Wilderness Issues Lecture Series
Caring for God’s Creation is a Christian Duty, Pastor Says
By Kyle Lehman, 4-02-08
Boise-based Pastor Tri Robinson is the author of Saving God's Green Earth
Christianity has a responsibility to protect the environment and be stewards of God’s creation, said Boise-based Pastor Tri Robinson Tuesday night at the University of Montana in Missoula.
“People have to awaken to the idea that (environmental degradation) is not right and it’s not acceptable,” he said.
Speaking as part of the University’s Wilderness Issues Lecture Series, Robinson, the author of Saving God’s Green Earth and pastor of Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Boise said his decision to speak out on the importance of the environment was the result of years of deliberation.
It started when a woman confronted him about the amount of waste produced at a wedding held at his church, and the scolding he received led to an acknowledgment of his own latent concern for the natural environment.
“God has a way of working on people at different times,” he said. “I realized he was trying to get my attention on this issue.”
As time passed, Robinson found the environment’s biblical significance increase in clarity. In his studies of early Christians like Martin Luther and St. Patrick, Robinson discovered a reverence for the natural world that was all but lost in modern Evangelical Christianity, whose followers often saw environment as a “dirty word” because of its connection to liberal politics. Robinson said that the prospect of delivering a message of environmental responsibility in the face of such opposition was daunting.
“I’m thinking if I preach this message I’m going to get tarred and feathered...it’s hard for someone outside of evangelicalism to understand what I went through,” he said.
It took Robinson half a year to prepare his first sermon calling for environmental stewardship, and he made sure to base his plea entirely in the scripture so that it would resonate with his parishioners. In Genesis, Robinson saw proof of God’s care for creation in his protection of every animal on Noah’s Ark.
“He started the first endangered species act if you think about it,” Robinson said.
After delivering his first sermon, Robinson saw his congregation rise and give him his first standing ovation in 25 years as a preacher.
“I realized there were Christians sitting there waiting for their leadership to say it’s OK to care for creation,” he said.
Before long the church was printing handouts on recycled paper, distributing cloth shopping bags to its members, and working with the Forest Service on trail maintenance in the Idaho backcountry. The new environmental focus created a cell phone-recycling program that helped fund the church’s relief efforts in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina.
Robinson sees catastrophes such as Katrina as evidence of man’s environmental transgressions and self-centered focus, which he calls sins. Robinson said that the inherent interconnectedness of nature and humanitarian issues such as world hunger and disease means that social justice-minded Christians must focus their energy on improving the health of the earth in order to follow the word of God.
“The environment is killing people all over this world,” Robinson said. “This has got to be grieving the heart of God.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
I mean, christ, the nerve!
He did not say that non-Christians couldn't be true environmentalists. He said that the values of environmentalists differed according to their particular dogma.
The truth is, it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you protect our surroundings.
I think many people (particularly those who don't share his religious ideals) allowed his position as a polarizing religious character to overshadow his desire to do good things for the earth.
Over the past few weeks I've come to think media was the best way to get through to America, but this lecture offered a stark realization: religion is perhaps the most key ingredient to changing the minds of the mass public. With 90% of America believing in the Bible, it's easy to see that religion has a vital role in all of our actions and thoughts.
And there was no booing, but there were definitely a few disgruntled folks.
"I was there and I think he was definitely misconstrued in the end. He was asked if non-Christians can uphold the same value systems as Christians regarding environmentalism. Tri answered plainly "no" because he contends that his approach environmentalism is rooted in basic principles of Christianity."
Asking whether or not non-christians have the same value system as Christians is a non-question with an obvious answer, and not at all what I would have understood the questioners intent to be.
"The truth is, it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you protect our surroundings."
Hey, I'm with you there!
"Over the past few weeks I've come to think media was the best way to get through to America, but this lecture offered a stark realization: religion is perhaps the most key ingredient to changing the minds of the mass public. With 90% of America believing in the Bible, it's easy to see that religion has a vital role in all of our actions and thoughts."
The same mindset that got us in to this mess (blind obedience via dogma, the wholesale rejection of science, etc.) is NOT going to be the solution to our ills. We, as a society, need to evolve beyond basing our actions on a faith-centered, unprovable belief in a nanny-god to keep us in check. Keep in mind, these are the same religions who have been at the forefront of climate change denial, and have now only joined in on our little party now that the truth is undeniable. They are, no doubt, using the issue much as they do any other - As a recruiting tool to keep the 10% tithe subscriptions coming in.
Then again, in the short term, if fear of eternal damnation is what it takes to get folks off their asses, so be it.
"And there was no booing, but there were definitely a few disgruntled folks."
I've spoken with a few folks in attendance, and they only seem to disagree on the amount of booing that took place. Like I said though, that's far from my main concern here...
We've been religious since time began, so asking humanity to "evolve" past it might be asking a bit much. I'm just glad that Pastors like Tri are finally interpreting the Bible with a different take on environmentalism. I'm going to leave their faith and "why" they do what they do up to them.... as long as they leave the world greener than they found it, I'll be happy.
Like I said, I can't argue with logic like that. Something is always better than nothing.
I'm curious about his expressed belief that "catastrophes such as Katrina as evidence of man’s environmental transgressions and self-centered focus, which he calls sins." As in, God sent a hurricane? Or we've transgressed by building too close to the water? Either way, there's a lot more to explain.
Then we can get into the question of how a "connection to liberal politics" became a "dirty word" in some Christian circles. Granted, Jesus was more radical than liberal, but still; the Pharisees were the conservatives back then.
Human caused global warming is a serious issue. Those who take the issue seriously understand that the little time humanity has left should not be squandered by lending credibility or the spotlight to such a divisive individual. Tri Robinson offered no meaningful solutions to the issue of human caused global warming, either in his "lecture" or the book he was promoting, "Saving God's Green Earth".
As someone who would unquestionably profit from the crisis he is drawing attention to, (church attendance historically spikes in times of crisis) Tri Robinson made the unfounded and manipulative statement numerous times (as seen at the end of this Newwest article) that, "the environment is killing people". This seemingly innocuous statement was one that I questioned Tri about after the Q&A;as I was not called on in the public context. The Environment is not in fact killing people, rather it is the aggregated destruction and pollution by humans/corporations that is responsible for the ill health of the land and its inhabitants. When I brought this distinction to the attention of Robinson he refused to acknowledge that any distinction was necessary, thus down playing the important role precision of thought and it's articulation make in public discourse.
By failing to implicate corporations and governments Tri stymies any real progress among those who are content with a feel good no substance form of environmentalism and perpetuates the very problem that will lead individuals lacking critical thinking skills right to his church door and bottom line.
The assertion that Robinson's "value" is that he lacks a divisive nature is a claim that proven false through critical analysis of the sermon he gave 4-1-08 at the University of Montana or a simple visit to the Vineyard Boise website.
*readers can listen to Tri Robinson's talk at the University here:
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=multimedia&MCID=7
By believing that if we all work together to address global warming whether we believe it is anthropogenic or not, makes no sense, as quite clearly the approaches to solving a problem if it is human caused versus, for instance, caused by solar variability or an act of God, will be quite different. One person might take preventative steps, while the other might deal solely with managing the aftermath, thus diverting funding, political will, and popular support for averting disaster. There would be differences as well in how the aftermath is managed by someone who believed the disaster was caused by God versus someone who believed it was caused by humans. All of these distinctions must be made.
If Tri is unable to clearly emphasize that environmental destruction and global warming are anthropogenic, then there is little hope that, as a spokesperson, he will mobilize anyone in a beneficial way. If people understand that the causes of global warming and environmental destruction are deeply entrenched in our lives, that paradoxically in order to live, we currently depend on systems that ultimately may destroy us, we might be able to make some real changes. Otherwise, we are just fooling ourselves, even if it feels good.
While Greenpeace might have trouble convincing conservative Christians that we need to take immediate action to stop human caused environmental destruction, the leader of an Evangelical church, as you recognize, could deliver the message. But even if that leader says that we are going to face some major problems from global warming, if he ignores the cause and dilutes the solution beyond recognition while publicly alienating people outside his religious community, as Tri has done, he effectively transforms the movement for change into something completely different. By analogy, just because a corporation says it carries green products doesn't mean it's not greatly harming the environment. Putting a green stamp on something that is not green damages people's understanding of what is green, and what needs to happen to improve the situation. Such misrepresentation also allows counterproductive actions or inactions to continue under the pretense of unity. Raising awareness is a false approach if the awareness being raised is misinformed or misdirected.
For real positive change to happen, leaders respected in the Evangelical community WILL have to be willing to take a real risk and speak strongly about the issues. Putting recycling bins in a church, cutting trails, talking about the sex trade or helping out after a hurricane ravages a city, while perhaps mildly beneficial, are not a real contribution to the environmental movement. But then turning around and saying that Tri or his contributions are VITAL for the movement suggests that people like Tri, whose message is far more a promotion of Christianity and his church than it is a call for environmental change, have already succeeded in distorting what needs to happen. It also places real environmental scientists in a weakened position, as it suggests they are dependent on leaders with distorted or uninformed views to make progress. What IS vital, and admittedly challenging, is finding a way to speak with people from differing viewpoints in a way that does not alienate them, yet does not dilute, misdirect, or distort the message.