a threat, and so on. He came to a sobering conclusion:

Analysis of multiple measures of environmental attitudes reveals little evidence that Christians have expressed more environmental concern over time. In fact, across many measures, Christians tend to show less concern about the environment. This pattern generally holds across Catholic, Protestant and other Christian denominations and does not vary depending on levels of religiosity. These findings lead to a conclusion that there is little evidence of a “greening” of Christianity among the American public.

As the article acknowledges, environmental discourse among religious leaders has shifted over the past half-century. In 1967, the American historian Lynn White gained much attention when he argued that the Judeo-Christian tradition was directly responsible for the planet’s depradation because it assigned man “dominion” over the earth. This triggered a powerful countervailing trend among religious leaders. They argued that belief in God implied a duty to care for the natural world and all forms of life. A high point in this process was the publication in 2015 of the Pope’s “green” encyclical, Laudato Si. The missive combined high theology with an appeal for practical measures, such as the abandonment of fossil fuels.

Mr Konisky’s findings do not necessarily imply that Americans in the pews have simply ignored these high-level pronouncements. Rather, they suggest that religion in America is as deeply divided as other parts of society: not so much between denominations as between liberals and conservatives. It seems that the more liberal-minded Christians talk about the environment, the more suspicious the conservative camp becomes.

It would be too pessimistic to say that elite religious discourse makes no difference at all. American Christians who do feel strongly about the environment now have a powerful set of theological tools at their disposal. These range from the Hebrew principle of tikkun olam (repair of the world) to the apostle Paul’s lament that the earth, like humanity, is groaning and needs to be redeemed. Those who feel the opposite can find plenty of evangelical preachers who reaffirm their belief that environmental concern is a form of paganism or a ploy by big government.

Pope Francis, for his part, seems undaunted in his commitment to the cause. He links the dangers facing the planet to human woes ranging from people-trafficking to the destruction of vulnerable communities and cultures. On January 19th he made a remarkable speech, addressed mainly to indigenous people, in the Peruvian town of Puerto Maldonado. The town has become a centre of wildcat gold-mining, an activity that destroys the forest and exacerbates many social ills. The pope denounced not only the “powerful business interests” that press for relentless extraction of resources. He also criticised policies aimed at conservation which took no account of the interests of indigenous people. 

Plenty of people will disagree. This includes miners who are scrabbling to make a living and would probably contest the idea that only “powerful interests” are behind the gold rush. But in Peru, in America and in many other places a passionate debate about the future of the earth is under way. Religious people are having their say on both sides of that debate. That is probably the most that faith-minded defenders of the planet can claim.