Examining Evangelical Climate Change Activism

This post is an analysis of some climate change activism articles made by a couple of evangelical organizations. Seeing the rhetoric and persuasion that is used in worldly political sources also applied in proclaimed Christian media led me to write my observations and share them, for whomsoever it may cause to think for themselves free of the emotional manipulation and misapplication of scripture found in them. The Lord Jesus commanded His disciples to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Mat 10:16). In testing all things I have learned that the ungodly world powers are utilizing Christianity as a tool to enlarge their agendas to the maximum, including their plan to revolutionize the world under the guise of saving it from climate change.

While reading the quotes, keep this word in mind:

Rhetoric

1. Persuasive speech or writing (speech or writing that communicates its point persuasively).

2. Pretentious words (complex or elaborate language that only succeeds in sounding pretentious).

3. Empty talk (fine-sounding but insincere or empty language).

4. Skill with language (the ability to use language effectively, especially to persuade or influence people).

I also have highlighted throughout the post some important points and takeaways.

NAE Climate Activism Magazine

National Association of Evangelicals - Evangelicals magazine spring/summer 2022 vol. 8, No. 1 “When Recycling Isn’t Enough”

Source: https://www.nae.org/when-recycling-isnt-enough/

Creation Care as a Matter of Life (page 16) –Jessica Moerman

“Today we face some of the greatest environmental threats in human history. The Church’s inaction on these problems not only risks our public witness but also threatens the health and lives of those Scripture specifically calls us to love and serve (Matthew 22:39, 25:45).”

In examining the statements in this quote, it appears to assume that Christians hold the responsibility for the state of the whole earth’s environment.  

“The Church’s inaction on these problems...”  By ‘these problems’ she is referring to the greatest environmental threats in human history. By ‘inaction’ I assume she’s referring to a lack of political activism and engagement. “not only risks our public witness…” How does this risk our public witness? Does the power of the raw gospel weaken because Christians aren’t climate activists? “but also threatens the health and lives of those Scripture specifically calls us to love and serve.”  She is saying the church’s proclaimed inaction on the greatest environmental dangers is a threat to those whom they are called to love and serve. If we arrange the quote it might be easier to see, “…The Church’s inaction on these problems… threatens the health and lives of those Scripture specifically calls us to love and serve.” So here is the author’s sentiment: by Christians being inactive on these worldwide, government scale issues, they are neglecting to obey God’s command to love and serve people. Take from that what you will, but it’s an outright dishonest statement considering that God does not hold ordinary citizens accountable for what governments do or don’t do. God is the one who set them up in power, so they are accountable for how they use what God has given them.

While looking at this I noticed the rhetoric is similar to that used by news outlets and other platforms pushing the climate agenda. The large-scale, worldwide issues surrounding industry, environment and food systems are presented to the individual as a responsibility to internalize and even accept guilt for. In the case of this NAE magazine, it is laying the guilt specifically upon Christians and justifying it using the  Bible.  What’s interesting about this rhetoric is that it originates from the people who do have power over these areas of the world and are even responsible for many of the problems they report, yet they are the ones targeting ordinary individuals to delegate the issues of climate over to them. It’s likely they do this because they can’t implement their plans to drastically change society without society’s compliance and agreeance to those plans. (World Economic Forum Fourth Industrial Revolution—United Nations 2030 sustainability goals.) This is their way of getting people to agree to their initiatives, and when they do, they’ll participate willfully in bringing those initiatives to fruition. This will make it appear like a ground-up endeavor rather than one that’s top-down and forced. It manipulates people right at their heart to get them to willingly participate in bringing on their own enslavement (which is undoubtedly what the result of their plans would be), but all under the guise of virtuously saving the world, and according to the NAE “obeying God’s mandate for creation care.” None of that persuasion comes as a surprise from the world, but when it’s coming from an organization that claims to be all about the gospel and Jesus Christ, it’s all the more disturbing. 

“The tragedy of air pollution and climate change is that our most vulnerable neighbors are the ones most severely impacted — this includes children, elderly, pregnant women, the poor, people of color, people with chronic illness or disabilities, outdoor workers, and many more.”

Now this statement is relying purely on emotional persuasion. It is to say, ‘your urgency to take climate change into your own hands should be the more amplified seeing how it impacts these groups worse than others.’ The whole magazine makes abundant references to vulnerable groups; repetition is key. While there are certainly things we can do for those more vulnerable than ourselves when God calls us, it’s improper to act as if we’re their savior. (In other words, it’s not the responsibility of Christians to end all suffering and oppression in the world. That is God’s job.) And beside this, reacting emotionally to a problem in urgency usually does not lead to wise and godly decisions. But these are the tactics employed by this writer and many others to set you in array to be emotionally reactive, naïve, and ready to change your lifestyle to whatever they say is gonna save or better the world.

 

Biblical mandate for creation care, Israel page 19 –Sandra Richter

“Similar to Adam and Eve, Israel is offered a land grant (the land of Canaan) — a land grant which they too will lose if they fail to adhere to God’s covenant. And perhaps surprising to us, the law codes of ancient Israel speak directly to sustainable agriculture (Exodus 23:10–12), humane animal husbandry (Deuteronomy 5:14–15, 25:4), and care for the wild creature and its habitat (Deuteronomy 22:6–7). Even environmental terrorism in warfare is addressed and forbidden (Deuteronomy 20:19). Not a value system one would expect from the subsistence economy of an embattled Iron Age kingdom!”

To address the scripture mentioned in Deuteronomy 20:19, the author claims this verse is about forbidding “environmental terrorism.” The context of this verse is about when the nation of Israel would go to war against a city and besiege it (surround with an army), and build bulwarks (barricades/walls) around it. God commanded them to not cut down the trees that produced food, but only to cut down the trees which did not make food for the sake of producing the bulwarks. This was for their own sakes as they were besieging a city over a long time so they could eat of the trees’ fruits. It really has nothing to do with what the author wrote. 

Deuteronomy 20:19-20

“19 When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege: 

20 Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.”

 

“Israel was of course tempted to ignore these laws (in fact we have good evidence that they did ignore these laws), but the laws are recorded all the same. Why? To instruct us that in God’s government neither personal economic security, economic expansion, nor even national defense were viable excuses for the abuse of the land or the creatures who lived upon it. It was never okay to take from the land everything that a populace could. Rather, Israel was commanded to leave enough that the next generation might flourish as well. All of these Old Testament laws of land, trees and creature communicate the same idea and the same principle: the land and its creatures belong to God, not us. God cares for them, and he expects his people to do the same.”

Right here the author says what she thinks the purpose of the laws are, “…To instruct us that in God’s government neither personal economic security, economic expansion, nor even national defense were viable excuses for the abuse of the land or the creatures who lived upon it.”

Under no circumstances in general is the abuse of land or animals justified. However, the scriptures referenced about God’s laws do not emphasize personal economic security, economic expansion, or national defense in regard to ethical treatment of animals and the land. (I addressed the warfare scripture in Deuteronomy 20:19 and how it does not concern mistreatment of land.) Why the author chose these particular things to describe the instruction of God’s law seems to be for the purpose of comparing them to modern practices of government, large industries and businesses. Because in the original context of those scriptures nothing is directly mentioned that pertains to those three things. Now it may be implied, for instance, that someone might break the Sabbath day to make their animals work for economic expansion or security. But the overarching purpose for God giving the Sabbath day is not specifically stated as “forbidding the abuse of animals and land for economic expansion or security.” The Sabbath day certainly may do that to an extent, but the actual purpose He states for the Sabbath is that He Himself rested on the seventh day of creation from all His works, and therefore wants us to follow that pattern of rest. It wasn’t implemented just to prevent abuse of land/animals for economic gain. So it’s rather a stretch for the author to make that claim by singling out certain possible scenarios and saying those are the specific reasons God gave those laws. The point is, it’s a deliberate interpretation of scripture to make it applicable to a modern day political movement.

The way this section is written seems to highlight that Israel’s loss of the promised land would be contingent upon their obedience to the law codes of “sustainable agriculture.” Indeed the laws referenced do concern healthy treatment of the land, and disobeying them was an important reason for their loss of it. Several times in the prophetic books God speaks about the land resting and enjoying her Sabbaths after the Israelites were taken captives out of it. So while that was not the only reason for losing their land, it was an important one. But the manner in which the scripture is used by this author to parallel to the world’s current situation is dishonest.** While God’s laws are absolutely good and should be applied wherever possible, most of His laws regarding the land given to Israel is far from applicable to us today. Israel was in control of their own land and depended on their own resources and production for just about everything they had. And not only that but their whole government and economic system was different. We can see the world today is much different as a result of the Industrial Revolution and global markets etcetera, so that can’t be said for us and many countries.

What the author wrote is not merely just making the case that God cares about how people treat the earth, it’s also implying that we as Christians would not be in right standing with God or we would breach His covenant by not participating in this global climate change narrative; that just as God was displeased with the people of Israel for disobeying His laws, namely those regarding the environment, so will He be displeased with us if we do not comply to these sustainable development goals of the world government UN. While it’s not explicitly stated this way, we have to read in between the lines. And this is not mere speculation because an affiliate of the NAE, the WEA (World Evangelical Alliance) in their creation care website boldly proclaims its involvement with the United Nations and its climate agenda. The NAE who put out this magazine is associated and in agreement with the WEA. In fact I can show what some of those actions are that they’re promoting for the average Christian. (But probably not for themselves, if I may so say.) That will be in a different section.

**Here’s what I mean when I said that the way scripture is used by this author to parallel to the world’s current situation is dishonest: and I will let this be in light of the title of the magazine’s article, “biblical mandate for creation care,” and the introductory statement:  

The Biblical Mandate for Creation Care (page 19) - Sandra Richter

“What does the Scripture have to say about environmental stewardship? Is this a political issue or a moral issue? As Christians should we be concerned, or should we be investing our time in things more “eternal”? Do we have responsibilities toward this earth as citizens of the kingdom of Heaven? Or should we simply be setting our sights on the New Earth?”

            Note how this article is intended to address the circumstances and actions of Christians today. Apparently the idea is to find out what the Bible tells us about how to treat or manage the environment. She refers to this as the “biblical mandate for creation care” in the title, which, if this is referring to God’s laws for Israel when they were in the land, it can’t apply to us today the same way. So what that title is referring to I don’t know, because God has not given us specific instructions on how to deal with the environment in this drastically different time. But if anything it is rather obvious that the term “creation care” is a synonym for climate action or sustainable living.

            “…and he expects his people to do the same.” This is the particular part of that quote from earlier that leaves a lot to be desired. In what ways specifically is God expecting us to care for land and creatures today? Mind the fact that Christians of today don’t have much control over the land they dwell in compared with Israel and the land God gave them. They had their own government directly under God and His laws, but the powers of this present world reject Him. The answer to this is left out of this particular article, but the one preceding it does put forth some ideas for the reader:

When Recycling Isn’t Enough, What Should We Do? (page 17) Jessica Moerman

"Here are just a few ideas to consider… 1. Pray for wisdom: Pray for discernment when sorting through confusing messages about climate change… 2. Make lifestyle changes: Live more simply and use energy more efficiently. Consider buying organic, recycling responsibly, composting, switching to renewal energy sources and less polluting vehicles, and living with restraint. 3. Give generously: Contribute to evangelical creation care organizations… 4. Advocate for local energy efficiency: Encourage your church, school and other buildings to use renewable energy source… 5. Support policies that promote responsible care of God’s creation: Urge government leaders to decrease carbon footprints; reduce pollution; support energy efficiency standards, clean (or low pollution) transportation…"

        So let’s be honest. Is any of this really what God is expecting us to do? Here is the only thing written that I personally think anyone should do, (maybe other than buy organic and recycle…) “1. Pray for wisdom: Pray for discernment when sorting through confusing messages about climate change…”  This magazine itself is not the least of which. Praying for discernment will lead a person right out of this globalist environmentalism mind programming.  

Statements like this sound all warm and fuzzy at first, “Support policies that promote responsible care of God’s creation…” but it’s more or less a play on words to shape your perception of their ideas. Just because someone claims something is “caring for God’s creation” doesn’t actually mean it is. For instance, urging government leaders to decrease carbon footprints doesn’t truly qualify as caring for creation according to the Bible, but it WILL lead to disturbing surveillance policies that track how you travel and what you buy etc. in order to calculate your carbon footprint.  

The Takeaway:

More than anything content like this just serves as a bridge between Christianity and worldly political movements, namely the pillar element of the UN’s climate agenda. By painting it with a Christian brush they can persuade and manipulate us into playing our role as another piece on their chessboard. They want us to think that the people in government and these huge global organizations actually care about saving the world or helping the vulnerable, when in fact their not-so-secret plans are as evil as it gets. Through content like this magazine, they are relying on us to respond to some false conviction to support their operations with the idea that it’s God’s will.

WEA Living the Change - Climate Action Website

World Evangelical Alliance “Living the Change” webpage

Source: https://www.weacreationcare.org/living-the-change

 

“What can you personally do when Christian discipleship calls you to care for God’s gift of creation?”

            This page addresses the question of what exactly the WEA wants out of Christians. As we will see, their word choice of “caring for God’s gift of creation” is quite misleading given what typically may come to mind when we hear that. What they say we should do makes quite leaping assumptions about what caring for the creation means.

 

“What can you do when the driving forces behind ecological destruction and climate change are so big they feel completely beyond your control or ability to make any difference whatsoever?”

            If climate change is really as global and detrimental as they claim it is, there’s probably not much the average Joe can do to prevent this calamity from befalling the nations. And if indeed what they call climate change is this serious, could it be viewed as a judgement from God Himself against this world? Then what can we do, other than preach the gospel? Which we should be doing anyways. And if that’s not the case then at least this much is for certain: God is not relying on us to heavily influence the government to supposedly better this world. He will move the heart of kings how He wants them to go.

 

“While looking squarely in the face of overwhelming ecological problems, making personal faith-consistent lifestyle choices is something each one of us has the power to do in little ways, and sometimes in big ways. This is especially true if sustainable living choices are made in one of three high impact lifestyle areas–diet, transportation, and energy.”

            To this statement, “While looking squarely in the face of overwhelming ecological problems…” I do question if any of us are indeed looking squarely in the face of these problems. There’s a lot of information and opinions flying around on this topic and without discerning research into it, one is likely to fall short of a proper understanding of what’s truly going on. Supposedly we are to trust mainstream media and news outlets to give us all the facts about it, but they have openly given us many reasons to steer clear of their hypocritical, wavering and deceiving content. Especially in light of the fact that they are in connection with organizations and people who have wicked plans for this world, which are not even secret. So aside from the fact that most of us don’t even fully know what this climate speak is all about, let’s continue.

I sat on this phrase also, “making personal faith-consistent lifestyle choices…” and must ask, what is “faith consistent” supposed to mean? Is this a faith in anything you want or is it the faith of Jesus Christ? And why not say “bible consistent”? Because what really matters is whether or not we are following Jesus’ example and God’s word. But without defining what faith we’re even talking about, this could mean anything.

As for the categories they listed, diet, transportation and energy, these are the more significant areas of life being sought to change by the UN sustainability goals. As I mentioned way earlier, these people need us to willfully participate in changing our lives to fit along with their initiatives so to accomplish their goals for them. That’s precisely what this is all about on this website –the WEA creation care website. The only major difference is that it seeks to persuade and influence people to participate in this global reset via the scope of religion, and particularly here evangelical Christianity.

 

“ENERGY Transition

Reducing ENERGY use and transitioning to clean renewable energy sources can save up to 1.6 tonnes of CO per year per person."

            Some thinking questions: How much energy reduction is this talking about and in what ways? What does this look like for an individual? And notice it says “can save up to 1.6 tonnes of CO…” this doesn’t mean it will.

"Eco-Friendly TRANSPORT

A car-free lifestyle can save up to 2.4 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year, while each roundtrip transatlantic flight avoided saves an additional 1.6 tonnes.

Plant-Based DIET

Eating a plant-based diet saves 0.8 tonnes of CO emissions per year. This represents 4 times more greenhouse gas emissions per year than recycling. It is an ethical approach to eating with an added bonus of improving health and wellbeing.”

            So going back to what I said earlier, What they say we should do makes quite leaping assumptions about what “caring for the creation” means, I said this because what’s described in the quote above does not equate to what we may think responsible living looks like. Someone might think of recycling plastic or avoiding littering, but living a car-free lifestyle? Many people’s lives and families depend directly on their vehicles. While it can’t be denied that there are some negative effects from vehicles and planes like pollution, removing these things from the operation of life today is not exactly in the power of the average person, no less a Christian.

Regarding a plant-based diet, and assuming this means greatly reduced meat/dairy intake or removed entirely, this also is not realistic or ideal for most people alive. There are various reasons for this but to name a few: nutrition needs, possible sensitivities or allergies to various plants/fruits, and culture. But what’s even more problematic than this point is the next: “It is an ethical approach to eating with an added bonus of improving health and wellbeing.”  God’s word does not condemn the eating of meat or dairy, so to say it’s ethical to remove them is not correct. And secondly they add that this plant-based diet improves health and wellbeing. Maybe it could accomplish that for a few, but certainly not all. Especially not if we're talking about highly processed, 3D printed or lab grown plant stuff...

And furthermore they propose that this, along with the other two categories would save a considerable amount of carbon emissions every year. So we are just supposed to assume that by participating in slightly reducing carbon emissions every year we are going to accomplish our duty of caring for God’s creation? Is this what they believe Christian discipleship is calling us to do, manage the earth’s atmosphere? And for that matter is this found anywhere in God’s word?

Regarding the issues that are caused by the energy and transportation industries along with our food systems, these are the responsibility of their leadership, not the average person.

To vaguely impose the idea that reducing energy usage, eating less meat and removing vehicles out of one’s life would be worth the insignificant change it might make is quite ridiculous. For society to operate differently enough to make a huge change would require a complete revolution of the world by governments and businesses. And that’s exactly what they’re working towards. But as I mentioned earlier, the point of this persuasion of the individual serves to influence one’s perspective and convictions to line up with their plans, not help the person conform to God’s word and commandments. They merely appeal to the Christian faith as a front to get you on board with them by making their ideas fit into your worldview.

Anyone can research how nefarious and deep the UN 2030 agenda plans actually are, they just rely on people being too ignorant or careless to understand what the end goal of their campaigning really is. It ultimately has nothing to do with honoring and caring for God’s creation. But it has everything to do with implementing the technologies and systems necessary for total control in the new world order. That is, preparing this world for the beast--the false messiah to come who will dominate this world. The powers that be in this world couldn’t care less about being good stewards of the earth, but they want us to think that they do.

 

Be discerning my friends! Peace be with you.