<p>
	<em><img alt="" class="border-left" src="{filedir_5}Josh-Miller-150pxl.jpg" style="float: right; width: 80px; height: 112px; " /></em></p>
<p>
	<em>Josh Miller is an Au Sable Graduate Fellow at the University of Michigan, where he studies environmental policy and planning at the School of Natural Resources and Environment. Josh has an M.A. in Biblical Studies from Asbury Seminary on religion and the environment.&nbsp; He is interested in water policy. You can reach him at joshjmil@umich.edu.</em></p>
<hr />
<p>
	I recently had the opportunity to perform some qualitative research regarding the church and environmental organizations in America. I interviewed two leaders of regional and national environmental organizations about their perceptions of the church in environmental stewardship. I also interviewed two well-established pastors in the area, one from a church that consciously pursues an environmental agenda (Dave) and one from a church that admittedly does not (Wig). This post will focus mostly on the responses of the pastors.<br />
	<br />
	I wanted to know the answer to this question: Why isn&rsquo;t the church leading the way in environmental stewardship? Both pastors immediately put environmental issues into a broader context: there are many crises across the globe, such as extreme poverty, orphaned children, and broken families. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s only so much band width . . . We can&rsquo;t do everything.&rdquo;<br />
	<br />
	I wasn&rsquo;t satisfied with that answer. The church does lead the way on many of these global issues; why is the church not leading in environmental stewardship? After all, God created the earth, and many global crises have their roots in environmental degradation.</p>
<p>
	The answer became clear when we began to talk about key Christian doctrines and whether they included or directly implied environmental stewardship.&nbsp;Dave framed Christianity as &ldquo;love first,&rdquo; and placed emphases on reconciling broken relationships between God, humans, and creation. Redemption includes the whole created order, not just humans. He affirmed that environmental stewardship was at the heart of Christianity. As a result, he intentionally models stewardship through programs, teaching, and relationships: his church recycles batteries, hosts a small urban farm to feed hungry people in the community, and regularly calls attention to environmental issues.</p>
<p>
	<br />
	Wig framed Christianity with the concept of reconciliation to the family of God: God &ldquo;is calling people to be his children . . . [through] what Christ did for us at the cross.&rdquo; This framing also emphasizes reconciliation of relationships, but it leaves out one entity: creation. Redemption is understood as only between God and humans. Environmental stewardship is a &ldquo;peripheral concern.&rdquo; As a result, though Wig is amenable to environmental action in the church, this action should only be initiated by an individual or small group, not from the pulpit or in programming. While Wig agrees that &ldquo;we&rsquo;re called to be stewards . . . we&rsquo;re not doing a very good job of it.&rdquo;<br />
	<br />
	Redemption appears to be a foundational theological concept for both Dave and Wig. How the concept of redemption is understood seems to determine whether the environment ends upon the priority list. If redemption focuses on human-God and human-human reconciliation, then the environment fades into the background; if redemption encompasses human-environment reconciliation, then the environment shares center stage. Why isn&rsquo;t the church leading the way in environmental stewardship? Perhaps because of the way redemption is defined in many churches.<br />
	<br />
	However, it became clear through the course of both interviews that, regardless of whether stewardship is included as a key doctrine, there is room for environmental action in churches. There is especially room for environmental organizations to partner with churches. The key, according to both pastors: environmental organizations must be willing and able to de-politicize their message. This kind of partnership would allow churches to take a more active role in environmental stewardship without depleting valuable resources, and it would allow environmental organizations to realize the immense potential that exists within the church to change the course of history. As a result, the church could work more holistically toward the &ldquo;healing of the nations,&rdquo; and environmental organizations would be forced to broaden their efforts across the political divide.</p>
