This article was originally published on RelevantMagazine.com.
In 1969, a Democratic Senator from Wisconsin had a novel idea that would change the world. In response to the Santa Barbara oil spill, Gaylord Nelson proposed a holiday for the environment. Environmental concerns existed at the street level in that time, but they had never formally made it to Washington. If the grassroots energy surrounding these issues could be harnessed, Senator Nelson believed they might get a hearing. On April 22, 1970, 20 million Americans celebrated Earth Day for the first time.
“It was a gamble,” Nelson later reflected. “But it worked.”
Up until then, gas stations were selling leaded gas, air purity was largely unregulated and agricultural pesticides were sprayed with little oversight. In the 1960s, a factory could dump toxic sludge into a river and there was almost nothing anyone could do to stop them.
Earth Day was a sign that everything was about to change. The next decade became known as the “Environmental Decade.” Republicans and Democrats banded together to create the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Congress passed the most sweeping laws since Roosevelt’s New Deal. Among new legislation were the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Environmentalism was not as divisive as it is today, so these laws gained bipartisan support. Conservation was as conservative as it was liberal, which is to say, it was American. But, bipartisanship would not last.
As political tides changed, corporations became king and environmentalism lost its stylishness in the public consciousness. Popular support waned, and political parties began using the environment as a weapon to beat each other up. Clean air and water became greater problems, and land was clear-cut to make way for cookie-cutter neighborhoods.
Throughout the years of change, however, one thing remained constant: people have always observed Earth Day. The eco-holiday’s popularity grew despite the challenges. In 1990, Earth Day hit the world stage as 141 countries joined in and promoted recycling. In 2000, 1.8 million gathered in Central Park’s Great Lawn to commemorate and 184 countries took part.
Forty years later, April 22 continues to unite those who believe in caring for our world and the people who depend on it. Approximately 200 countries and around 1 billion students, activists, soccer moms and working folks will celebrate this year.
With some exceptions, the American Christian community will be mostly absent from celebrations. Many Christians are skeptical of any environmental problems—a trend best viewed through the lens of history.
In response to the Cultural Revolution of the ‘60s and ‘70s, religious Americans also began choosing sides. The Right claimed God, the Left claimed green and many Christians found themselves estranged from the environmental movement. Many people of faith ceded the moral high ground in exclusive pursuit of other issues. Soon, environmental policy fell on the courts and was inherited by politicians, leaving its grassroots behind and conservative Christians on the margins. Just as theologically conservative Christians mostly sat out of the civil rights revolution, we also sat out the environmental revolution.
“Environmentalist” is still a dirty word among some Christians. Like “Trekkie,” the word may be used in private, but you don’t want it on a personalized license plate. For some, the label is synonymous with secularism, Gaia worship, New Ageism and politically liberal special interest groups. Although some Christ-followers find it increasingly difficult to ignore the environmental impact of their lifestyles and are beginning to feel a holy stirring as they wake up to crazy weather patterns, smoggy skylines and disappearing forests, others are uncomfortable with “environmentalists” and even less comfortable with their “agenda.”
The problem is that Christians can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines. Millions die annually from preventable, water-related diseases. Most are children. Extinction rates continue to exceed natural rates by more than 100 times. Our energy consumption funds mountaintop removal coal mining while our oil addiction fouls the air and laces the pockets of oppressive dictatorships.
Our faith provides an inspiring narrative to face these crises—we serve the One who created everything, called it “good” and asked humans to care for and protect it—but most Christians haven’t tapped into the story line.
What’s the solution?
I believe we must depolarize and depoliticize environmentalism. Caring for creation should not be framed in a right-left dichotomy. Stewardship isn’t primarily a political, social or economic issue; it is a moral issue the people of God have been called to address. If we desire to remain true to God’s Word, Christians must redeem the cause and make it our own. We need to rediscover the scriptural basis for creation care, engage our planet’s daunting problems and propose solutions most Christians are comfortable with. To abandon these issues to secular environmentalists shirks our God-given responsibility to care for His planet.
Addressing an Earth Day crowd in 1990, Nelson said, “I don’t want to have to come limping back here 20 years from now on the 40th anniversary of Earth Day ... and have the embarrassing responsibility of telling your sons and daughters that you didn’t do your duty—that you didn’t become the conservation generation that we hoped for.” Nelson passed away in 2005, but in 2010 the Christian movement can begin to do our duty—not to Nelson, not even to America, but to the Creator-God.
Do you think Christians should observe Earth Day?

Order your copy of my new book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan for Our Planet
Steve Walker said:
See Wall Street Journal editorials today, page A21 by Emory professor Paul Rubin and A23 by Richard Lindzen. Rubin is especially good on environmentalism as a religion and the shrines and rituals accompanying it.
Posted: April 22, 2010
Roy Fletcher said:
Somewhere around the first Earth Day in 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt predicted: "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."
First it was global cooling then it was global warming. Which is it? They can't both be happening at the same time and obviously they’re not. The high yesterday was in the 80s. Not the 60’s as Kenneth Watt predicted. And it’s doubtful that we’ll have April highs in the 100s as the global warming predictors would have us believe.
Besides the religious like zealousness that Steve Walker pointed out in the previous post, many find that the environmental movement is offensive because it is in constant crisis mode. Nearly everything that mankind does to improve productivity or comfort is met with cries that we are irreversibly destroying the environment. Time inevitably proves this to be wrong, which leaves level-headed people wondering what the real motive is behind the movement.
Skeptics conclude that rather than a desire to actually protect the environment, the environmental movement is being used as a ruse to cover a more sinister plan. Maybe it is being used as an effort to grab governmental power and control fortunes. Look at Al Gore and George Soros and tell the skeptic that he’s wrong.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemies. Every time someone makes an outlandish claim in the defense of the environment there is a period where millions and tens of millions are spent trying to mitigate the supposed problem. Then when it is uncovered, as was the case this past year, that phony science or some other motive was behind the claim, skeptics are further entrenched in their disbelief of all causes championed by the environmentalists.
If there is truly a desire to find some common ground and advance the cause of environmental protection, start by discouraging created crises like global warming and global cooling. Discourage the Al Gores of the world who fly on private jets to speak to conferences (full of people who also flew there on private jets) about the evils of the rest of us average people over-carbonizing the environment.
Discouraging the hysteria and profiteering would go along way in convincing the skeptics that the environmental movement has a genuine interest in the betterment of mankind.
Posted: April 24, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
Roy,
The article you're commenting on has nothing to do with climate change and didn't pull any quotes, material, or inspiration from more extreme voices like Al Gore. I wrote it to be substantive, reasonable and faith-based. If you've got some comments on the piece I actually wrote, feel free to post those.
Jm
Posted: April 24, 2010
Roy Fletcher said:
Maybe you didn't read past the first couple of paragraphs...
Isn't your commentary about the problem that you see in Christians not being involved in caring for the environment? My post told you exactly, in my opinion, why. Stated succinctly; the extremism that goes along with environmentalism is a turn off for many conservative people including Christians.
No you didn't quote extremists like Al Gore. But what you're not realizing is that, in the minds of most conservatives, extremism is inseparable from environmentalism. Call it creation care or any other name - it doesn't matter. Practically, there are no moderate environmentalists. It's all or nothing and that's just not a practical way to live.
There's an old saying - you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I'm agreeing with you that there is a problem. But as long as extremists continue to grab all the attention, conservatives and Christians will continue to be repelled. Reasonable and faith-based arguments will be lost in all the noise.
Start a non-extremist movement and maybe you'll make some progress.
RF
Posted: April 24, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
Roy,
Climate change does not equal environmentalism.
Also, I think honey rather than vinegar is a good mantra to live by. I commend it to you.
Jm
Posted: April 24, 2010
Roy Fletcher said:
"I believe we must depolarize and depoliticize environmentalism."
I commend this (and the honey) to you.
Posted: April 24, 2010
Bill Beahan said:
On "Earth" Day I always do 2 things:
I remember Holly Maddux who was murdered by Ira Einhorn the real founder of "Earth" Day - not Gaylord Nelson.
I also remember that the founders of "Earth" Day chose April 22 because it was the birthday of one of their heroes - Vladimer Ilych Lenin.
Posted: April 25, 2010
Mike said:
People have rightly contrasted Arbor Day and Earth Day. The former requires no rigid political ideology, involves making a real impact to the environment, and there's no depressing doom and gloom.
If you don't believe in man-made global warming or believe that a responsible energy policy involves drilling for oil, you pretty much aren't welcome with the Earth Day crowd.
Jonathan, you continue to try to dovetail your admirable concern/activism for the poor and impoverished ("millions die annually from preventable, water-related diseases") with modern-day environmentalism. This may be good PR to attract sympathetic Christians, but I'm sorry: we can think that 80% of environmental politics is absolutely misguided and still care about the poor -and be a conservationist.
I'm pretty confident that Earth Day celebrations had almost NOTHING to do with water-related diseases. If I'm wrong, direct me to the data that shows what kind of real impact "Earth Day" made in providing water to anyone because I can tell you that I never heard about it until your post.
Posted: May 1, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
Mike,
I never said that Earth Day was about water-related diseases. Although any historian will tell you that Earth contributed to the passing of the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 and the passing and renewal of the Clean Water Act (1977 and 1987). So, I guess the two are very much connected.
If by "dovetail" you mean recognizing that environmental problems are almost always humanitarian problems that disproportionately affect the global poor, then yes, I agree with you. I could recommend any number of books that would empirically and historically support this. For a non-environmentalist's view, I might recommend Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. It deftly connects environmental degradation to governmental instability, poverty, disease, and war.
Finally, you point out something that I absolutely agree with. If you don't believe in man-made global warming or specific environmental policies you are often excluded from the "Earth Day crowd." I see this a lot and I think it is a shame. That's one reason that I only dealt with climate change in an appendix in Green Like God. I don't think any one issue should become a litmus test for whether or not one can sit at the stewardship table. That's why in my book, I say that Christians need to break the left-right dichotomoization of this issue by redeeming it and creating expressions that would be broadly acceptable to those who follow Jesus.
Best,
Jm
Posted: May 1, 2010
Ed Darrell said:
Somewhere around the first Earth Day in 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt predicted: "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."
I'll wager you can't give us a citation on that speech, especially to the point of telling us what he meant when he said "if present trends continue." You shouldn't quote people saying things you think they said, when they didn't. Or when you don't know.
In 1970, particulate pollution from coal-fired power plants and other particulate and light-scattering pollution threatened to cool the planet. Many scientists understood at the time that particulates and greenhouse gases tended to set each other off, but no rational person called for a continuation of air pollution in order to control climate. Air pollution is deadly and damaging.
So, after amendments to the Clean Air Act in the early 1970s, prompted by concern from Earth Day and a rising understanding that poisoning our environment is a bad idea, particulate pollution declined, leaving the air to greenhouse gases.
If Watt made that prediction in 1970, he was probably right. Things have changed.
Typical of science denialism, you don't allow for intervening changes since 1970, Mr. Fletcher. Christians are not called on to stick stubbornly to ideas of the past, especially when the facts change. Don't go all Pharisee on us and claim we must let the ox die because it fell into the well on Sunday.
Ignorance, it appears, has no season, but is always with us.
If you really think it's a good idea to dump garbage in the air, make the case. You'll have to leave scripture behind, I think, but please make the case and don't try to hide your intentions behind a 40-year-old misquote.
Posted: May 12, 2010