Transcend

As I struggled to better understand the links between Evangelical faith and climate science I stumbled across yet another response to climate change that does not fall neatly under the rubric of magic or science. I found this to be one of the most perplexing faith-based responses to a climactic crisis because it struck me as both deeply inspiring and seriously problematic.

As I skimmed Christian news outlets looking for pieces on climate change I found an article about a North Carolina pastor and his family who chose to remain in their church as hurricane Florence approached. They believed that by doing this they would be able to more quickly render aid to people in the area once the hurricane had passed. While this might sound ill-advised in light of evacuation orders for their area, according to the article their building was actually constructed to withstand hurricanes and was situated at a high enough elevation to make flooding unlikely. What makes this particular story compelling is the reasoning behind why this family chose to stay. The pastor, Mike Ashcroft, was quoted to say that “Whether the hurricane’s a 4 and it knocks our house down, or it’s a 1 and I just have to clean up debris, my own internal world is theoretically the same,”. I found this statement enlightening in the context of this larger story of faith and responses to crises.

Pastor Ashcroft’s belief that he could transcend whatever earthly trials he faced through his faith in God is deeply appealing. It expresses both an acceptance of the reality of the threat while reflecting a worldview that makes external threats essentially inconsequential. Further, it demonstrates the ways in which religion can bring out selfless behavior in people. Yet, it also presents a difficult question for Evangelical Christianity. If a person’s role is simply to accept whatever occurs and know that it cannot harm one’s soul then how can one cultivate a sense of duty sufficient to make the kinds of earthly changes that might prevent catastrophes?

This tension brings to mind the view of religion put forth by the economist Karl Marx. Marx famously referred to religion as the “opiate of the masses.” By that, he meant that religion makes the hardships of the working poor more bearable. Yet the soothing effects of religion, according to Marx, can be problematic when they result in a lack of motivation for revolutionary change.

The Ashcroft’s serene faith in the face of uncertainty is admirable. Yet, could the kind of faith that they embody prevent Evangelicals from insisting on the kinds of policy changes that could reverse the human causes of climate change? Or, can faithful acceptance coexist with pious environmental stewardship of the kind that Dr. Hayhoe espouses?