The cause de jour for mainstream Evangelical Christians-- expressed through the persona and agenda of Rick Warren-- is saving the environment by finding new ways to express their biblical mandate for "creation stewardship."
From where does this newfound viligance spring? Not the bible; it's been around for 2,000 years and mainstream Evangelicals are just now on the Green bandwagon. Not from any new scientific evidence; the alarmists have been consistently pandering fear for over two generations while the church watched with insouciance from the sidelines. Not from worsening environmental conditions; forests are repopulated, endangered species are protected, natural resources- despite repetitive claims to the contrary- are not running out, and technology- not a government mandate- is offering new ways to use less fossil fuels to produce greater supplies of energy. In other words, the holy literature, the scientific literature, and the landscape don't provide an explanation for the greening of the Evangelical church; allow me to offer one.
Over the past two decades, the mainstream Evangelical church (hereafter referred to as the Church) has come into its own politically; it is a powerhouse lobby for whatever cause or whatever politician it champions. The Church used to be defined by the agenda of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and a few others. This meant supporting Reagan, SDI, tax cuts, restrictions on abortion, etc.
What's changed in more recent years is the splintering of the "Church" into many smaller sects as some Evangelical Christians refused to be defined by the label of the "Christian Right" and pursued ends not traditionally associated with the traditional political agenda of the Right: social justice at home and abroad; forgiving third world debt; increasing foreign aid; advocating for international human rights; fighting religious persecution of anybody, anywhere.
This was accompanied by the ongoing self-discrediting of Falwell and Robertson, whose increasingly bizarre public comments alienated many of their footsoldiers and pushed them not to the Democratic party or a more liberal Christian denomination, but simply away from the "Christian Right" brand.
The end result was a diluting and broadening of the "Christian" agenda. It was no longer sufficient to lump all mainstream evangelical Christians into the same category as Jerry and Pat, for they no longer spoke for many of the most vocal evangelical Christian operatives in the political realm. With room to breath, Christians started pursuing other ends. One of those was addressing the humanitarian crisis of AIDS in Africa. Another, which I've already mentioned, was forgiving foreign debts from heavily indebted countries that could realistically not pay back their debts.
Another new feature of the post-Falwell era of dominance was a willingness to work with international institutions. Thanks in part to the efforts of President Bush to address HIV/AIDS, malaria, and TB in Africa through many different avenues, Evangelical Christians felt comfortable setting and working towards traditionally non-Republican policy goals.
In rough order, the evangelical Christian political "priorities" of the last twenty years have been, roughly-- and with the admission of obvious and sweeping generalizations-- stemming abortions at home, confirming conservative judges, elimination of all funding for abortions abroad, confirming more conservative judges, supporting the Boy scouts, fighting the domestic gay lobby on every front, protecting the Pledge of Allegiance, attempting to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing the burning of the American flag, promoting a culture of life while supporting the death penalty, cutting taxes, reducing the size of government, liberating the church from the instrusive reach of the state in terms of freedom of speech and assembly issues, electing Republicans on the local and national level, and opposing the UN generally and paying UN dues specifically.
These priorities still exist, but they do not encompass the entire agenda. The agenda also includes the newer items I mentioned earlier. The redefinition of the "Christian Right" has been good for the Republican Party, good for the Church, and good for the world. Christians now speak into more debates, more often, with a more credible voice. The Church should be on the forefront of fighting HIV/AIDS everywhere, but it should never acquiesce its principles by directly supporting ventures that support condoms over abstinence, prostitution, needle sharing, forced abortions, or euthanasia.
The climate change issue is different, however, in my opinion, in one central way: Christians do not share the end goals of the lar Left environmental lobby the way they often do in the HIV/AIDS/disease arena. Where in the HIV/AIDS fight Christians may have to partner with organizations whose methods they find detestable (abortions, needle sharing, condom obsession, prostitution), Christians largely share the end goals of those organizations: the termination of the spread of HIV/AIDS. Christians can detest the methods but agree on the end goal; the same cannot be said of the climate change debate.
Too many on the far left view the physical creation as more precious than man. Too many on the far left seek to deprive man of his right to "subdue" the earth and make it his. Too many on the far left engage in environmental terrorism to meet their goals and achieve their ends. Lowering carbon emissions is one thing (if it matters at all, the science isn't conclusive either way); returning man to a primitive state so that "mother nature" can thrive is an unbiblical, impossible, hopelessly idealistic, unthoughtful goal. God gave man dominion over the earth and all that is on earth. Man is not simply a partner, along with the ecosystem and the animal kingdoms, that must share the earth. God gave man a mind with which to develop the earth and his surroundings, for the betterment of mankind, the glorification of God, and the faithful stewardship of His creation. The far Left does not agree with this; evangelical Christians must disagree then with the far Left.
It is commendable to advocate more responsible ways of caring for God's creation. It is not commendable to jump on the environmental bandwagon and do press conferences with liberal politicans who are in bed with environmental extremist groups whose ends mainstream, responsible evangelical christians cannot share.