Evangelicals and the Environment: Some Thoughts After Visiting Glacier National Park in Montana

This is an article that was inspired by visiting Glacier National Park in Montana recently. Amidst the majesty of the crown jewel of the National Park Service a thought popped in my head. Why don’t evangelicals care about the environment? Why do many reject climate change? Is it due to anti-intellectualism or a desire to bring about global warming to usher in the end-times? Where do evangelicals stand on this topic as compared to more mainstream Protestants and Catholics? 

“World peace is threatened not only by the arms race, regional conflicts, and continued injustices among peoples and nations, but also by a lack of due respect for nature.”

Pope John Paul II 

“Here is the place where clouds are made…a fairy land, where dreams of fantastic things come true, and where interest and wonder never cease.” 

Dr. Morton J Elrod Glacier National Park Biologist in 1911 

The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.
    The world and all its people belong to him.
For he laid the earth’s foundation on the seas
    and built it on the ocean depths.

Psalm 24:1-2 NLT

Pictures of Glacier, entrance and Logan’s Pass after climbing the “Going to the Sun Highway.” 

This is a post that I have wanted to do for the past couple of months. This came about in my mind after visiting Glacier National Park in northwestern Montana with my family in August of 2017. My family has deep roots in Montana especially with my great-uncle being Montana’s governor from 1948 until 1952. When I was in Montana I learned from relatives that he influenced the construction of the roads to the park. The last time I had been to Glacier National Park I was quite young. When I was there I remember a lot more to the glaciers than what exist today. There was a time when I was skeptical to the idea of global warming. I once thought it unsubstantiated, however in time I slowly came around to accept the idea. It made sense and as someone committed to science it became important as well. For me the strongest indicator of global warming was what I saw in Glacier National Park. I couldn’t believe how much some of the glaciers have melted. While Glacier is majestic and beautiful I could not believe how much of the glaciers were gone. Personally for me it was a deep shock and re-enforced my concerns about global warming being a serious issue. 

Great Northern Railroad advertisement for Glacier National Park 

History of Glacier National Park 

Glacier has long been important to Native Americans. To the east of the park the Blackfeet Confederacy lived. The Blackfeet had a presence in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Montana. To the west of the park lived the Flathead Indian Tribe, or technically the  Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation. When Lewis and Clark undertook their historic expedition they came within 50 miles of Glacier. George Bird Grinnel who viewed the park in a hunting trip in 1885 became convinced that the park should be preserved for its sheer majesty. He referred to Glacier as being “the crown of the continent” which is how this famed national park is known today. In the late 19th century James J Hill was building his railroad to the Pacific Northwest. What drove Hill was his desire to connect a railroad that could enable trade with Asia. The question that James had was how to cross the mountain range to get to the Pacific Northwest?  It had stumped people who wanted to build a railroad since 1853. By 1889 Hill had driven his railroad into western Montana. In trying to find a direct route to the Pacific Northwest an engineer named John F Stevens met with Hill in Montana’s capitol Helena in 1889. A direct route could shave 100 miles off the construction of the railroad and have saved quite a bit of money. Here is how the Great Northern railroad described John F Stevens discovering Marias Pass

“His [John Stevens] small party consisting of a mule team, a driver and a saddle horse proceeded for a distance when members refused to continue. Colonel Stevens induced a Flathead Indian to accompany him from that point.  They fashioned snowshoes from frames and cowhide for easier movement through the deep snow. Shortly after, the Indian dropped out and made camp, a few miles from the true summit.
Colonel Stevens later reported he finally walked directly into what now is known as Marias Pass after a few futile attempts. In order to determine if the pass was the lowest passage between the mountains and the top of the Divide, he continued West until he discovered a creek draining West into the Pacific watershed.

   Quoting from a letter Colonel Stevens wrote years later:

“The short days of winter made a rapid move necessary, and after a terrifically hard and exhausting struggle, I managed to get back to the summit where I remained all night…It was almost impossible to build and keep a fire going, so I tramped a track about 100 yards in length and walked it back and forth until enough daylight broke to make it safe for travel.”  

Constant motion prevented him from sleeping and freezing to death. One advantage of the extreme cold on the summit, Colonel Stevens said, was “that the mosquitoes didn’t bother me”

Upon returning to the sleeping Indian, he found him half frozen. They made it back to their party and learned the temperature there was 40 degrees below zero [actually the thermometer reading was -36º]

With that discovery the railroad built through to Seattle. The Great Northern railway is also responsible for creating Glacier National Park, here is how that happened. James J Hill saw an incredible business opportunity in providing transportation for people who would visit the park. The railroad lobbied Congress in 1897 to preserve it as a park. Later on legislation to protect Glacier was introduced in Congress and pushed by the George Bird Grinnell and Henry Stimson. Stimson was a well known figure in American Political history. He was a Republican who served both Republican and Democrat Administrations. He served William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover, and during WW II he served as Secretary of War under Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman. After years of lobbying on May 11, 1910 Taft signed the bill into law and Glacier became a national park. Preservation of Glacier was important to the Republican Party at the time. After Glacier became a park James J Hill’s son Louis Hill built lodges and promoted the newly established park as “America’s Switzerland.” The railroad boostered for the park and even got its corporate logo from the unique Rocky Mountain Goats. Its motto “See America First” came from Glacier and for decades its passenger trains allowed people access into the park. From 1921  until 1932 the famed Going to the Sun road was constructed. It was dedicated in 1932. During the Great Depression, in the era of Alphabet Soup politics, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) did a lot of work in Glacier.  As the 20th century moved forward I would also argue that Glacier became the jewel and probably one of the top parks in the National Park system. 

Evangelicals and Global Warming 

There have been many evangelicals who have dismissed climate change and strongly support Donald Trump on this issue. I go into the reasons below. But over the course of time many evangelicals have been skeptical to climate change. Some believe that the reason why evangelicals oppose global warming is a legacy of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. After being embarrassed many evangelicals respond towards science with hate and skepticism. Some evangelicals have also created their own “institutions” that “rebuke” the facts about climate change. After all even Ken Ham has weighed into the issue of climate change saying that it has been ongoing for the last 4,300 years. Other reasons appear to be that people believe that God will deal with the issue of climate change. That point of view came forward in this Washington Post article. Here is what Yale says about why evangelicals reject climate change. Finally earlier this year the Religion News Service wrestled with this very question that I am writing about today. You can read that article here

Mainstream Protestants and Catholics on Global Warming 

In contrast mainstream Protestants and Catholics are deeply concerned about climate change and have incorporated those concerns in their theology. The United Methodist Church has made climate change a serious issue. When the United States pulled out of the Paris Agreement the Methodist Church condemned the move. Other mainstream Protestants have also been firm on this issue. Here is how the Episcopal Church reacted, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), United Church of Christ, and The Quakers all reacted to this issue. The Catholics have also been pushing the climate change issue.In 2015 the newest encyclical from Pope Francis was leaked online ahead of its formal release. It was a strong condemnation of how humans are abusing the environment.  It is Pope Francis’ belief that climate change is adversely affecting the poor, marginalized and especially those in third world countries. Humans have ruined the earth, and that has happened because sin has ruined humans. In his papacy Pope Francis has made environmental issues a priority believing they go along with the preservation of life. And the Pope built upon the work of previous Popes. For example Pope John Paul II at the World Earth Day in 1990 made the environment a moral priority for the Catholic church. This is what Pope John Paul II said, “world peace is threatened not only by the arms race, regional conflicts, and continued injustices among peoples and nations, but also by a lack of due respect for nature. Pope Benedict XVI went green even having a vehicle that was hybrid and ahead of his time. He was known as the “Green Pope” Pope Francis encyclical is called Laudato Si.  You can read about how it came to be in the following Atlantic article called “The Pope’s Moral Case for Taking On Climate Change.In 2015 when Pope Francis spoke to a Joint session of Congress he raised and took on the issue of climate change. When Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement the Vatican responded with difficult words.  Many top Catholic leaders in the United States rebuked Trump for leaving the Paris Agreement, including Cardinal Cupich of Chicago.  Another Catholic organization that swiftly rebuked Trump for leaving the Paris Agreement is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. In September Pope Francis took another dig at Donald Trump over climate change. 

Are Evangelicals Rejecting Global Warming due to Being Against Science? Or Does End-Times Theology Influence Their Thinking? 

I wrote what other people suspect as to why evangelicals land on this topic. Is the reason why evangelicals reject global warming due to the fact many also reject science? Many evangelicals today are fighting the wars that the Catholic church fought in the 1500’s. All you have to do is look at Ken Ham and see what is being done with evolution. After all evolution is a well accepted and sound explanation for  how the human race came to be. Its accepted by scientists and academics the world over. The evangelical position which often rejects science creates unnecessary hardship in many ways. In this case is this the reason why many evangelicals reject a well established and proven issue? And yet when evangelicals come to science they pick and choose what they reject. For example they don’t reject science and medicine when it comes to basic and accepted medical procedures. When they have an issue they have no problem going to the doctor and starting that prescription for antibiotics. So why is it that many evangelicals will accept science in a personal way, but not go the greater good? 

Here is another possible reason why evangelicals don’t care about climate change. Is it due to many people’s embrace of end-times theology? Why care about the destruction or loss of places like Glacier National Park if you believe in being raptured and sucked up into Heaven? Why care about being a good steward of the earth if you believe you are going to be gone? But there is also this aspect as well. Does the embrace by some evangelicals of end times theology result in many evangelicals wanting to bring about global warming to hasten end times prophecy and bring about the destruction of the earth? Could it fulfill some interpretation of the Books of Daniel and Revelation? These are questions that I am asking aloud as I try and figure out how many parts of the evangelical movement function? 

Why I Believe its a Sin To Neglect the Environment 

My mind came around on this topic over time. But part of my mind is strongly influenced by my Catholic past, and on this issue the Catholic church is pretty clear on this topic. What also alarms me is watching the news recently. I remember Hurricanes Hugo and Andrew when I was young, but I am stunned by the size and scope of storms like Irma, Marie and Harvey. The pictures out of Houston and Puerto Rico are deeply troubling. Now I don’t believe global warming caused those storms, but I believe the issue made them worse. I don’t think Harvey would have hit Houston as hard if the ocean temperatures were at the 1990 levels. Read the linked article that looks at the changes of the ocean temperatures or the rising ocean levels. But there is also another issue as well that can’t be ignored. I am a native Californian transplanted in the Washington, D.C. area. In the news recently have been the devastating fires that took place in Napa Valley and various parts of California. The other day I was speaking to my family in California and they said that the smoke from the coast has carried into the San Joaquin Valley and that the air control in the Central Valley is not good. I was stunned, after all when I lived in California for 25 years I only recall one fire doing that when I was a kid, and it was from outside of Fresno! Not hundreds of miles away? The extremely dry conditions that help set off the fires in California were triggered by the issue of climate change which exacerbated the situation. That is the reason why the lead editorial in Sunday’s Washington Post precedes this section. It brilliantly captures my sentiments. Plus I would think that if you are a conservative you would care about this issue as it will also affect our military readiness as well. What will this issue mean for key locations for the US Navy? Or will we be drawn into conflicts in the future that will be sparked by issues such as water access or claims? So I deeply believe this issue and I have thought about it quite a bit. 

I also have come to the conclusion that the current evangelical stances on this issue is reprehensible. Saying God is in control and choosing to do nothing I liken to the following situation. Imagine if your kid takes you 2015 Honda Accord and he regularly gets it into serious accidents. His belief? “I don’t have to be responsible for the car, Mom and Dad can take care of it, after all…it’s their car.” That is how I believe that many evangelicals are acting toward this issue. Its childish, foolish and irresponsible. The truth of the matter is that you can be conservative in your theology and still care about the environment. This is a topic that is too important to ignore and be silent. Not only that but I am embarrassed that the rest of the Christian faith believes seriously in this issue but evangelicals do not? I think the way forward comes from an evangelical Christian scientist down in Texas who has taken on this issue and speaks to this problem set. Dr. Katharine Hayhoe who is the husband of an evangelical pastor and employed by Texas Tech University is on a mission to raise the alarm on this topic of climate change. Being a scientist, and a conservative evangelical and being passionate about the environment is not hard. Dr. Hayhoe gets most of her problems from evangelicals. She and I should grab a coffee one day and compare emails, we could have fun! But its time evangelicals come around on this topic. It is long overdue. Let’s join our Christian brothers and sisters and join them in helping to resolve this issue. To not tackle this issue I believe would be sinful in the end. We are to be stewards of this earth and to live in it responsibly. It is our home, and our place that we will pass off to other generations. Let’s not be selfish but let’s think of the generations to come as well. Will you join me in that endeavor? That’s it for the day, please know that I love you guys! 

23 thoughts on “Evangelicals and the Environment: Some Thoughts After Visiting Glacier National Park in Montana

  1. SOME evangelical people seem drawn to ‘negativity’ on a grand scale. And Fox News offers them a banquet of political agendas, and conspiracy theories, and the worship of the Trump who requires daily adoration from all around him.

    I think that the politics of people in power requires that in order to be ‘conservative’ you have to abandon conservation;
    and in order to be a card-carrying member of the R Party, you have to despise anyone remotely resembling a ‘tree-hugger’. 🙂

    But it goes further: the greed. The poisoning of the water, the polluting of the air, the killing of whole species, the mining of beautiful areas leaving slag heaps and ‘super-fund’ dumps where pollutants poison everyone and everything that comes near . . .

    Money. Greed. Politics. The Survival of the Fittest is strangely a key element of WHY certain evangelicals (not all) accept the ‘line’ that we do not need to care for our environment because ‘jobs’:

    only the corporations don’t plow their take back in the form of jobs, instead they give the money to buy stock back. And often, proceeds end up ‘off shore’ in banks shielded even from the fair paying of what little taxes these corporations do pay.

    I look at Flint Michigan. I look at my old lake community in NJ: Ringwood, downstream from a super-fund polluted site: the Ford Plant mines where paint and poisons were dumped for years, until the people around began to sicken, and die . . . . the poor ‘mine people’ at first, then we noticed that our neighbors in their fifties and sixties were dying of terrible illnesses, cancers, ALS, Lou Gehrig’s disease, . . . . . sickening, and perishing were our neighbors who had grown up in that area since childhood: vibrant, healthy people just getting sick and dying . . . .

    and it wasn’t until the rich people noticed this that the demands for cleaning up the poisons in the mine area became a strong enough political push to begin effectively doing the clean-up needed . . . . too late for many good people.

    Politics, greed, stupidity, short-sightedness, and Fox News. And the conspiracy theorists. And all the forces that are paid to keep people from thinking about doing what is right . . . . . like that term ‘an inconvenient truth’, the truth about the consequences of pollution doesn’t fit the Republican ethos.
    And we know that ‘if you are not Republican, you are not a real Christian’.
    God have mercy. (thanks Eagle, for letting me rant)

    Liked by 1 person

    • …and the worship of the Trump who requires daily adoration from all around him.

      “I give Donald Trump praise and adoration.”
      — ChapmanEd24


  2. Genesis 8:22
    While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

    I live in the Seattle Area.

    It still rains here. It still gets cold in the winter, and warm to hot in the summer.

    We have Mt Rainer that has plenty of snow on it.

    I do not believe in global warming. It’s a phony narrative to raise taxes for revenue, and FORCING people into obeying laws that are just as stupid as making alcohol illegal, or even worse, making California starve to death by stopping the flow of water, over a stupid fish or frog.

    There are scientists that disagree with global warming.

    Al Gore is basically telling us that we can use all the carbon we want, as long as we pay a fee called an offset.

    That proves that it’s a money making scheme for revenue, because Al Gore is not changing his BEHAVIOR for conserving carbon, he’d just rather pay for his use of it.

    So, STOP GUILTING US into something we do not believe in, just like you want us to stop doing the same to atheists.

    If YOU want to believe in global warming…be my guest. But don’t pawn that off on us, telling us that we must believe the scientists, when there are opposing scientific views.

    I refer you back to Genesis 8:22.

    Ed Chapman


    • Genesis 8:22 = “I HAVE A VERSE!”
      Not Genesis 9:15?

      I too have a verse; I see your Genesis 8:22 and raise you one filk of Revelation 13:4:
      “And they Worshipped, saying ‘WHO IS LIKE UNTO THE [TRUMP]? WHO CAN MAKE WAR AGAINST HIM?'”


      • You are making a suggestion that Trump is the anti-Christ? Really?

        How can that be since Jesus said that when you see the OBAMA-NATION of desolation, standing in the WHITE HOUSE, flee to California?



      • Genesis 9:15? Not even related. Why? I’m still alive…so are you. So are many atheists.

        On a related note, however, as someone once said earlier…it’s all gonna burn in the end, not flood, as you are trying to indicate.

        Arizona still does not have ocean front property.

        No matter how hard we try to get rid of Hollywood, California is not under water yet. Darn it!



  3. You speak of science in religious terms, as a belief system where certain beliefs must be maintained. Evolution and man made global warming must be believed in or you are against “science”. I disagree with that approach. I view science as the pursuit of truth. IS THERE ROOM FOR SKEPTICISM IN “SCIENCE?” If there is then there is room for healthy debate about: evolution and intelligent design; and climate change. But in both cases the scientific elites don’t allow any debate. To me that destroys their credibility. They rely on shame, intimidation, and shouting loudly to shut out discussion. If they are correct what do they have to fear? In the cases of evolution and climate change “science” is on shaky ground. Climate change is being used as a political weapon.
    Authoritarian churches and “religion of science” have much in common.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for your comment. Correct me if I am wrong but global warming is accepted by much of science. I view it as it being accepted in the same way that our views of planetary rotation has changed as well. (i.e. the sun revolves around the plants vs, how the church changed its thinking.) Many people have come around on this topic. Are there scientists and prominent members of the scientific community who reject global warming on scientific fact?


    • More like what has happened is Climate Change (regardless of its existence or severity) has been MADE into a Polticial Weapon. And being so weaponized has discredited it, regardless of the science behind it.

      You saw similar during “Star Wars”/SDI and Nuclear Winter (remember them?) At the time both were being fought over during the Reagan/Bush41 years, my old Dungeonmaster (D&D, not BDSM) commented that “You can tell EXACTLY whether they are For or Against from the (D) or (R) behind the names. It’s that clean a Party Line break.” And that this was the first time he’d ever seen a controversy break so clean along Party Lines.

      “WHO’S Science?”
      “WHO’S Truth?”


  4. I believe there is another factor in play.
    One predicted in the zeitgeist of the Strauss-Howe Cycle lurching into a Time of Crisis, as Idealist Generation factions go for each other’s throats until the next generation ages into positions of power to act as damper/control rods in the melting-down reactor.

    When AlGore first brought Global Warming into the public eye, a LOT of Celebrities and Activists and other “Secular Puritans” looking for a Righteous Cause jumped on the bandwagon in Righteous Moral Fury. Their all-or-nothing fanaticism discrediting their own Cause in the process.

    Add Chicken Little Panic Reactions and the existing Polarizations between followers of Clinton 42 and Dubya 43, and it turned into a Righteous Jihad of overreacting Kyle’s Moms on both sides. “Here Ahura-Mazda, There Ahriman!” like Serbs & Croats in the Balkans or Tutsi & Hutu in Rwanda.

    Plus look at the whipsaw back-and-forth of Trump Tower at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave over the last 25 years since 1992: From Clinton 42 to Dubya 43 to Obama 44 to Trump 45. Each one the total opposite of the one before, flipping 180 with each change of management and getting more intense each time; polarized factions of True Believers pro then anti then pro then anti, like James Dobson going from GOP Kingmaker to Outsider to GOP Kingmaker to Outsider…

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Here is another possible reason why evangelicals don’t care about climate change. Is it due to many people’s embrace of end-times theology? Why care about the destruction or loss of places like Glacier National Park if you believe in being raptured and sucked up into Heaven? Why care about being a good steward of the earth if you believe you are going to be gone? But there is also this aspect as well. Does the embrace by some evangelicals of end times theology result in many evangelicals wanting to bring about global warming to hasten end times prophecy and bring about the destruction of the earth? Could it fulfill some interpretation of the Books of Daniel and Revelation?

    From my experience with End Times Theology in the Seventies:
    Remember Hal Lindsay?
    Christians for Global Thermonuclear War?
    (With the Rapture scheduled for the moment the ICBM warheads cut atmo over your city, primary pit core pressurizing with Tritium boost, neutron guns beaming into the pit, and primary detonator capacitors fully charged… “IT’S PROPHESIED! IT’S PROPHESIED!”)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Why care about the destruction or loss of places like Glacier National Park if you believe in being raptured and sucked up into Heaven? Why care about being a good steward of the earth if you believe you are going to be gone?

      P.S. Summarized in four pious words I became all too familiar with during my time in-country:

      Liked by 1 person

  6. I’m thinking at least part of it has to do with the idea of “honest, hard-to-fake, costly symbols of commitment”. It’s not that right-wing evangelicals have honestly come to the conclusion that climate change isn’t happening, it’s that loudly proclaiming that it isn’t has become a tribal marker of membership in their club. It’s an example of that thing that you do that is personally very demanding of your time, or money or effort, or reputation, and is basically pointless in itself, but you are doing it to be accepted and trusted by another individual or group as a person who is loyal and committed. (Other examples of this kind of thing could be Mormon missions, gang tattoos, snake handling, or giving expensive engagement rings.) I’ve been looking for a better more concise term for this idea for a long time, but haven’t found it yet.


      • My understanding of “virtue signalling” is that it’s about making the right noises to show that you are a loyal member of a group, without actually doing anything meaningful or difficult. This idea is kind of the reverse: actually doing something something that’s so personally costly and difficult that nobody in the target group can doubt your sincerity.


    • I’m thinking at least part of it has to do with the idea of “honest, hard-to-fake, costly symbols of commitment”.

      “Costly Symbols of Commitment”…
      Like giving up your own child to the fire of Baal-Moloch?

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: The Wondering Eagle for 2017, The Year in Review, My Assessment and What is Coming in 2018 | Wondering Eagle

Comments are closed.