Creation Care: A Call to Christian Educators and Church Leaders

Introduction

Advocacy regarding environmental concerns has its share of proponents and detractors. Interestingly, Christians are divided when it comes to acknowledging whether an environmental crisis indeed even exists; and if so, how severe it is. Science contributes data that fuel both sides of the debate, and proof texting data can be just as injurious as proof texting Scripture. Yet the question remains concerning what ethical responsibilities Christian educators and the church have in advocating for biblically informed stewardship, which honors God by preserving and protecting the environment.

In his June 24, 2015 encyclical entitled Laudato Si’ (translated as “Praise Be to You,” with the byline “On Care of our Common Home”), Pope Francis (2015) did just that by distributing an open letter to all people, not only to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, who are traditional recipients of papal encyclicals. Pope Francis calls the church to a biblical, theological, and scientific assessment of the current global status of the environment. He emphatically implores, “I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet” (#15). This article contributes to this vital dialogue by emphasizing the importance not only of embracing the message of creation care from a biblical and theological perspective but also of taking strategic action to safeguard the environment.

With his encyclical being supported by credible scientific research and appealing to ethical responsibility, Pope Francis’s clarion call furthers a conversation not only within Roman Catholicism but also within evangelical and Pentecostal church and ministry contexts. Whereas the church historically has focused on evangelization, discipleship, care for the poor, social justice issues, and mission advance, creation care has sadly trailed far behind as a priority. This paper, therefore, addresses five primary questions. First, how have biblical scholars and theologians addressed creation care issues? Second, what place should creation care hold in the mission and purpose of Christian education and the church? Third, why have many U.S. churches been reluctant to embrace and to advance creation care? Fourth, how might Christian educators and the church be mobilized to address this increasingly vital issue? Finally, what impact, if any, has Pope Francis’s Laudato Si’ had on discussions concerning creation care?

Overall, this paper argues that Christian schools and churches are sleeping giants regarding creation care and need to arise to their ethical responsibility to advance the protection and preservation of God’s creation. The means of doing so necessitates establishing creation care as an integral component of the Christian formation and discipleship process. We, first, turn to a brief overview of biblical scholarship that sets the stage.

An Overview of Biblical Scholarship Related to Creation Care

This overview primarily includes influential writers and advocates in the late twentieth through twenty-first centuries in the U.S., although other voices prior to this time frame are included where appropriate. Biblical scholarship regarding environmental concerns seemed to follow the rising concerns of secular environmental advocates and writers, such as naturalist John Muir (1901), conservationist and ethicist Aldo Leopold (1970), and marine biologist Rachel Carson (1962/2002). Early on, these environmental pioneers raised red flags of warning with respect to protecting America’s natural resources.

One pioneering and prophetic evangelical theologian who began writing on ecology even prior to Earth Day in 1970 was Joseph Sittler, a Lutheran minister who also taught at the University of Chicago. Sittler (2004) focused on theological ethics related to nature, seeing the interconnectedness of all of God’s creation and viewing environmental degradation through a spiritual lens. In his 1961 address at the World Council of Churches, Sittler (2000a) called for the entire creation, which needs to be stewarded, to come under the umbrella of God’s redeeming grace (pp. 38–50).

Six years later, in his highly influential 1967 essay, medievalist Lynn White, Jr. (2000) laid blame for environmental degradation squarely at the foot of Christianity, as the ideological source of the exploitative domination of nature, which he argued led to an ecological crisis. White criticized the Christian position that maintains: “We are superior to nature, contemptuous of it, willing to use it for our slightest whim” (p. 40). Despite noting a welcome contrast in the example of Saint Francis of Assisi, White’s accusation remained pointed: “Both our present science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature that no solution for our ecologic crisis can be expected from them alone” (p. 42).

Following White’s provocative essay, a publication firestorm ensued by Christian theologians who either protested White’s condemnation or resolved to address it. Hundreds of theological publications reasserting the role of Christianity in ecological matters resulted. Sittler’s early work provided the precursor for others who followed, including Jürgen Moltmann, H. Paul Santmire, James Nash, Larry Rasmussen, Calvin DeWitt, and Richard Bauckham, who took up the baton of creation care through a biblical and theological lens.

For example, in the 1984–1985 Gifford Lectures, Moltmann (1993) addressed environmental issues considering creation theology in consonance with his social Trinitarian theology (pp. 1–19). In honor of Joseph Sittler, pastor and theologian H. Paul Santmire (2000) wrote from a Lutheran perspective, attempting to reclaim creation care as having theological foundations. Ethicist James Nash (1991) challenged the underlying assumption of White’s essay by asserting that no one single cause can be attributed to the environmental crisis; yet also presenting Christian theological foundations that call for godly love to apply to virtue formation regarding creation.

Another ethicist, Larry Rasmussen (1996, 2015), joined the conversation, asserting that humankind and nature comprise a single community. New Testament scholars, such as Richard Bauckham (2000, pp. 96–106), challenged faulty assumptions concerning the biblical meaning of the word “dominion,” thus countering biblical interpretations sanctioning destructive control over nature (cf. Bauckham, 2010, 2011). Feminists Sallie McFague (1993, 1997) and Rosemary Radford Ruether (Hessel & Ruether, 2000) added to the discussion, often referring to the earth as God’s body, all in hopes of influencing actualized values toward creation care.

Roman Catholic female writers, such as Celia Deane-Drummond (2017), wrote on the interface between science and theology, thereby upholding creation care. Strikingly few, however, were “evangelical and Pentecostal voices” that “have been curiously missing from the broader ecotheological conversation,” notwithstanding voices like Calvin DeWitt, co-founder of the Evangelical Environmental Network and director emeritus of Au Sable Institute, and Steven Bouma-Prediger, professor and director of Environmental Studies at Hope College (see Brunner, Butler, & Swoboda, 2014, pp. 93–94). Interestingly, A. J. Swoboda (2013, 2014) has introduced pneumatological perspectives to deepen the creation care research thread.

Over the past four decades, biblical scholarship fueled the launch of Christian organizational networks dedicated to fostering earth care. They include the Evangelical Environmental Network, Christians Caring for Creation, the National Religious Coalition on Creation Care, Target Earth, Restoring Eden, Earth Ministry, and Blessed Earth. Other existing Christian entities began collaborative initiatives and/or wrote positions on creation care, including the National Council of Churches, the American Baptist Churches USA, the Roman Catholic Franciscan Order, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), the United Methodist Church, and the Episcopal Church. More recently, Pope Francis’s encyclical, Laudato Si’, which will be addressed later in this article, announced creation care as a top priority for the Roman Catholic Church worldwide. These various Christian entities have positioned creation care as being central to the mission and purpose of the church based upon godly love.

The Role of Creation Care in the Mission and Purpose of the Church

Simply stated, the mission and purpose of the church is to do the works of Christ by “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6, New Revised Standard Version). Godly love is the primary conduit through which the church exists. Foundationally, divine love prompted all of God’s acts of creation (Genesis 1–2) and underlies the entire cosmos. In addition, God’s love infused Jesus’ redeeming mission and all subsequent work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if “God is love” (1 John 4:19), then we are to love what God loves and care for that which God cares. As James Nash (1991) reasons, “If God is love, for instance, the process of creation itself is an act of love. All creatures, human and other kind, and their habitats are not only gifts of love but also products of love and recipients of ongoing love” (pp. 140–141).

Correspondingly, Nash (1991) argues that divine love must be the basis for how we approach ecology and creation care, as all creatures deserve “to be treated not merely as means to human ends, but as ends in themselves” (p. 141). Nash maintains that the Christian faith must extend to the entire creation to reflect and embody God’s affection and care as an integrated whole. Other authors likewise predicate care of creation on Christian love (Blanchard & O’Brien, 2014, pp. 5–6; McFague, 1993, pp. 5–25).

All living things work in relationship to each other. We are tied together in what Rasmussen (2015) calls “covenant bonds,” referring to relational living, such that all living things are mutually dependent (p. 17). We live in this cosmos as integrated beings, dependent on the ecosystem that regenerates life by the Spirit, who infuses all living things. The creation narratives reflect a diversity of living things as being interdependent. Whereas humans are essential to the overall design of an integrated whole, other parts of creation are likewise vital.

Strategically, humankind is given a unique role of oversight. Being made in the image of God, their role did not entail becoming overpowering, abusive, or acting like gods who plunder creation. Domination is not the intended purpose of having “dominion” over the earth. As initiated by God, this dominion role, according to Richard Bauckham (2010, p. 19), grants humankind the necessary rule to be exercised within the created order that God established.

Hence, Bauckham (2010) challenges the unbiblical notion that creation exists for humankind’s sake, which can lead to exploitation. In addition to observingthat God affirmed his creation as good, Bauckham also emphasizes that God appreciated what was created for its own sake. Moreover, Bauckham (2011) aptly positions humankind’s role as one of “caring responsibility,” a preferable description superseding notions of dominion and stewardship, which have been misconstrued, leading to the condoning of environmental degradation (pp. 2–7, 61–62). Therefore, the role of humans must be seen within a “web of reciprocal relationships with other creatures,” to preclude creation’s abuse (p. 28). Even secular author and environmental advocate Wendell Berry (1990) asks rhetorically, “If God loves the world, then how might any person of faith be excused for not loving it or justified in destroying it?” (p. 98).

With a rise of evangelical voices addressing creation care concerns, what has remained largely absent is a distinctively pneumatological perspective. That is until more recently. For example, Moltmann (1997, p. 62) asks how the charismata influence ecology. A. J. Swoboda (2013) offers a response, presenting a constructive Pentecostal ecotheology within a Trinitarian framework, building on Christian tradition and filling an obvious lacuna. Exploring ecotheologies from Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and ecofeminist traditions, Swoboda acknowledges that the Pentecostal academy, churches, and publications have been “ecotheologically quiet” (p. 65). Swoboda, therefore, draws upon what Amos Yong (2005) calls “pneumatological imagination” (p. 280) and examines Pentecostal perspectives, as joined by charismatic influences, highlighting the Spirit’s work in creation, redemption, and our eschatological future, including ecotheology. Thus, Swoboda (2013) surmises that ecological care involves a Spirit-filled experience, whereby we, as the people of God, participate in what first began in creation and was renewed at Pentecost (Acts 2). By caring for what God has entrusted to us, we love God.

Furthermore, Chandler (2014) asserts that we love God in response to God’s initiating love, which draws us into relationship with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit (pp. 225–230). By its very nature, then, love is intended to be reciprocal, as “we love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). With God’s mission being divine love, the work of the Holy Spirit brings us into reconciliation with the Father through Christ and with one another. This reconciliation involves stewardship of our God-given resources, including the earth, such that how we value and protect God’s natural resources reflects our love and honor of Almighty God who created them. Caring for creation is one way of reciprocally loving God and how we express gratitude for God’s abundant blessings (Chandler, 2014, p. 46). Mobilizing the church to establish creation care values and practices fortifies the church’s mission and purpose. However, church reluctance has become a liability.

The Realities of Church Reluctance

The contemporary church has lacked a consistently forceful voice in the creation care discussion. A few mainline church entities, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Wesleyan Church, the Presbyterian Church of America, and the United Methodist Church, have crafted creation care position statements. ¹ However, position statements alone do little to bring about the heart change required to support sustainable creation care practices. Even more glaring, as Bean and Tales (2015) suggest, “The environment has never been a core concern of evangelical Christians” (p. 2). This begs the question: why have evangelicals been reluctant or resistant to participate actively in environmental stewardship?

Environmentalist Calvin DeWitt (2000) identifies several attitudes that hinder Christians from direct engagement in creation care (pp. 68–71). These attitudes may be summarized in the following excusatory rationales (cf. Sleeth, 2006, pp. 37–50). First, Christians may hold the belief that “this world is not my home. I’m just a-passing through,” signifying a misguided eschatology that incorrectly prioritizes future glory in eternity over current stewardship responsibilities. When followers of Jesus look forward to Christ’s second coming and life in eternity at the expense of concern and care for current environmental issues, this amounts to an abdication of God-given responsibility. Jesus never ignored the present for future realities. Rather, Jesus’s very life was a foretaste of what was to come. Hope for eternity never releases His followers from attending to God-honoring stewardship today.

Second, some Christians may believe that care of creation aligns too closely with the New Age movement. Subsequently, they distance themselves from it altogether. For example, Ware (2015) exhorts the church to resist New Age disassociations and embrace environmentalism. Quoting Tony Campolo, Ware relates: “The fact that new age people have committed themselves to something that really belongs to the Church does not mean that the Church should not be involved in this” (para. 1). By isolating from others who are theologically and culturally different, Christians surrender the critical biblical voice that contributes to the dialogue and thereby restricts the gospel to one’s inner circle. Jesus Himself exemplified how one could retain integrity with those of differing cultures and belief systems (i.e., the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7:24-30; the centurion in Luke 7:1-9; and the woman at the well in John 4:1-26).

Third, some, as highlighted by DeWitt (2000), may fear that engaging in creation care veers toward pantheism, which is the worship of nature and created things, as if they were gods (see pp. 68–71). When we worship God as Creator, we acknowledge that God is the originator and sustainer of life. Creation is, therefore, “a sacred worship space,” where we can meet with God and where Jesus Himself worshipped (Brown, 2008, pp. 48–49). The apostle Paul warned, however, of worshiping created things rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). By viewing God’s creation with wonder, we gain immense respect and appreciation for all of God’s wondrous works.

Fourth, Christians may resist pro-environment initiatives because of others’ perceptions of political correctness. Fear of being associated with a political party’s environmental views serves as a trap for inaction. Credible science indicators convey that our planet is facing catastrophic environmental consequences if current trends along with lack of conservancy and inaction continue. Regardless of political party and position, we all must work together to solve a universal issue that supersedes personalities, borders, and politics.

Fifth, Christians may feel that involvement in creation care dissuades them from the priority of gospel proclamation and associated Kingdom activities. With Jesus’ mission to seek and save the lost, this evangelistic mandate could be interpreted as obscuring other vital priorities, including creation care. Fortunately, creation care and Kingdom activity are not mutually exclusive; rather they are intertwined (cf. Boorse, Wilson, Shore, & Ackerman, 2011, pp. 29–36). For example, creation degradation most directly impacts the poor, whom Jesus sought to reach with God’s love. If we do indeed love others, including the poor, then we must address environmental concerns. As DeWitt (2000) emphasizes, although people are more important than saving other living things, we cannot neglect our stewardship mandate to protect and preserve all living things (p. 71).

These five attitudes, which may lead to a reluctance or refusal by Christians to participate actively in creation care, support the assertion that the church specifically “bears a huge burden of guilt” for the environmental crisis (Sutterfield, 2006; White, 2000, p. 40). Mobilizing Christian schools and the church to activate creation care values and practices must become a priority. ²

Mobilizing Christian Schools and the Church for Creation Care

How can Christian school education and the church become mobilizing agents in creation care, so typified by Saint Francis of Assisi (1982), whose Canticle of Brother Sun and Sister Moon praised God for creation, and by missionary doctor and humanitarian Albert Schweitzer (1998), who personified a “reverence for life” through his work (pp. 155–159)? Likewise, if creation care must be “woven into every Christian's stewardship value, theology, commitment, and practice” (Chandler, 2014, p. 225) and if “earthkeeping is integral to Christian discipleship” (Bouma-Prediger, 2010, p. xii), then Christian schools and the church can mobilize by focusing on four main areas: (1) awareness, (2) education, (3) value formation, and (4) changed practices. ³

First, becoming aware of the issues at hand is vital for focusing attention on God and the wonders of creation. The groaning of creation provides a needed “wake-up call” for everyone, even the most strident skeptic. Awareness begins with realizing that although the environmental crisis is an ecological, scientific, economic, and political problem, it is at its core a spiritual problem. We cannot afford to deny scientific data that reiterate the crisis at hand. Excellent resources outline in basic terms the need for immediate attention (Boorse et al., 2011, pp. 15–24; Bouma-Prediger, 2010, pp. 23–55; Brunner, Butler, & Swoboda, 2014, pp. 35–63). As founding director of the organization Care of Creation, Edward Brown (2008) contends that the church, operating in the power of the Holy Spirit, is the only institution “that can address a problem with this many dimensions” (pp. 96–97).

Second, educating people about how they can contribute to creation care is the natural result of increasing awareness within Christian education and congregational life, which has ramifications for the home and the workplace. School educators and church leaders ideally should lead the charge by raising topics of creation care within their respective contexts. For example, Christian school and church education curricula could integrate creation care content, along with accompanying hands-on activities, as suggested by evangelical writer Sandra Richter (2020) in her call to care for the environment. Church venues might begin by highlighting worship songs that extol the Creator through hymns like “For the Beauty of the Earth,” “All Creatures of our God and King,” “His Eye is on the Sparrow,” and “This is My Father’s World”; and contemporary songs like “Indescribable” by Chris Tomlin, “God of Wonders” by Marc Byrd and Steve Hindalong, and “Let Creation Sing” by Reuben Morgan.

In addition, teaching and preaching that provide powerful connections between sound theology and faithful stewardship ground a congregation in belief and praxis. Reclaiming the doctrine of creation is a first step. As Jonathan Wilson (2013) observes, “With a more robust doctrine of creation…we will learn first to recognize that we do not have ‘an environment’; rather we are a part of creation” (p. 9). When seeing ourselves as a part of creation, our stewarding role informs and reflects our Christian witness. In addition, searching the Scriptures (i.e., Psalms 19:1-2, 24:1, 57:5, 50:6, 65:1-8, 89:9, 95:4-5, 96:11-13, 135:7) and reviewing church history for what it reveals biblically, theologically, and historically about God’s concern for creation grounds a church. Wilson (2013) aptly maintains, “Recovering and developing the doctrine of creation is essential to the church’s witness” (p. 36).

For historical perspective, Saint Francis of Assisi, among others, provides a notable role model, who rejoiced in God’s creation and sought to incorporate it into his worship. Chase (2011) amplifies the role that nature plays in our spiritual vitality by affirming, “The more we spend time in the natural world, the more we recognize that nature herself, ‘on earth as it is,’ directs and guides formation, discernment, and healing” (p. 3). If this be true, then the priority of educating others and providing experiences to foster appreciation of nature should become a greater priority.

Third, developing creation care values provides a realistic progression, building upon increased awareness and education. If ethical values are not modeled, established, and nurtured, then resulting practices will soon dissipate. Ideally, creation care values should be introduced and reinforced in the home and further reinforced in the classroom and the church. For example, buying locally grown produce, along with preparing food and eating together, establish needed biblical practices of community. In family, school, and church contexts, however, our consumer culture sadly drowns out the few voices that support God-honoring stewardship of natural resources, including rigorous recycling and a simplified lifestyle.

One exemplary couple who responded to the creation care call is Matthew and Nancy Sleeth. As a committed Christian, former emergency room doctor and chief of medical staff at a prominent New England hospital, Matthew, with the support of his wife, made the life-changing decision to downsize, simplify their family’s lifestyle, and dedicate himself to teaching others about creation care, while also incorporating the biblical practice of Sabbath rest (Sleeth, 2006, pp. 94–101). In 2008, the Sleeths founded Blessed Earth, an organization dedicated to teaching individuals and churches about creation care (see http://www.blessedearth.org/). In 2012, they launched the Seminary Stewardship Alliance (SSA), which has spun off into its own non-profit. The Sleeths’ example demonstrates how the home can be the birthplace of creation care.

Too few families live with creation care values in mind. Christian education and the church, however, can fill this lacuna. As Joseph Sittler (2000b) forcefully noted,

If in piety the church says, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” (Psalm 24:1), and in fact is no different in thought and action from the general community, who will be drawn to her word and worship to “come and see” that her work or salvation has any meaning? Witness in saying is irony and bitterness if there be no witness in doing. (p. 204).

Fourth, engaging in God-honoring practices becomes the goal of creation care. Given Wilson’s (2013) reality check that “God’s superabundance is not an endless supply for our addictions to pleasure and consumption” (p. 22), how might Christian school and church practices foster creation care? As previously mentioned, worship that includes songs and Bible passages dealing with creation can be highlighted. Teaching and preaching ministries can be threaded with earth-healing principles and applications, including encouragement to experience the outdoors. Teaching on creation and the biblical concepts of stewardship and Sabbath (i.e., a ceasing from normal work for one day) would reinforce God’s plan for conservancy, rest, and renewal. Guest speakers from the community, including Christians in the sciences, could be invited to provide school and church seminars that emphasize the wonders of the universe. Even the Eucharist, which embodies the bread and cup as Christ’s body and blood, can be highlighted as the mystery of Christ’s redemption for the whole creation through the cross (Brunner, Butler, & Swoboda, 2014, pp. 230–232).

After learning about how God creates living things, children in classes and Sunday school might plant seedlings to take home and tend. For teens, a retreat in the woods to experience creation could be planned. For adults, a planted church garden could bless the neighboring community (Wirzba, 2012, pp. 96–100), a creation care task force developed, an annual creation care Sunday established (Sutterfield, 2006), small groups formed to shape value formation and practice (DeWitt, 2011), and Sabbath rest encouraged to enjoy God’s creation (Sleeth, 2012).

For educators and pastors, school and church energy usage and conservation audits could be undertaken, leading to dollars saved when addressing the effectiveness of recycling programs, electricity and energy conservation, and food waste assessments. As Brown (2008) observes, Christians will change “when ordinary pastors in ordinary pulpits and ordinary Sunday-school teachers begin to teach about God and creation, and when they help people see the connections between how they live and what is happening to the world God loves” (p. 114). Christian resources, such as those from Blessed Earth, assist churches to become more green-conscious.

In addition, outreach to other nations to teach and enact creation care, especially in poor areas, encourages both receivers and those who give. Exemplary initiatives such as the Green Belt movement, a grassroots tree-planting initiative launched by the late Nobel Laureate Wangari Maathai in Kenya, encourage developing nations to follow suit (Green Belt Movement, n.d.). Informed Christians from developed nations can dedicate their resources to support such initiatives.

On a global scale, the Lausanne worldwide mission organization recognizes creation care as a central gospel issue, supporting the lordship of Christ and likewise the consequences of nonaction (cf. Bell & White, 2016). Their 2011 Cape Town Commitment statement affirmed that “such love for God’s creation demands that we repent of our part in the destruction, waste and pollution of the earth’s resources and our collusion in the toxic idolatry of consumerism. Instead, we commit ourselves to urgent and prophetic ecological responsibility” (Lausanne, 2011). Their follow-up consultation held in Haiti affirmed the previous commitments but further emphasized the need for urgent action to address environmental issues, including climate change (Lausanne, 2012). Another globally influential resource, Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’, the focus of the next section, helped to catapult creation care to the main stage of education, religion, social ethics, economics, and politics.

The Impact of Pope Francis and Laudato Si’

Pope Francis (2015) issued a global wake-up call through the release of his encyclical, Laudato Si’. The document of six chapters builds on previous papal apostolic letters and encyclicals, including those of Pope Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, each of whom expressed concern regarding ecological issues and the sanctity of human life. Referencing Patriarch Bartholomew of the Eastern Orthodox Church, known as the “Green Patriarch,” and Saint Francis of Assisi, Pope Francis acknowledges the moral and spiritual roots of the environmental crisis. Moreover, his urgent appeal simultaneously calls for unity in working together to protect our common home and for insuring a better future for the next generation: “I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots and concern affect us all” (Pope Francis, #13). Some of the reasons he offers to explain the lack of focus on this issue range from powerful opposition to indifference.

Main themes covered include: (1) how the poor are adversely impacted by environmental degradation, (2) the interconnectedness of all of life, (3) the influence of power wielded by technology, (4) how to assess the economy and true progress, (5) the value of each living thing, (6) the need for honest debate, (7) the role of local and international policy, (8) the impact of throwaway culture, referring to the lack of recycling praxis, and (9) the need for a changed lifestyle. Supported by reliable data, the encyclical discusses current realities regarding pollution, climate change, scarce water resources, loss of biodiversity, threatened ecosystems, and waste. For example, Pope Francis asserts, “Greater investment needs to be made in research aimed at understanding more fully the functioning of ecosystems…” (#42). Global inequality precluding equitable access to natural resources, as well as consumerism, and the breakdown of society all contribute to the current crisis.

For moral authority, Pope Francis firmly draws upon the biblical narrative in Genesis 2 to affirm God as Creator, the creation as good, godly stewardship, the plague of injustice, and ecological virtues. He writes, “A spirituality which forgets God as all-powerful and [as] Creator is not acceptable” (#75). Drawing on Psalm 33:6 (“By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made…”), he affirms: “Creation is of the order of love” (#77). Thus, when we fail to see nature as gift, we tend to dominate it to our detriment. Pope Francis identifies that needful worldview change which must underlie long-term solutions: “There needs to be a distinctive way of looking at things, a way of thinking, policies, and educational programs, a lifestyle and a spirituality which together generate resistance to the assault of the technocratic paradigm” (#111). Given interrelatedness, social relationships become integral to sound ecological practices, not dismissive of them.

Pope Francis concludes by calling the international community into dialogue, transparency in decision-making, and engagement with science, yet cautions that one’s moral compass needs to be safeguarded (#200). Additionally, he argues that needed ecological education would contribute to countering the effects of compulsive consumerism in a techno-economic world, while bringing “healthy pressure to bear on those who wield political, economic, and social power” (#206).

According to Pope Francis, the church and seminary have a part to play in “ecological education,” by providing a call for simplicity, increased gratitude for God’s creation, a focus on the concerns of the poor, and the protection of the environment (#214). Essentially, an ecological conversion, meaning an encounter with the living Christ that affects one’s relationship with the surrounding world, must reflect generous care, loving awareness, and a “less is more” mentality (# 217, #222). Therein, true celebration of sacraments and Sabbath rest honor God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as we anticipate our heavenly home, with Jesus making all things new (Revelation 21:5).

Considering the encyclical’s themes, how has Laudato Si’ been received, and what effect, if any, has it rendered? Although the long-term effects of Laudato Si’ cannot be fully assessed for years to come, many short-term effects are evident. First, in September 2015, one hundred Catholic college presidents signed a Declaration of Commitment that included four items (Catholic Higher Education, n.d.). The first item supported collaborative work to study, promote, and act on the vision and ideals of integral ecology articulated by Pope Francis. The second item affirmed commitment to integrate care of creation, human development, and concern for the poor in educational curricula, programming, institutional infrastructure, policies, and practices. The third item promised to take up the mantle of open and honest dialogue in national and international platforms. The fourth item articulated a commitment to participate in global social justice consistent with the gospels and Catholic social tradition.

Second, after the encyclical’s release, additional research resulted, such as a collaborative study between Yale University and George Mason University that found an increased concern regarding climate change among Catholics and the general population in the U.S. (Maiback et al., 2015). Findings indicated that one in three Catholics affirmed that the Pope influenced their attitudes on global warming.

Third, from November through December 2015, Pope Francis sent a Vatican delegation to the U.N. Paris Climate Change Conference, called COP21, or the 21st Conference of the Parties. Many observed that Pope Francis’s encyclical paved the way for the treaty, which established protocols to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 50% and to hold annual global warming to less than two degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (San Martín, 2015). Greenhouse gases contribute to escalating global temperatures that contribute to irreversible global consequences such as severe drought, rising sea levels, flooding, and catastrophic storms. On April 22, 2016, the Paris Accord was officially signed by 177 nations on Earth Day. Unfortunately, the U.S. withdrew on June 1, 2017.

Fourth, the encyclical continues to forge conversation between political, economic, educational, and religious entities, as supported by the COP21 Conference. Even the CEO of the World Coal Association responded to the call for greenhouse gas emissions, recognizing the increased global demand for energy (Sporton, 2015). Clearly, no one entity alone can tackle the complex confluence of factors contributing to environmental degradation. Hence, cooperation and collaboration are essential.

Fifth, educational initiatives and conferences have developed to promote creation care. For example, university creation care curricula offer students both teaching and hands-on experiences that intersect religion, ethics, and science (DeCosse & Green, n.d.). Discussions of the encyclical have led to greater awareness, value formation, hoped-for dialogue, and change. For instance, many African nations are discussing how to move away from fossil fuels, and the Philippines has organized petitions, rallies, and prayer services related to creation care. In the U.S., the Washington Theological Consortium’s (2017) collaborative ventures such as the Symposium on Ecologically-informed Theological Education, hosted by the Catholic University of America, aim to continue the momentum that the encyclical generated. Given the five-year anniversary of Laudato Si’ on May 24, 2020, many more creation care initiatives are planned for 2020–2021. The Pope’s encyclical continues to be celebrated with educational initiatives and conservancy ventures, such as planting trees.

Conclusion

This article addressed five primary areas. First, the contributions of various biblical scholars and theologians were reviewed. Second, the need to make creation care a priority in the mission and purpose of Christian education and the church was defended. Third, possible reasons for Christian school and church reluctance to become involved in creation care were examined. Fourth, four areas in which Christian education and the church might contribute to creation care were recommended. Fifth and finally, the content and effects of Pope Francis’s Laudato Si’ were reviewed.

This article further argued that Christian schools and the church comprise a “sleeping giant” regarding creation care mobilization. Both entities need to arise to their ethical responsibility to protect and to preserve God’s creation through biblical acumen, appropriate role-modeling, intentional teaching, and effective advocacy through networking and community outreach. Additionally, integrated curricula for children, teens, and adults must include creation care as a fundamental component of Christian formation and discipleship processes to safeguard the health of the planet and future generations. Should this sleeping giant remain in deep slumber, we will surrender by default the opportunity to preserve the earth and honor God as the Creator of it.