Blue_Thesis_2018.pdf
Media
Part of A Survey of Environmental Attitudes within the Deep South Black Protestant Church
- extracted text
-
A SURVEY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS WITHIN THE
DEEP SOUTH BLACK PROTESTANT CHURCH
by
Tara N. Blue
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2018
©2018 by Tara Blue. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Tara N. Blue
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Shawn Hazboun, Ph. D.
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
A Survey of Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors within the Deep South Black
Protestant Church
The environmental movement in the United States, along with the broader science
community, has historically struggled to connect with African Americans and Protestants.
In order to democratize and diversify the environmental movement, national
organizations must reconsider their frameworks and listen to the values of minority and
religious individuals. This study measured environmental attitudes and behaviors of a
very specific intersection of race and religion: the black Protestant pastor in the Deep
South region of the United States. Political orientation and biblical interpretation appear
to have an effect on environmental attitudes and behaviors, support for government
environmental policy, and climate change beliefs within the black Protestant church.
Furthermore, this research finds evidence that the New Ecological Paradigm is an
insufficient environmental measurement tool for understanding the degree of
environmental orientation amongst Protestants. Recommendations for engaging both
minorities and religious individuals are given.
Keywords: environmental attitude, environmental behavior, black Protestant church,
African Methodist Episcopal, apocalypticism, eschatology, anthropocentrism, human
dominance, religious environmental organizations, environmental action
Table of Contents
Chapter 1…………………………………………………………………………………1
Introduction………………………………………………………………………1
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………5
Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………………….8
Introduction………………………………………………………………………8
African American Environmentalism……………………………………………9
Protestant Environmentalism……………………………………………………11
History of the Black Protestant Church…………………………………………16
Biblical Interpretation: Apocalypticism and Eschatology………………………17
Political Orientation……………………………………………………………..19
Research on Public Environmental Views: The NEP Scale…………………….19
Chapter 3: Methods……………………………………………………………………...21
Study Area……………………………………………………………………….21
Sampling Strategy……………………………………………………………….24
Data Collection…………………………………………………………………..27
Measurement Procedure…………………………………………………………28
Dependent Variables…………………………………………………………….28
The New Ecological Paradigm………………………………………….28
Support for Government Environmental Action………………………..29
Individual and Collective Actions Preferred for Creating Change……..30
Independent Variables…………………………………………………………..30
Biblical Interpretation (Eschatology, Apocalypticism)…………………30
Political Orientation…………………………………………………….31
iv
Demographic Variables………………………………………………..32
Analytical Procedure…………………………………………………………..32
Chapter 4: Results……………………………………………………………………..34
Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………………..35
Geographic Location…………………………………………………..36
Demographics………………………………………………………….36
Environmental Attitudes……………………………………………………….38
New Ecological Paradigm……………………………………………..39
New Ecological Paradigm Dimensionality…………………………….39
Climate Change Beliefs………………………………………………..40
Biblical Interpretation………………………………………………….41
Environmental Behaviors and Preferred Methods of Action………………….43
Support for Government Environmental Action……………………….43
Individual and Collective Actions Preferred for Creating Change…….43
Analytical Statistics…………………………………………………………….45
Environmental Orientation by Individual Characteristics……………...46
Environmentalism by Apocalyptic and Human Dominance Beliefs…..47
Chapter 5: Discussion & Implications………………………………………………….49
New Ecological Paradigm………………………………………………………50
Political Orientation…………………………………………………………….52
Apocalypticism…………………………………………………………………53
Anthropocentrism/Human Dominance…………………………………………53
Limitations of Study……………………………………………………………54
v
Chapter 6: Conclusion & Recommendations………………………………………….57
Recommendations……………………………………………………………..58
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..63
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Black Belt region of the Southeastern U.S. (Census Bureau special tabulation,
2000). Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/ancestry.pdf
Figure 2: Population density of Historically Black Protestants by state (Pew Research,
2014). Retrieved from: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscapestudy/religious-tradition/historically-black-protestant/
Figure 3: General location of respondents based on church zip code. Created by author
using ArcGIS software 2018.
Figure 4: Worldview of a black Protestant versus worldview of mainstream
environmentalism. Created by author using Microsoft Word drawings.
Figure 5: Faith in Place logo (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.faithinplace.org/
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Christian Eco-Ethics Model as adapted from Kearns 1997
Table 2: Profile of Respondents
Table 3: Table 3: New Ecological Paradigm scale
Table 4: NEP Items and Scores by Dimensions
Table 5: Belief in Climate Change
Table 6: Biblical Interpretation
Table 7: Government Environmental Policy Support
Table 8: Environmental Behaviors and Preferred Methods of Action
Table 9: Environmentalism by Political Party, Education, Denomination and Church Role
Table 10: Environmentalism by Biblical Beliefs
vi
Author’s Note
This research is meant to be a tiny pebble in a bridge between the faith and science
communities. In today’s American society, there seems to me an increasing apparent
dichotomy between faith and science, as recent social and political events have lessened
the ability for us to tolerate individuals with a different worldview. This “you’re either
with me or against me”, “my way or the highway” mentality is a plague in the human
mind, as I myself have been sickened by in the past.
Since moving to Washington State and enrolling in the MES program at The Evergreen
State College, my worldview has shifted subtly but surely. The city of Olympia has a
“hippie-ish” vibe, like a society stuck in a time-warp of the 1960’s, and I have felt at
home with fellow tree-huggers. With Bernie Sanders bumper stickers on every other
vehicle, I felt that I had finally found my people, and embracing the “green” culture came
easy to me.
As I slowly adjust my family’s lifestyle by enforcing “green” or “environmental”
practices, such as eating less meat, recycling or reusing product packaging, and walking
the kids to school instead of driving, I happily welcomed the resistance from my family
as a small price to pay for taking care of our earth. However, it was my husband who
surprisingly gave me the strongest push-back.
Being brought up in an African Methodist Episcopal church in North Carolina, he
proudly self-identifies as a “meat-and-potatoes” kind of guy, so eating less meat was not
a welcomed change, but he eventually complied with my increasingly obsessive “green”
habits. Feeling a bit overbearing, I realized that some “green” behaviors are not resisted
so much for being an unwelcomed or inconvenient change, but have a direct tension with
deep cultural identity. Giving up too much meat is like giving up who he is. After all,
what is a Sunday without a slab of ribs on the grill? This cultural barrier was confirmed
during a phone call with my husband’s grandmother after I prodded for an honest answer,
and she ever-so-politely replied in her sweet southern accent that yes, environmentalism
is definitely seen in the black community as a “white people’s thing”.
This was the first step that led me on the path of this thesis and I have enjoyed becoming
familiar with the history of the environmental movement, African American
environmentalism, religious environmentalism, and the amazing things that religious and
minority communities across the country are doing to ensure a better tomorrow for the
generations to come. I pray for this paper to bring people together through understanding
and shared values, for we are all brothers and sisters.
vii
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I thank God and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. With them, all
things are possible.
Thank you to my husband and my children for remaining patient and loving through
these past few years of school. Here’s to many more steak and rib dinners on Sunday.
Thank you to my mother for her unconditional love and support.
Thank you to my grandmother for dragging me to church on Sunday mornings.
Proverbs 22:6
Thank you to my thesis reader Dr. Shawn Hazboun for providing timely response and
encouraging support throughout this entire process. You’re awesome.
Finally, thank you to the pastors who took time out of their busy schedules to complete
my survey. I greatly appreciate you providing the feedback needed for this paper and
thank you for being spiritual leaders in our communities.
viii
Chapter 1
Introduction
As one of the top global polluters, America has a responsibility to switch to
cleaner, more sustainable practices. However, the political and social will of the people
must precede an effective environmental agenda. To be more effective, the environmental
movement in the United States must improve its connection with people of color and
people of faith, two groups disproportionately absent from mainstream
environmentalism. Diversification is not only crucial for the environmental movement to
be effective, but is crucial for the survival of the movement itself (Bonta & Jordan, 2007).
The mainstream movement is out of touch with minority environmental
perspectives and has admitted to being inattentive to minority environmental concerns
(Adams, 1992). Additionally, the mainstream environmental movement has through
decades been racially discriminatory in their hiring practices, sparking action in the early
1990’s as part of the environmental justice movement. As a result of the environmental
justice campaign, mainstream environmental organizations committed to addressing
environmental issues that disproportionately affect poor and minority communities and
also promised to re-examine their hiring process, as their staff comprised a
disproportionate number of white employees; however, desire for change doesn’t
necessarily reflect the reality of change (Gottlieb, 2005).
There still remains a major absence of minority presence in the mainstream
environmental NGOs, foundations, and agencies (Taylor, 2014). Underrepresentation in
any institution, including environmentalism, will further discourage participation of the
marginalized group (Finney, 2014) and therefore continues the cycle as a positive
1
feedback loop for a lower rate of minority applicants in the workforce (Pandya, 2012;
Bonta & Jordan, 2007).
Similarly, historical environmental contributions from minorities have gone
largely unrecognized (Finney, 2014; Glave & Stoll, 2006) while middle to upper class
white Americans dominate the movement’s narrative and decision-making capacity
(Gottlieb, 2005). Despite environmentalism being a “complex set of movements with
diverse roots” (Gottlieb, 2005), the mainstream environmental movement is still seen as a
“white” movement by the African American community which also discourages some
African Americans from participating (Baugh, 2015; Finney, 2014). The “eco-divide”
between blacks and whites has been compared to the digital divide, which separated
African Americans and lower income individuals from employment opportunities in the
early 2000’s (Baugh, 2017).
In addition to the white-black disparity, the environmental movement remains
largely a secular one (Dunlap, 2006). Many Christian ecologists have felt unable to voice
their belief that the environmental crisis requires a deeper religious understanding of the
values and ethics picture behind environmental problems (Dean, 2005; Kearns, 1997).
Many leaders in the scientific community claim that belief in God is not only antagonistic
to natural sciences, but dangerous to it, and consider theism a taboo subject among all
scientific circles (Dean, 2005). Therefore, by maintaining an environment that is
uncomfortable to people of faith, the atmosphere within environmental science
communities may appear unwelcoming, especially to black Protestants of whom 80%
report their religion to be “very important” in their lives (Pew Research Center, 2009).
This dynamic is problematic to the environmental movement.
2
Furthermore, there is a growing need to amplify the faith-based voice in the
movement because political will is imperative for creating legislative action; religious
politicians do not listen or adhere to the voice of the traditional secular mainstream
environmental movement nearly as closely as they do their more trusted faith-based
constituents (Baron, 1996). The national environmental agenda is also heavily vulnerable
to changes in administration (Smith & Pulver, 2009) and has been playing a game of back
and forth, tug-of-war between political parties in recent decades. The environmental
movement desperately needs to execute a plan which unites Americans under shared
values, as opposed to pursuing the goal of capturing national legislative power and
putting into practice an environmental agenda that a large number of Americans do not
support. Taking proper care of the earth should not be a partisan issue.
To continue an environmental agenda without recognizing and actively
attempting to understand environmental perspectives of a more diverse population is to
deprive the country of a more holistic, equitable, representative movement. To continue
an environmental agenda which does not serve the needs of a more diverse population
continues the framework for environmental injustice. In competitive American culture
where materialism and individualism have become the law of the land, it would seem that
the environmental movement should reconsider its approach, remove itself from the echo
chamber it operates in (Shellenberger & Nordhaus, 2005), and strive to incorporate
worldviews from both people of faith and people of color. However, before this can
occur, the environmental values of African and Protestant Americans must be examined,
and recent literature gives mixed results on the subject.
Studies on religious environmental attitudes tend to subgroup Christians into a
3
few smaller categories, such as Christian literalists and non-literalists (Morrison, et al.,
2015) or Judeo- or non-Judeo Christian (Hand & Van Liere, 1984). Studies on how
ethnicity and race affect environmental attitudes call for more in-depth research, as
conflicting results suggest a more nuanced solution than previously expected. As was
evident in the Presidential election of 2016, many Protestant Americans do not share
environmentalists’ sense of urgency of the ecological crisis, electing arguably the most
anti-environmental president in recent history, Donald J. Trump. While many studies
have examined both African American and Protestant environmental attitudes, there is a
significant gap in understanding with regard to the black church community as a more
specific sub-culture and an intersection of both realms. Current literature calls for a more
in-depth look at African American (Finney, 2014) and Protestant (Sherkat & Ellison,
2007) environmental values and beliefs.
The black church has been a mobilizer for change in past movements (Finney,
2014; Arp, 1997; Harris, 1994; West, 1988; DuBois, 1969) and should be respected as a
crucial ally. The goal of this research is to be a small building block in the bridge
between the scientific and the faith communities by uncovering the middle ground where
we can all stand. This topic is important because it can shed light on areas of shared
values and lessen the distrust and misunderstanding between different groups who
operate in seemingly-opposed axioms. This paper will examine the following research
questions:
1. Do black Protestant pastors in the South hold an anti-, neutral, or proenvironmental attitude?
2. What environmental actions/behaviors are preferred by black Protestants in the
4
South to create change?
3. What factors appear to be related to black Protestants’ environmental attitudes and
behaviors within the black Protestant church?
4. How can this inform the environmental movement to create a more diverse
constituency?
To answer these questions, this thesis uses a mail survey to measure
environmental attitudes and identify preferred actions from within the black church
community in the southeast region of the United States (the Deep South). In the chapters
that follow, I first review current literature regarding African American and Protestant
environmentalism, the history of the black Protestant church, and the common predictors
of environmental worldviews. In chapter 3, I explain the exact methodology used to
sample from the intended population, and how I structured the survey instrument to
measure environmental predictors. Chapter 4 provides a report of study results, including
a demographic profile of respondents and their responses to the survey instrument as well
as the factors that appear to condition respondents’ environmental attitudes. In chapter 5,
I discuss the implications of the results and compare them to past studies. Finally, chapter
6 offers several strategies currently in place that can bring the mainstream environmental
community together with African and Protestant Americans using the results of this
survey.
Definition of terms
For the purposes of this paper, the definition of environmentalism is borrowed
from Parker and McDonough (1999) as a composite of environmental attitudes and
behaviors: “Environmental attitude is defined as a person’s general positive or negative
5
feeling toward the natural surroundings of humankind, including air, water, land, wildlife,
and the systems existing between the natural environment and human society” (p. 156),
and the behaviors are the actions stemming from such attitudes.
The mainstream environmental movement refers to the government
environmental agencies and national environmental organizations and foundations, as
opposed to smaller, local grassroots movements. The mainstream movement tends to be
highly bureaucratic and located in Washington, D.C. and state capitals (Gottlieb, 2005).
Afrocentrism is one of the key concepts of this thesis. If an American institution
has been established primarily by a white constituency, it is preferable for African
Americans to establish their own version which examines the African American
experience as the primary worldview and assert equitable representation (Baugh, 2015;
Finney, 2014). The “mainstream environmental movement” is an American institution
established, informed, and maintained by “white, Western European, or Euro-American
voices” (Finney, 2014, p. 3; Taylor, 1997).
The Deep South is a specific sub-region of the southern United States largely
characterized by its culture and geography and comprised of states most heavily
dependent historically on slavery and the cotton industry. The Deep South generally
includes Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Georgia (Encyclopedia
Britannica, 2017).
Protestant refers to the member of the Protestant church, the second largest
denomination of Christianity behind Catholicism. In this paper, I use the terms
“Protestant” and “Christian” interchangeably, although Protestant does not technically
include Catholicism as Christianity does.
6
The historically black Protestant church is a foundational subculture of America
whose constituents unite by race, religion, and shared history. There are seven major
denominations of the historically black Protestant church and this research will sample
from two of the largest denominations, the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church
and the African Methodist Episcopal Zion (AMEZ) (pbs.org, 2010). While I
acknowledge that not all individuals who identify as black are of African descent, I use
the terms “black” and “African American” interchangeably. Furthermore, although the
AME and AMEZ churches are openly inviting to members of all races and ethnicities, it
is assumed that respondents are African American, as Pew Forum reports 96% black
identification (2014).
As it pertains to Christianity, apocalypticism is the religious belief in an
imminent, prophetic end of the world, creating a subcultural offset of individuals who
believe, behave, and create social processes according to that belief (McNeish, 2017) and
based mainly in the book of Revelations. The origin of the word “apocalypse” has Greek
roots, translating as an ‘uncovering’ or ‘revelation’ (McNeish, 2017).
Eschatology is defined as the branch of theology concerned with the end times of
the universe of humankind (Merriam-Webster, 2018).
Anthropocentrism is defined as the philosophical practice of seeing humans as
the most important entities, regarding the world in terms of human values and
experiences, or having a human-centered orientation (Merriam-Webster, 2018). This term
is also used in this thesis interchangeably with the concept of human dominance and the
belief that humans have the right to modify their surroundings.
7
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
Over the years, studies have examined the interaction of both religion and race
with environmentalism. However, inconsistent findings on both variables signal that the
environmental perspectives of Protestants and African Americans are complex (Sherkat
& Ellison, 2007; Sheppard, 1995). Some scholars propose black religion as a suppressant
of political activism (Marx, 1967), while others propose it as a “mobilizer” of awareness
and action (Harris, 1994). Some research highlights the lack of environmental concern in
the African American community (Taylor, 1989), while additional studies refute the
claim and assert that African Americans are more concerned for the environment than are
individuals who identify as white (Jones & Carter, 1994; Mohai, 1990).
Research on individual versus communal approaches to environmentalism has
suggested Protestants and African Americans prefer different approaches. While
Protestants tend to view individual behavior as the most effective component for creating
change (Smith & Pulver, 2009; Smith, 2006), African Americans tend to lean towards
communal action, asserting power in numbers and taking action only after becoming
affiliated with community groups (Taylor, 1989), such as a church community. A
controversial essay suggested that the Western Christian worldview, which values human
life above all, is to blame for the current ecological crisis (White, 1967), while other
studies suggest that religion may be the source of a more pro-environmental stewardship
effect (Smith & Pulver, 2009; Kanagy & Nelsen, 1995).
8
With such a conflicting body of literature on the subject of religion, race and
environmentalism, further research on the black Protestant perspective can offer
important insight on shared values and possible areas of increased engagement and
collaboration. As the common saying goes, “we fear what we don’t understand,” and that
fear leads to avoidance and the inability to engage with individuals and communities
which are unlike our own. This research aims to decrease the amount of
misunderstanding between the larger environmental science communities who engage in
environmental action (environmentalists), and the larger faith communities.
African American Environmentalism
African American environmental thought and action is complex, complicated by
historical events. Literature suggests that one of the reasons why some African
Americans may adopt a resentful view of environmentalism is that placing the emphasis
of caring for endangered plants and animals over minorities living in inner cities is
diversionary and elitist (Baugh, 2015; Baugh,1991). Another leading explanation for the
absence of minorities in the movement is subcultural values and collective memory.
More specifically, the black community is reported to share transgenerational trauma that
is engrained in the African American psyche which deters an incentive to develop a
stronger connection to the land. For example, black female church members shared with
an interviewer that caring for the land invokes a feeling of slavery, even going so far to
say that African Americans should avoid outside environmental activities in the sun, such
as farming, in fear of a stigma associated with their skin becoming too dark (Baugh,
2015). Older members expressed contempt for certain fruits and vegetables because of
their association to sharecropping they experienced as children (Baugh, 2015). They also
9
suggested that the younger black generations moving further and further away from the
land should be considered progress (Baugh, 2015).
Furthermore, African Americans have historically been unwelcomed in and
segregated from public areas, affecting their motivation to protect those public areas.
Similarly, violent hate crimes committed in natural wilderness areas have been suggested
to prohibit African Americans from feeling safe to visit such areas (Finney, 2014;
Johnson & Bowker, 2004; Taylor, 1989). This trauma affects the relationship to the land
and an individual’s environmental orientation can be strongly influenced by their identity
as an African American (Finney, 2014).
If an ethnic group of people collectively experience hostile or fearful emotions
towards the environment from centuries of hate crimes committed in wildland areas,
slavery, and forced labor under the institutions of share-cropping, plantation agriculture,
and forest labor, they would be less inclined to fight for environmental causes. However,
some literature has recognized this deeply-rooted tension and urges African Americans to
embrace nature while recognizing minority contributions to environmentalism. Glave &
Stoll’s To Love the Wind and Rain (2006) attempts to mend the brokenness between
African Americans and the natural world by highlighting an almost romantic relationship
and offering an Afrocentric environmental history. Nonetheless, there is a need for
greater understanding of the environmental attitudes and belief of African Americans
(Finney, 2014) because they have historically been marginalized and used in the
environmental agenda without being given actual agency.
10
African Americans have also voiced feelings of being unwelcomed in the
environmental movement. The underlying tensions between mainstream
environmentalism and minorities was brought to light at the first People of Color
Environmental Leadership Summit in 1991, when participating minority groups soundly
declared that they did not want a “paternalistic relationship” with environmental
organizations, but instead a “relationship based on equity, mutual respect, mutual interest,
and justice” as co-managers (Gottlieb, 2005). People of color accused the mainstream
environmental organizations of racist hiring and employment practices, and although
ethnic minority hiring has increased, it still remains largely disproportionate (Taylor,
2014). In a national study, minorities and bi-racial individuals were found to make up
about 38% of the U.S. population but only account for less than 12% of paid positions
among environmental organizations and less than 5% of African Americans hold
leadership positions (Taylor, 2014).
This research will examine these alleged divisions between environmentalism and
African Americans. I will also measure environmental attitudes of black Protestants as a
function biblical interpretation and apocalypticism. The black Protestant is a unique
individual whose voice is not equally recognized in the mainstream movement, and this
research will help identify how members of the black Protestant church perceive the
government’s role over environmental pollution, identify preferred behaviors and action,
consider the role the bible plays in shaping environmental attitude, and the role that
human beings play in relation to the environment.
Protestant Environmentalism
There are several fundamental ideological differences which historically divide
11
Protestants from mainstream environmentalism, causing the movement to continually fail
to collaborate with many religious-minded individuals. First, Protestants tend to have an
anthropocentric, human-dominant orientation which has been found to be associated with
a lower environmental concern (Hand & Van Liere, 1984). Furthermore,
environmentalists tend to place the needs of the environment above the needs of human
and economic development; therefore a strictly environmental agenda is not wellreceived within the Protestant religious right (Shellenberger & Nordhaus, 2004).
On the other hand, scholars have pointed the blame at Christianity. Historian
Lynn White published a 1967 paper in entitled “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological
Crisis”, claiming Christianity single-handedly altered man’s worldview of our
relationship with nature. Before the rise of Christianity, White suggested that the western
world lived more in balance and harmony with nature and attributed a soul to all living
and non-living things, including but not limited to plants, animals, mountains, rivers,
weather systems, and natural phenomena. White claimed Christianity “established a
dualism of man and nature” (p. 52), abolishing pagan animism and separating man from
the natural world by giving mankind dominion and divine authority to rule over
everything on the earth. One specific passage from the book of Genesis is seemingly
evident of White’s claim:
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may
rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild
animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27So God created
mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he
created them. 28God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number;
fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over
every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Genesis 1:26-28, New International
Version)
26
12
Although critics of Christianity would argue this verse is proof the Christian has a
destructive domination agenda for the earth, biblical interpretation varies greatly between
different churches and denominations. Pastor Ed Gardner of a non-denominational
Protestant church in Alaska interprets this particular verse non-literally and establishes its
meaning in a completely different context. In a recent online post, Pastor Ed describes
this verse as God telling you to “use the things He’s given you to make a difference in
this world. In other words, you are here not to be irrelevant, not to be on the sidelines, not
to sit back and watch life happen and someone else live it, you are here to exercise God’s
creative rule over the earth, to be fruitful, to be a part of families, to make communities,
to build cities, to lead societies, to shape cultures… You were made to be a success”
(March 21, 2018). By this interpretation, this passage is meant for a Christian to become
a good steward in their personal relationships and is unrelated to exploitation of natural
resources. This interpretation reflects the potential for biblical scripture to vary greatly in
its meaning between different denominations of Protestants.
However, in keeping with White’s thesis, Christian anti-environmentalism has
increased in the last several decades of the 20th century (Pew Research, 2014; Wright,
1995) and despite claims that Christianity has experienced a ‘greening’ of attitudes
(Wilkinson, 2010), a recent study found Christians still tend to show less concern for the
environment (Konisky, 2017). Many Protestants believe environmentalism to be a
version of nature-worship paganism, worshiping the creation over the creator, and
therefore must be rejected as false idolatry (Kearns, 1997). Environmentalism has also
been accused by Christian fundamentalists to be the mechanism which replaces
Christianity and brings about the new global world order as prophesized in the Holy
13
Bible (Kearns, 1997). In a televised sermon by Christian Preacher John Hagey, he warns
his audience of “The Environmentalist Agenda” by stating,
“I am for clean air and clean water and the preservation of our natural resources…But I
have discovered from a great number of sources an environmental juggernaut that has
come together and married the new world order crowd and the occultists who have the
objective to control the United States economy through environmental concerns and laws
that they have passed and will pass” –as quoted in Kearns 1997.
Despite these serious charges and the rise of Christian anti-environmentalism,
religious environmental organizations have been on the rise since the 1990’s (Kearns,
1997). In response to the growing national sentiment that Christians are not
environmentally friendly, several national environmental organizations have sprouted,
including the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE), the
Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), and Interfaith Power and Light (IPL), all
taking varying degrees of environmental attitudes and behavior.
An attempt to categorize Christian environmental attitudes, Kearns (1997)
identifies three leading Christian eco-theological ethical models by which religious
environmental organizations operate from. These are described in Table 1. The first is the
Christian stewardship ethic, which are mainly characterized by anthropocentrism, belief
in biblical mandate to care for God’s creation, and belief in a transcendent and
authoritative God. The next model is eco-justice, characterized by anthropocentrism,
driven by social justice, and belief in a transcendent and liberating God. The final model
is creation spirituality, characterized by biocentrism, guided by cosmological physics,
and belief in an immanent pantheistic God (Kearns, 1997). Based on the literature, the
black Protestant church is expected to adhere to the Christian stewardship ethic, placing
14
humans as the key species on earth, created in God’s image, yet also bearing the
responsibility of tending to God’s garden (the earth).
Table 1: Christian Eco-Theological Ethic Models
Christian Ethic
Eco-Justice
Creation Spirituality
Evangelical
Mainline Christian;
social justice
Liberal/Unchurched
Human-Nature
Relationship
Gardener/Caretaker
Sustainable use of
natural resources
Balance/harmony of
humans in bio-system
Roots of
Environmental
Crisis
Human sinfulness
and disobedience of
God
Injustice/inequality;
economic systems
Dualism of humans
and nature;
anthropocentrism
Anthropocentric;
pre-modern
Anthropocentric;
modern
Biocentric; postmodern
Resource depletion;
species extinction
Toxic/hazardous
waste; human health;
pollution
Wilderness
preservation; species
extinction
Image of God
Authoritative
Liberator
Panentheistic
Social Change
Orientation
Homocentric
(change individuals)
Sociocentric (change
society)
Homocentric (change
individuals)
Theological
appeal
Worldview
Central
Environmental
Issues
Christian
Stewardship
Table 1: Christian Eco-Ethics Model as adapted from Kearns 1997.
Individuals of faith are said to exert a more holistic, “ethics-based” approach to
issues, as opposed to the narrower, “issue-based” approach used by secularists (Smith &
Pulver, 2009). For example, a faith-based individual may take ethics-based
environmental action by teaching others that caring for the earth is an act of love which
honors the creator and regards all the physical world as a manifestation of God’s creation;
a secularist may take an issue-based approach by opposing an environmental permit be
issued to build a specific dam. An ethics-based approach gives an answer to why action is
15
needed; an issue-based approach gives an answer to what action is needed. Although
ethics-based action is not exclusive to faith-led individuals and issue-based action is not
exclusive to secularists, faith-led environmentalism contains a larger principled
framework that is missing from the mainstream environmental movement (Smith &
Pulver, 2009).
History of the Black Protestant Church
The historically black Protestant (HBP) church has been arguably the most
powerful black institution in American history. The (HBP) churches led African
Americans to independence, political liberation, and activism (West, 1988), such as in the
fight for civil rights and the abolition of slavery. Black religiosity is also a predictor of
communal activity, such as political and social activism (Arp & Boeckelman, 1997). This
was apparent in the Civil Rights movement, as the black church mobilized the African
American community effectively. However, for an environmental agenda, the HBP
church is the least supportive of more strict environmental regulations out of all the other
major religions in the U.S. (Pew Research, 2004). Studies show that African Americans
are just as concerned about the environment as other races (Adeola, 2004; Parker &
McDonough, 1999), but there is a larger gap between concern and action (Parker &
McDonough, 1999; Taylor, 1989).
Despite the environmental movement’s attempt to diversify its constituency and
increase minority agency and presence, it remains largely white (Taylor, 2014; Bonta &
Jordan, 2007). One national study examined the employee racial and ethnic composition
of mainstream environmental NGOs, foundations, and government agencies, and found
that racial and ethnic minorities remain “severely underrepresented in the environmental
16
workforce” (Taylor, 2014, p. 4). Empirical research has shown that African American
representation is almost non-existent in environmental leisure and recreation publications
(Finney, 2014).
Environmentalism has even been rejected by minorities as a term reserved for the
national mainstream organizations (Gottlieb, 2005, p. 8). African Americans of the
environmental justice movement in the 1980’s rejected the mainstream environmental
organizations’ attempt at a paternalistic relationship and requested a relationship which
resembled an equitable partnership, which did not occur (Gottlieb, 2005) and has not
been fully realized (Taylor, 2014). During this time, the definition of environment was
defined by not to refer to beautiful, pristine wildlands but where we “live, work, and
play” (Gottlieb, 2005).
Biblical Interpretation: Apocalypticism and Eschatology
10
The day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the
elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid
bare. (2 Peter 3:10, New International Version)
Warning the public of impending doom is something the environmental
movement and the religious community have in common. The science community is
continually warning us of climate change: the potential catastrophic collapse of our
global ecosystems, increasing wildfires, species extinction, increasing droughts,
intensifying natural disasters, melting of polar ice, the rising of the sea. Similarly,
sections of the Protestant community have long subscribed to apocalypticism, or a
doctrine concerning an imminent end of the world and an ensuing resurrection and final
judgement (Merriam-Webster, 2018). Protestantism has warned of the second coming of
Jesus Christ, a future “reckoning for humanity, the collapse of civilization, and perhaps
17
even annihilation of all life” (McNeish, 2017, p. 1036; Weber, 1999). Eschatology, or a
branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of
humankind (Merriam-Webster, 2018), is a major component of Protestant thought. A
common doctrine of Protestantism is the idea that humans need to get right with God
before judgment day and offer guiding principles to live by.
Similarly, modern environmentalism has been described as a secular faith that
acts much like a religion (Dunlap, 2006). By orienting humans to their place in the
environment and providing them a purpose to their lives (to get right with the universe by
living in harmony with nature), environmentalism shares more with Protestantism than
has been realized. Belief in an ultimate reckoning, whether it is from ecological or divine
intervention, guides members of both the environmental and religious communities. The
impact of these similar beliefs is much more ambiguous.
Critics of the environmental doomsday thinking argue that fear-driven narratives,
such as that used by the mainstream environmental movement to sound the alarm on
climate change and environmental crises are ultimately self-defeating in a consumeristic
society (McNeish, 2017; Giddens, 2015). Environmental apocalypticism is considered by
some to be counterproductive to environmentalism because it creates an undesirable
alarmist (Leiserowitz, 2005) or hysterical (Hoggert, 2011) perception of the person
holding the apocalyptic worldview (McNeish, 2017). However, some argue that
apocalyptic narratives are an important element in creating crucial action and sense of
urgency (McNeish, 2017; Taylor, 1991). Veldman (2012) argues that environmental
behaviors ‘occur not despite apocalypticism but because of it’. Apocalyptic predictions
have shaped American culture and framed the paradigms we exist in. As such, this thesis
18
analyzes whether subscribing to those beliefs influences environmental attitudes, a
precursor to environmental behavior, as previous studies suggest.
Political Orientation
Political party and ideology have been shown to be indicators of environmental
attitudes and behaviors, and conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats remain
highly divided on this issue today. Shekat and Ellison found that conservative Protestants
are significantly less likely to report environmental behaviors, such as recycling, and are
significantly less likely to make personal sacrifices for nature, such as paying higher
taxes to benefit the environment (2007). However, they also found that conservatives
hold stronger stewardship beliefs (Sherkat & Ellison, 2007). Similarly, McCright et al.
found that Republicans and conservatives are more divided than ever from Democrats
and liberals when it comes to support for government spending on environmental
protection (2014). This divide may indicate ideological differences and perceived role of
the government rather than environmental orientation.
Research on Public Environmental Views: The New Ecological Paradigm Scale
First introduced in 1978 as the New Environmental Paradigm, the New Ecological
Paradigm scale (Dunlap 2000, 1978) is recognized as a reliable tool to measure
individuals’ environmental orientation. The scale was revised in 2000 to broaden the
range of content, offer a better balance of pro- and anti- NEP items, and remove outdated
terminology.
One study found that political party, occupational sector, income, and residence
are all predictors of consistent NEP scores (Dunlap et al., 2000). The NEP scale has also
19
shown that specific groups, such as younger generations, more highly educated
individuals, and political liberals, have consistently higher pro-environmental scores
(Dunlap et al., 2000; Jones & Dunlap, 1992). Furthermore, individuals who experience
environmental crises have also been shown to have an increased NEP score, and
awareness of environmental issues have been shown to increase environmental concern
(Eiser et al., 1994). One study found that residents of Kentucky adopted an increased proenvironmental attitude after experiencing a severe drought (Arcury & Christianson,
1990).
The NEP scale has been found to measure several dimensions of one’s
environmental worldview (Morrison et al., 2015; Dunlap et al., 2000). In its original
form, the NEP scale was thought to be composed of three dimensions: human dominance
over the earth, limitations to growth, and the balance of nature (Dunlap and Van Liere,
1978). However, later iterations and other studies have found that the new NEP scale
contains four dimensions: eco-crisis, human ingenuity, human rule, and earth limits
(Morrison et al., 2015; Dunlap et al. 2000). Some researchers have chosen to decrease the
number of questions they ask depending on the specific dimension they are examining
(Arcury, 1990).
20
Chapter 3: Methods
Study Area
This research focuses on the geographic area of the United States known as the
“Deep South”. The Deep South region includes Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana,
South Carolina, and Alabama. These states were most dependent on plantation-style
agriculture, cotton production, and slave societies before the Civil War (New World
Encyclopedia, 2008). The Deep South region also contains an area of the U.S. known as
the “Black Belt”, which refers to a stretch of fertile plain from eastern Texas to North
Carolina that comprises of rich, dark-colored soil used for growing cotton (Encyclopedia
Britannica, 2018). Additional definitions of the Black Belt sub-region developed,
eventually being described in 1901 by prominent African American scholar Booker T.
Washington in his autobiography as "the part of the South where the slaves were most
profitable, and consequently they were taken there in the largest numbers. Later and
especially since the war, the term seems to be used wholly in a political sense—that is, to
designate the counties where the black people outnumber the white”.
21
Figure 1: Black Belt region of the Deep South (Census Bureau special tabulation, 2004).
In addition to being the densest HBP and African American populations, the Deep
South also tends to have some of the highest rates of poverty in the U.S. (Driskell, 2006;
Adelman & Jaret, 1999). The Black Belt specifically experiences high occupational
segregation, lack of industrial growth, low quality of life, and continuously low
household income for African Americans (Census Bureau, 2012; Rankin & Falk, 1991).
These lower socioeconomic and minority areas have been targeted by industrial polluters;
environmental injustices are a result of the imbalances in these systemic power structures,
where communities with the least power are exploited by a more influential entity for
their community’s inability to politically, monetarily, or legally resist these powerful
corporations (James et al., 2012; Brulle & Pellow, 2006).
For example, the petrochemical corridor in Louisiana, commonly known as
“cancer alley”, is a 100-mile stretch of land containing more than 130 plants and
refineries (James, Jia, & Kedia, 2012; Gottlieb, 2005). One study found that the highest
22
cumulative exposure risk for cancer is disproportionately located in the low-income tracts
of cancer alley while the lower risk of cancer is among the higher income tracts (James et
al., 2012). The same study found that the cancer risk similarly increases with percentage
of black residents. In 1987, the landmark study Toxic Wastes and Race conducted by
United Church in Christ Commission, found that race was the most significant variable in
association with the location of a commercial hazardous waste facility. These areas are
predicted to exhibit pro-environmental attitudes, since experiencing an environmental
crisis has been shown to increase an individual’s environmental worldview (Arcury &
Christianson, 1990).
This study focuses on three states within the Deep South region: Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama. Mississippi was selected first, since 24% of the state’s adult
population identifies as historically black Protestants (HBP), which is the highest density
of HBP in the U.S. Louisiana neighbors Mississippi to the west and is the next highest
density at 22%. Alabama is the fourth highest density at 16% and despite the fact that
Georgia is the third densest state, containing a 17% of adult population HBP, Alabama
was selected due to its location since it borders Mississippi to the east.
23
Figure 2: Population density of Historically Black Protestants by state (Pew Research, 2014).
Although this survey spanned a large geographic area covering three states, the HBP
church maintains similar cultural beliefs. Among the various denominations, the HBP
church members collectively display fewer differences on political and social issues than
the general population (Pew Research Center, 2009).
Sampling Strategy
There are seven major denominations of the historically black protestant church:
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc., National Baptist Convention of America,
Progressive National Convention, African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME), African
Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (AME Zion), Christian Methodist Episcopal Church,
and the Church of God in Christ (pbs.org, 2010). This research project was narrowed
down to the scope of two denominations for budgetary and time constraints. Although the
National Baptist Convention is the largest of the HBP denominations (Pew Research
24
Center, 2018), it was excluded after internet searches resulted in a limited list of church
locations.
The AME church is the most “historic” black Protestant denomination, as the first
independent black church in U.S. history to separate from a larger denomination on the
basis of race as opposed to theological differences (pbs.org, 2018) and remains the
second largest black Protestant denomination today (Pew Research Center, 2018). The
AME church was founded in 1816 by Richard Allen in opposition to racial discrimination
of St. George’s Methodist church in Philadelphia, PA (ame-church.com, 2018). “African”
is for foundations built by African Americans, “Methodist” is a reference to having roots
in the Methodist church, and “Episcopal” refers to the type of church government
operations (Williams, 2015).
The AME Zion church, whose members also self-identify as “Zion Methodist”,
was founded in 1821 by James Varick in New York. The AME Zion church was also
founded as a result of segregation imposed on the African American members of the
Methodist church (Townsel, 1996). Although the two denominations have almost
identical names and were founded around the same time, they are separate
denominations. The term “Zion” is said to be chosen by the founders to represent the
word most commonly used in the Bible to describe the church of God (Williams, 2015).
The word “Zion” is also defined as a term used to describe heaven, a kingdom come, or a
New Jerusalem (Merriam-Webster, 2018). The concept of a chosen people being led out
of oppression to a promised land is reoccurring. On their webpage, the AME Zion church
refer to their heritage as an oppressed people repeatedly being led out of bondage, and
have been “chosen” to lift up the poor and oppressed until the second coming of Jesus
25
Christ (amez.org, 2018). They also feature a photo of Harriet Tubman who was known as
the “Moses” of the Underground Railroad, smuggling slaves out of the South to the
promised land of the free North (Wyels, 2013).
Both denominations were established separately around the same time in protest
of racial discrimination from the larger Eurocentric Methodist churches; however, at the
2012 United Methodist Conference, the larger white Methodist church and the smaller
African American denominations entered into full communion with each other, agreeing
to recognize one another’s churches, share sacraments, and recognize mutual authority
(Banks, 2012). The two denominations are similar, yet maintain a certain level of
separation. They would be considered “sister” churches.
The sampling strategy was to include pastors of all AME and AME Zion churches
in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi which returned complete addresses and phone
numbers after repeated internet searches. AME and AME Zion churches were easily
identifiable by their unique acronyms.
The black pastor has “traditionally been the oracles of retribution for the
oppressor, the prophets of vindication for the oppressed” and is one of the most respected
figures in the southern black church community (Burns, 1992). In his 1903 book The
Souls of Black Folk, W.E.B. Du Bois described the African American preacher as the
“most unique personality developed by the Negro on American soil” (p. 116) who “found
his function as the healer of the sick, the interpreter of the Unknown, the comforter of the
sorrowing, the supernatural avenger of wrong, and the one who rudely but picturesquely
expressed the longing, disappointment, and resentment of a stolen and oppressed people”
26
(p. 119). The black pastor is the heart of the black church and represents its inner most
values, and therefore was selected as the intended subject at each church sampled.
Data Collection
The National Baptist denomination was excluded from the sampling strategy after
it was determined that there was no plausible way to distinguish black Baptist churches
from all other Baptist churches besides those specifically containing the word “African”
in the title. A list of publicly available names, addresses, and phone numbers of AME and
AME Zion churches in the three target states was compiled after repeated internet
searches and entered into an excel spreadsheet. A survey booklet measuring
environmental perspectives was mailed to each church address with an accompanying
letter requesting that the lead pastor fill out and returns the survey (see appendices for the
complete survey instrument). The addresses on the outgoing and incoming envelopes
were hand-written and stamped individually in an attempt to maximize the return rate.
Once a week for six weeks after sending out the survey materials, 5-10 random churches
on the list were contacted by phone to gauge how well the survey was being received and
returned. Increased follow-up calls were conducted after the six weeks.
A total of 178 envelopes containing survey materials were mailed and a total of
15 responses were received. After accounting for the 33 survey packets that were
returned as undeliverable, the response rate was 10%, or 15 out of 145. Because of the
low response rate, this study is presented as an exploratory pilot study and cannot
generalize to the broader black Protestant community. Areas of improvement for future
27
studies will be covered in the discussion section, with specific attention to garnering a
higher response rate.
Measurement Procedure
The survey instrument consisted of a 14-page, half sheet survey booklet with 26
questions measuring environmental attitudes, support for environmental regulation,
biblical interpretation, the New Ecological Paradigm scale, and various demographic
factors. Survey questions were included in the survey to specifically measure several
variables listed above (see appendices). Items were most often measured using a Likert
scale, measuring different degrees of support or agreeance for environmental beliefs and
actions.
Dependent variables
New Ecological Paradigm Scale
The NEP scale was used to measure respondents’ overall environmental
orientation. As mentioned previously, the NEP scale can also be separated into several
constructs; Dunlap et al. 2000 identifies five dimensions of the NEP as limits to growth,
balance of nature, eco-crisis, human exemption to laws of nature, and anthropocentrism.
Balance is the generally regarded as an agreeance with ecological harmony between man
and nature, and is a key principle to Kearns’ creation spirituality ethic (see table 1).
Limits to growth are associated with the belief that the earth’s resources are limited and
therefore humans should limit the space they take up and the resources they consume.
Eco-crisis is the belief that the earth is heading towards an ecological catastrophe that
will result in disastrous consequences if things continue their present course. This can
also be considered an apocalyptic orientation as a belief that humankind and/or the earth
28
are heading towards a catastrophic event resulting in a destructive end. Human exemption
is the belief that humans are not susceptible to or are above the laws of nature. Finally,
anthropocentrism is the regarded as a human-centered orientation that gives us
dominance and the right to modify our surroundings (Dunlap et al., 2000). This study
focused mostly on anthropocentrism and limits to growth, and evaluated the correlation
of these NEP dimensions to other variables as well as the scale responses as a whole.
The full 15-item NEP scale was used in the survey instrument. Responses were
coded on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest pro-environmental score and 5
being the highest pro-environmental score. As is common practice, questions stated in an
anti-environmental direction were reversely-coded to ensure uniform directionality
measuring the extent of pro-environmental orientation. For example, “humans have the
right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs” were coded from 5 to 1, with
1 being “strongly agree” and scoring the lowest pro-environmental answer. Each item on
the NEP scale was summed for each respondent to produce an overall NEP score.
Therefore, the lowest possible total NEP score was 15 (15 items times a score of 1 for
each item) and the highest possible score was 75 (15 items times a score of 5 for each
item).
Support for Government Environmental Action
Respondents were asked seven questions pertaining to the level of support for
different government policies. Responses were coded on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 to
5, 1 being the least supportive and 5 being the most supportive. The total range was 7-35,
with 7 being strongly opposed (scoring a 1 on each item) to government policy and 35
being strongly supportive (scoring a 5 on each item). Questions indicating an anti29
environmental orientation were reverse coded for consistency such each item could be
analyzed as a measure of support for government environmental policies. For example,
the item asking respondents how much they supported “opening up more land owned by
the federal government for oil and gas exploration” was coded from 5 to 1, with a higher
score of 5 corresponding to a “strongly oppose” response.
Individual and Collective Actions Preferred for Creating Change
Respondents were asked several questions regarding current environmental
behaviors and preferred actions to influence change (activism). Respondents were asked
to indicate what actions they prefer to take in order to create social, economic, or
environmental change, and more than one answer could be selected. Additionally, two
questions were asked in order to determine whether respondents prefer taking individual
or collective group action, as environmental outcomes have been shown to be divided by
the Christian denominations into individualistic and communal actions (Emerson &
Smith, 2001). Finally, two questions were asked to examine whether respondents believe
the black church community should take a separatist approach and engage in action apart
from or together with the mainstream organizations.
Independent variables
Biblical Interpretation (Eschatology, Apocalypticism)
Christianity has been blamed for shifting the western world into an
anthropocentric worldview and creating the present ecological crisis (White, 1967). The
New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale contains items to measure how strongly the
subject adheres to human dominance over nature. The pastors were asked two questions
pertaining to whether or not they believe climate change is a result of end-times biblical
30
translation, as well as three additional questions to measure what degree they
agree/disagree with statements related to Christian environmental ethics derived from
biblical translation (see Table 1 & 6). Respondents who believe in an inevitable end to
the world may be less concerned with environmental stewardship and consider it
pointless to spend time and money to save something that will eventually be destroyed
anyways.
Political Orientation
Since the mainstream environmental movement has experienced a major decline
in support from conservative Republican individuals over the last few decades (McCright
et al., 2014), political affiliation was also measured. Respondents were asked to best
describe their political views using a five-point Conservative–Moderate–Liberal scale
with response options ranging from very conservative to very liberal. Political orientation
was examined to see if a conservative response appeared to be related to a lower proenvironmental NEP score, or a liberal response related to a higher pro-environmental
NEP score.
The subject was also asked which political party they most closely align with, as
Democrats are also shown to have a more pro-environmental orientation than
Republicans (Jones & Dunlap, 1992) and more supportive of government environmental
spending (McCright et al., 2014). It was examined if a pastor is more likely to have a
more pro-environmental NEP score if they indicate they are a Democrat rather than
affiliation with any other political party. Respondents were also asked several questions
to measure the degree to which they support government environmental regulations (see
31
Appendix B), as it is presumed that Democrats would more strongly support
environmental spending and regulation.
Demographic variables
Respondents were asked to identify basic individual demographics, such as
education level, religious denomination, and age. Respondents were asked to identify
his/her highest level of education completed, as a higher education level has been found
to be positively correlated to pro-environmental attitude (Dunlap, 2000; Jones & Dunlap,
1992). Additionally, denomination was measure as limited studies have shown more
liberal, less biblically-literal denominations of Protestantism, such as Methodists, to have
higher NEP scores than more conservative, biblically-literal denominations, such as
Baptists (Morrison, Duncan, & Parton, 2015; Hand & Van Liere, 1984). Last, age was
measured in years since it has been found in past studies to be predictors of a proenvironmental worldview, being negatively related as younger individuals tend to have a
higher environmental orientation (Jones & Dunlap, 1992).
Analytical Procedure
Tables 9 and 10 present total scores for several variables that were recorded and
compared to the whole group average score to determine if differences in independent
variables existed. Respondents were grouped according to denomination, level of
education, church role, political party affiliation, adherence to apocalyptic beliefs, and
human dominance beliefs. For example, when comparing differences found in political
party affiliation, a respondent was first identified as having answered “Democrat”. Then
responses to the NEP, support for government environmental policies, and climate
32
change were analyzed, categorizing by political party. This process was repeated for all
respondents for political and independent variables.
33
Chapter 4: Results
The next section presents the results of the survey instrument to offer a general
environmental profile of the black Protestants who responded to the survey. As a review,
the research goals of this thesis were to measure environmental orientation, identify
preferred behaviors (courses of action) to influence change, identify factors that appear to
be related to environmental attitudes and behaviors, and present strategies being used
currently by environmental organizations that, based on survey results, could likely help
diversify the movement. The following research questions were examined:
1. Do black Protestant pastors in the South hold an anti-, neutral, or pro- environmental
attitude?
2. What environmental actions/behaviors are preferred by black Protestants in the
South to create change?
3. What factors appear to be related to black Protestants’ environmental attitudes and
behaviors within the black Protestant church?
4. How can this inform the environmental movement to create a more diverse
constituency?
Based on previous studies, environmental orientation is related to a number of
factors. This study controlled for race, religion, and geographic region while examining
factors such as political ideology, political party, and adherence to biblical beliefs of
human dominance and apocalypticism. The following section presents the results of the
responses received.
34
Descriptive Statistics
Geographic Location
Overall, there were 15 responses, for a total response rate of 10%. Responses
were distributed over three states. As discussed in the methods section, three states were
selected from the “Black Belt” region of the Deep South. Four of the respondents were
located in Alabama, two in Mississippi, and nine in Louisiana. Figure 3 shows the
geographic dispersion of respondents based on zip code location of church. Due to the
close proximity of a few church locations and the scale of the map, a few markers overlap
one another. The Deep South was analyzed as a region; therefore individual states were
not separately analyzed.
Figure 3: General location of respondents based on church zip code. Created by author using
ArcGIS software 2018.
35
Demographics
Table 2 presents demographic characteristics of the respondents. All except one
respondent identified themselves as a pastor or head pastor. Pastors were 80% male and
20% female compared to the broader black church community, who is reported to have a
national average 41% male to 59% female (Pew Forum, 2014). The percentage of
individuals who identify as Democrat within the black Protestant church was lower than
national averages; Pew Research reports the AME church as one of the most reliably
Democratic religious groups in the U.S., with 92% reporting as such in 2014. However,
this specific sample only identified as 64% Democrat while reporting 21% Independent
and 14% Republican.
36
Table 2: Profile of Respondents
Independent Variables
Sex (n=15)
Male
Female
Church Position (n=15)
Senior Pastor
Pastor
Administrative Assistant
Age (n=15)
Descriptive Statistics
80% (n=12)
20% (n=3)
27% (n=4)
67% (n=10)
7% (n=1)
M: 58 years,
(Min=32, Max=73)
31-40 years
6% (n=1)
41-50 years
20% (n=3)
51-60 years
26% (n=4)
61-70 years
33% (n=5)
71-80 years
Denomination (n=15)
African Methodist Episcopal
African Methodist Episcopal Zion
Education (n=15)
Some high school
High school graduate/GED
Some college or associate's degree
College graduate (Bachelor's degree)
Post graduate degree (Master/PhD)
Political Ideology
How would you best describe your political views? (n=13)
Very Liberal
Somewhat Liberal
Moderate
Somewhat Conservative
Very Conservative
Political Party (n=14)
What political party do you most closely align with?
Democrat
Independent
Republican
13% (n=2)
73% (n=11)
27% (n=4)
0% (n=0)
0% (n=0)
7% (n=1)
27% (n=4)
67% (n=10)
8% (n=1)
15% (n=2)
54% (n=7)
23% (n=3)
0% (n=0)
64% (n=9)
21% (n=3)
14% (n=2)
37
Environmental Attitudes
New Ecological Paradigm
Table 3 was constructed to show on average how respondents scored to each of
the NEP questions. The average NEP score for the entire sample was 53 on a range
between 15 (least pro-environmental) and 75 (most pro-environmental). This indicates an
average score per question of 3.5, indicating a slightly pro-environmental attitude on
average.
Table 3: New Ecological Paradigm scale (n=15)
To what extent do you agree/disagree that:
1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the
earth can support
2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to
suit their needs. a
3. When humans interfere with nature it often produces
disastrous consequences.
4. Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth
unlivable. a
5. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the
impacts of modern industrialization. a
6. Humans are severely abusing the environment.
7. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how
to develop them. a
8. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.
9. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and
resources.
10. Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the
laws of nature.
11. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been
greatly exaggerated. a
12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. a
13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature
works to be able to control it. a
15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon
experience a major ecological catastrophe.
Total Respondents
M (sd)
2 (1.2)
3.5 (1.5)
4.3 (.9)
3.3 (1.3)
3.4 (1.2)
4.3 (1.1)
1.7 (1.4)
4.8 (.4)
3 (1.4)
4.5 (.8)
4.3 (1)
1.5 (1)
4 (1)
4.3 (1)
3.9 (.9)
a
Item is listed with original wording, but was reverse coded so that a high score indicates a more proenvironmental attitude (opposite of question wording).
38
New Ecological Paradigm Dimensionality
Table 4 divides the NEP item score responses according to the five dimensions
identified by Dunlap et al. 2000. As discussed in the methods section, the five dimensions
are balance, limits to growth, human exemption, anthropocentrism, and eco-crisis, with
balance, limits to growth, and eco-crisis being pro-environmental dimensions, and human
exemption and anthropocentrism being anti-environmental dimensions.
The lowest pro-environmental score was within the limits to growth dimension,
with an average score amongst respondents of 2.2. The three NEP items that measured
limits to growth were numbers 1, 7, and 9. Item #1 which states that we are approaching a
limit to the number of people earth can support scored an average of 2. This reflects a
fairly strong disagreement with the statement that earth has a pre-determined limit or
maximum capacity. Item #7 states that the earth has plenty of resources if we just learn
how to develop them and resulted in an average of 1.7, with respondents being in fairly
strong agreement with this statement. Item # 9 states that the earth is like a spaceship
with limited room and resources and resulted in a neutral score of 3.
Anthropocentrism, or human dominance, was the next weakest pro-environmental
dimension after limits of growth. Overall results for the anthropocentric, human
dominance dimension of the NEP were mixed, with a generally neutral score of 3.25.
Among the total sample, item #2 of the NEP, which asserts that humans have the right to
modify the environment to their needs, averaged a score of 3.5, which is a slightly higher
than a neutral stance of 3 in the range of 1-5. Item #8 which states that plants and animals
have as much right as humans to exist averaged a score of 4.8, which is a high agreeance
with the statement and strong anti-anthropocentric response. However, item #12 that
39
states humans were meant to rule over nature scored an average of 1.5, which indicates a
strong anthropocentric, human dominance attitude.
Eco-crisis was the highest pro-environmental dimension, scoring an average of
4.1. This indicates a moderate agreeance that humans are misusing the environment and
the continued misuse will result in “major ecological catastrophe”. This attitude is also
supported by the results listed in table 5, where 86% of respondents answered that
climate change is a very serious problem requiring action, and nearly 70% agree that
human greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change.
Factor
NEP item
numbers
Total average
dimension score
Table 4: NEP Items and Scores by Dimensions
Limits to
Human
Growth
Exemption Anthropocentrism Balance
Eco-Crisis
1, 7, 9
4, 10, 14
2, 8, 12
3, 5, 13
6, 11, 15
2.2
4.0
3.25
3.9
4.2
Climate Change Beliefs
Table 5 measures the perceived threat of climate change as well as what level of
government action respondents believe is appropriate. Respondents were also asked what
they believe is causing climate change; more than one answer could be selected. Only
one respondent believed climate change is not serious and can be addressed years from
now, and only one believed it is serious but doesn’t need to be high priority right now.
The other 12 respondents believed that climate change is very serious and that
government should consider it an immediate priority.
There was a slightly lower consensus in the cause of climate change. The answers
were not mutually exclusive so respondents could choose more than one answer. Almost
70% stated that they that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission is a cause, and about
40
half believe that climate change is an indicator of end times as prophetically described in
the bible. Only 27% of respondents believe that climate change is a result of normal
patterns in earth’s cycles.
Table 5: Belief in Climate Change
“Climate Change…”
(select one, n=14)
“… is a very serious problem and should be one of the highest
priorities for government action”
“… is serious but does not need to be a high priority for action right
now”
“… is not a serious problem and can be addressed years from now if
and when it becomes necessary”
… does not exist at all
What do you believe is causing Climate Change?
(select all that apply, n=15)
End times as described in the Holy Bible
Normal patterns in earth's natural, historical cycles
Human greenhouse gas emissions
Unsure
Pastors
86% (n=12)
7% (n=1)
7% (n=1)
0% (n=0)
47% (n=7)
27% (n=4)
67% (n=10)
7% (n=1)
Biblical Interpretation
Table 6 examines biblical interpretation and related environmental beliefs.
Respondents were identified as having an apocalyptic orientation if they indicated they
believe climate change is caused by “end times as described in the Holy Bible” (question
13) or was “prophesized in the bible” (question 18). The human dominance interpretation
was indicated if the respondents agree or strongly agree that “humans were meant to rule
over the rest of nature” (NEP item 12). Additionally, some respondents exhibited a
Christian stewardship ethic (Kearns, 1997) as described in Table 1 if they indicated they
agree or strongly agree that “the Holy Bible says that God has given mankind dominion
over the earth but commands humans to be good stewards and take care of God’s
creation, like a gardener tending his garden”. Similarly, the eco-justice ethic was
41
recorded if respondent agreed or strongly agreed that if our fellow human beings are
subjected to polluted air and/or water, we should take action. Last, respondents were
identified as holding a creation spirituality ethic if they indicated they agree or strongly
agree that “the entire physical world is part of God’s creation and should all be
maintained in harmony and balance.”
The overall measurements of these three environmental ethics categories had the
highest consensus for the entire survey, with every respondent in agreeance to the key
framework of each Christian stewardship ethic. These results suggest that adherence to
one of the three Christian ethics (Christian stewardship, eco-justice, or creation
spirituality) is not mutually exclusive from another; the data show that respondents
subscribe to several Christian eco-ethics at the same time (see table 1).
Table 6: Biblical Interpretation
Apocalyptic (n=14)
ProAntiHuman dominance (n=15)
ProAntiChristian Stewardship Ethic (n=15)
ProAntiEco-Justice Ethic (n=15)
ProAntiCreation Spirituality Ethic (n=15)
ProAnti-
86% (n=12)
14% (n=2)
93% (n=14)
7% (n=1)
100% (n=15)
0% (n=0)
100% (n=15)
0% (n=0)
100% (n=15)
0% (n=0)
42
Environmental Behaviors and Preferred Methods of Action
Support for Government Environmental Action
Table 7 presents results for the seven questions pertaining to respondents’ support
for government policies. Average support was fairly high amongst respondents, with an
average response across items of 4.2 (range of 1-5) and an average total score of 29
(range of 7-35).
Table 7: Government Environmental Policy Support
To what degree do you support/oppose the following
proposals:
Pastors
M (sd)
Support for government environmental policies (n=15)
Setting higher emissions and pollution standards for
business and industry
Spending more government money on developing solar
and wind power
Spending government money to develop alternate sources
of fuel for automobiles
Imposing mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions
and other greenhouse gases
Opening up more land owned by the federal government
for oil and gas exploration
More strongly enforcing existing federal environmental
regulations
Setting higher emissions standards for automobiles
4.3 (1)
4.4 (.9)
4.5 (.8)
4.2 (1)
3.1 (1.2)
4.5 (.7)
4.3 (.9)
Individual and Collective Actions Preferred for Creating Change
Table 8 identifies respondents’ current environmental behaviors and preferred
actions to influence change (activism). All but one respondent stated that their church
includes environmental issues into sermons, and all but one respondent indicated the
frequency of environmental sermons to be a few times per year. The three responses
selected by 100% of respondents were pray, vote, encourage to others personal
43
transformation through relationship with Jesus Christ. Results did not indicate a
preference of either taking individual or collective group action; those who responded
that they would engage in individual action also reported that they would engage in
community action.
The responses did not indicate a preference for taking separatist approach and
engage in action apart from or together with the mainstream organizations; those who
believed that the black church community should take action on its own also believed that
the black church community should work in collaboration with mainstream
organizations.
44
Table 8: Environmental Behaviors and Preferred Methods of Action
Question:
Pastors
Does your church include environmental issues into its sermons? (n=14)
Yes
93%
No
7%
If so, how often? (n=14)
Never
0%
Once per year
7%
Few times per year
93%
Once per month
0%
Every other week
0%
Every week
0%
Collectively, what general actions do you and members of your church
take to influence social, economic, or environmental change? (select all
that apply, n=15)
Vote
100%
Peaceful protest/march
53%
Sign petition
47%
Encourage to others personal transformation through relationship with
Jesus Christ
100%
Telephone government representatives
53%
Pray
100%
Discuss at church
87%
Help raise funds
47%
Write letters to government representatives
47%
Attend public hearings
73%
Use purchasing power at businesses who best reflect similar values (buy
local or from black-owned businesses)
53%
Inform younger generations of current issues
87%
% of respondents who agree/strongly agree that: (n=15)
The black church community should engage in environmental action on
their own terms and separate from national mainstream organizations
40%
The black church community should engage in environmental action in
partnership and collaboration with national mainstream organizations
87%
They would engage in social, economic, or environmental action alone if
they felt the cause was important enough
80%
They prefer to engage in social, economic, or environmental action while
accompanied by members of their community
80%
Analytical Statistics
Respondents’ environmental attitudes (NEP score, support for government
environmental policies, and climate change beliefs) were analyzed based on political
45
party, political views, level of education, denomination, church role, and adherence to
biblical beliefs of apocalypticism and human dominance (anthropocentrism) to see if any
of these factors appear to be related to a pro- or anti-environmental worldview.
Environmental Orientation by Individual Characteristics
Table 9 analyzes responses to three environmental attitudinal variables based on
five individual characteristics: political party, political views, level of education, religious
denomination, and church role. The three attitudinal variables are: the average total NEP
score (with a range of 15-75, 15 indicating the most anti-environmental worldview and
75 indicating the most pro-environmental worldview), support for government
environmental policy (with a range of 1-5, 1 indicating the lowest support, 5 indicating
the highest), and belief in severity of climate change (with a range of 0-3, 0 if respondent
answered they don’t believe climate change exists at all, 3 if respondent answered climate
change is very serious problem requiring immediate government action).
On average, respondents who identified as Republican and/or conservative scored
lower on the NEP, support for environmental policy, and climate change variables. This
supports earlier research showing that political conservativism and Republicanism is
associated with a less pro-environmental orientation, including less environmental
behaviors (Sherkat & Ellison, 2007) and support for environmental protection and policy
(McCright et al., 2014). No obvious differences were found between respondents with
different levels of education, denominations, or church role.
46
Table 9: Environmentalism by Political Party, Education, Denomination and
Church Role
Average
total NEP
Score
Average Support for
Climate Change
(Range:
Government Policies
Belief
15-75)
(Range: 1-5)
(Range: 0-3)
Total Respondents
(n=15)
53
4.2
2.8
Political Party (n=14)
Republicans
Democrats
Independent
39
54
57
3.2
4.3
4.5
1.5
3
3
Political Views (n=13)
Very Conservative
Somewhat Conservative
Moderate
Somewhat Liberal
Very Liberal
*
42
54
56
54
*
3.2
4.5
4.3
4.9
*
2
3
3
3
Education (n=15)
Less than Bachelor's
Bachelor's
Graduate degree
48
56.7
52
3.1
4.3
4.2
3
3
2.7
Denomination (n=15)
AME
AMEZ
52.5
52
4.2
4.0
2.7
3.0
Church Role (n=15)
Senior Pastor
51
4.0
Pastor
52.7
4.3
Admin. Assistant
55
4.1
* the number of respondents identifying as very conservative was zero.
2.8
2.8
3.0
Environmentalism by Apocalyptic and Human Dominance Beliefs
Table 10 compares the average total NEP score, average support of government
environmental policies, and climate change beliefs based on respondents who were
identified as having apocalyptic and human dominant beliefs. On average, respondents
47
who hold apocalyptic beliefs scored lower on the NEP, support for government policy,
and climate change variables compared to respondents who do not hold apocalyptic
beliefs. However, average scores on all three variables remained generally high. For
example, the average NEP score for respondents holding apocalyptic beliefs was 51.7,
which is higher than a neutral attitude score of 45. From a range of 7-35, the total average
support for government policy was 29. From a range of 1-5, 1 being the least supportive
of government policies, respondents who subscribe to apocalyptic beliefs scored a high
4.2. Lastly, for the climate change questions, respondents who do believe in
apocalypticism scored a high 2.8, indicating that even though they held apocalyptic
beliefs they were still very concerned about climate change.
Respondents who believe humans are meant to rule over nature scored lower on
all three attitudinal variables compared to those who regard other species as more equal
to humans. However, similar to apocalypticism, they still maintained high scores for all
measures. See table 10 below.
Table 10: Environmentalism by Biblical Beliefs
Average
total NEP
Average Support for
Score
Government Policies
(15-75)
(1-5)
Total Respondents
(n=15)
53
4.2
Apocalyptic (n=14)
ProAnti-
51.7
61
Human Dominance
(n=15)
Pro51.4
Anti65
* indicates a non-response to the human dominant item.
Climate
Change Belief
(0-3)
2.8
4.2
4.7
2.8
3.0
4.1
4.6
2.8
*
48
Chapter 5: Discussion & Implications
Despite past literature which claims that African and Protestant Americans are
apathetic to environmental concerns, this research joins the existing body of literature
that challenges such assertions. The results suggest that these two groups hold a proenvironmental orientation, a strong belief in climate change, are supportive of
government environmental regulations, and are committed to Christian eco-theological
ethics (Kearns, 1997). These findings bring insight to black Protestant environmental
attitude as a unique perspective within the realms of race and religion.
Although differences were found when analyzing for political orientation,
apocalypticism, and anthropocentrism/human dominance beliefs, results were overall
constant among respondents in terms of an overall high level of environmental concern,
ethics, and preferred actions. For example, 100% of respondents indicated that they
preferred the same three actions to influence social, economic, or environmental change:
to pray, to encourage others a personal transformation through a relationship with Jesus
Christ, and to vote. This indicates that both individual as well as collective actions are
preferred, with emphasis on prayer and personal transformation as individual action, and
voting as a collective action. Respondents also feel strongly that the black church
community should take action in partnership and collaboration with mainstream
environmental organizations, indicating a willingness and opportunity to work together
under common values. Individual and collective action proved not to be mutually
exclusive; 80% of respondents agreed they would engage in action alone if the cause was
important enough and 80% also agreed they would engage in action accompanied by
members of their community.
49
Furthermore, there were no consistent differences between the AME and AMEZ
churches; this supports earlier research that found positions on political and social issues
are much more consistent within the black Protestant community than they are among the
general population (Pew Research, 2009). Differences in levels of education and church
role are also not discussed, as these variables indicated no measureable impact of
environmentalism. Disparities emerged when evaluating for political orientation,
apocalyptic beliefs, and anthropocentrism/human dominance beliefs, and the possible
implications on environmental orientation is examined.
New Ecological Paradigm
Additionally, the findings of this study suggest that several of the NEP scale items
as presented in Dunlap et al. (2000) may not be an adequate survey instrument for
Protestant individuals. This is due to the fact that several NEP items implicitly conflict
with biblical teachings. Respondents averaged pro-environmental NEP scores for all
dimensions except limits to growth. This particular dimension seems to have a more
deeply-rooted tension with Protestants. African Americans have also been shown to be
supportive of no limits to growth (Sheppard, 1995) so it is not unexpected for respondents
to score low in this dimension. Item #1 suggests the earth is reaching maximum human
capacity and item #9 suggests there is limited room for humans on the earth. These two
items resulted in an anti-environmental score for the limits to growth dimension, but the
disagreement may be rooted in inherent religious beliefs based in scripture, as opposed to
anti-environmentalism. If the earth is reaching its limit to how many humans it can
support, then the implied solution may be interpreted by Protestants as to limit or control
50
future birth rates, an idea that was discussed in the literature review as being strongly
rejected by many of those of Christian faith (Kearns, 1997).
This opposition to procreation interference is rooted in several verses. For
example, Jeremiah 1:5 says that God creates a person even before they begin to form in
their mother’s womb, before conception or birth. “Before I formed you in the womb I
knew you, before you were born I set you apart” (NIV). This particular passage gives an
intrinsic value to an unborn child by suggesting that God assigns individual
characteristics and personalities, or soul, to humans before they take their first breath.
Similarly, in Genesis 1: 28 God tells humans to “Be fruitful and increase in number”
(NIV) which is in direct conflict with an agenda that seeks to limit human population.
Therefore, a Christian may feel inclined to disagree with limits to growth on the basis of
beliefs rooted in their faith instead of environmental beliefs.
In addition to human procreation, limitations to natural resources may also be
rejected as a result of biblical beliefs. Item #7 states that the earth has plenty of natural
resources to provide for everyone if only humans learn how to develop them. This item is
used in the NEP scale as a way of measuring a low or anti-environmental orientation.
Respondents generally agreed with this statement, earning them a low pro-environmental
score of 1.7. However, the data from this study suggest a low score on this item does not
necessarily measure low environmental orientation as the NEP theory suggests.
Agreeance with this statement may stem from bible verses which state that God will
provide necessary resources to those who follow Him.
Matthew 6:31-33 says, “31So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What
shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’…32your heavenly Father knows that you need
51
them… 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be
given to you” (New International Version). This verse implies that basic needs will be
provided to those who need it, but only after God’s kingdom and righteousness is sought.
Furthermore, Luke 17:21 states “the kingdom of God is within you” (American Standard
Version). Accordingly, these two verses can be interpreted to mean that heaven is here on
earth, inside every single human being, and that we have the capability to provide for
those in need, but it first must be realized. Therefore, the suggestion that the earth can
provide for everyone when we expand our capabilities may coincide more with biblical
beliefs and less related to environmental beliefs.
Political Orientation
Political orientation appeared to be strongly related to environmental orientation
as measured by NEP scores, as well as support for government environmental regulation
and belief in climate change, with all variables being consistently lower on average for
respondents identifying as conservatives and Republicans. Political Independents,
Democrats, and political liberals consistently scored higher on all variables. These
findings are in keeping with past research (McCright et al., 2014; Sherkat & Ellison,
2007; Kanagy & Nelsen, 1995).
However, these results may suggest more of a problem with inherent beliefs about
government role as opposed to an individual’s environmental beliefs. Opposition to
government environmental spending may reflect the overall Southern conservative’s
belief that government intervention is not the correct means to solving an issue, and not
so much reflect environmental attitude (Kanagy & Nelsen, 1995). It may indicate belief
that it’s not the government’s job to impose a top-down solution on behaviors that would
52
be better handled on a smaller scale. They may believe the responsibility lies more on
individuals at a more local level than on a large scale governmental level. It’s not a
disagreement of should the environment be protected, but more of a question to who
should be doing the protecting?
Apocalypticism
Respondents who adhere to an apocalyptic worldview also scored consistently
lower on the NEP, support for environmental policy, and climate change belief; however,
they still maintained an overall pro-environmental orientation. This supports the notion
that subscribing to “end-times” thinking has some level of negative affect on
environmentalism. An individual who believes the world will eventually be destroyed
may be less inclined to support an environmental agenda that seeks to preserve natural
areas and may consider it more wasteful to leave wild natural areas untouched. This
represents an ideological barrier between the environmental movement and the black
Protestant community based in eschatology.
Anthropocentrism/Human Dominance
Similarly, individuals who were identified as holding a human dominance
ideology consistently scored lower on the NEP, the support for environmental policy, and
climate change belief than those who do not believe humans should dominate other
species. This supports earlier studies that link human dominance to lower proenvironmentalism relative to those who do not subscribe to a human dominance
orientation (Morrison et al., 2015; Hand & Liere, 1984). Climate change belief was the
least affected by anthropocentrism, with a high average score of 2.8 out of 3.
53
Furthermore, although members of the black Protestant church may believe
humans have power or command over other species, that doesn’t necessarily suggest an
anti-environmental attitude. In fact, the opposite argument could be made that because a
Christian believes mankind has been given authority over the earth, this actually
increases a feeling of responsibility and environmental stewardship. Every single
respondent agreed that since God has given mankind dominion over the earth, humans
should be good stewards and tend to God’s creation, like a “gardener tending his garden”.
Limitations of Study
One of the main limitations of this study has to do with how representative the
sample was of the target population. For one thing, the response rate on the survey was
10%. Furthermore, not all AME and AME Zion churches in the Deep South were
included in the sampling frame, only ones that could be easily located online in the three
study states. Additionally, not all historically black Protestant denominations were
sampled, only AME and AME Zion. Future research should include other denominations,
such as the National Baptist Convention or the United Church in Christ, in the study.
Considering all this, this research cannot claim to generalize results to the broader black
Protestant community of the Deep South.
There are several likely reasons why the response rate was so low. Each is
described below, as is followed with possible solutions for future research on this topic
and population.
The first explanation for the low response rate likely had to do with budgetary and
time constraints, which meant that only one round of surveys was sent out. For future
studies, it is suggested to distribute at least one additional round of surveys to the
54
churches. Another suggestion that could help boost the response rate would be advance
phone calls to make the pastor/admin assistant aware they will be receiving a survey in
the mail, instead of only issuing follow-up calls after the surveys are received.
Additionally, during this advanced call, surveyor should also check that the correct
mailing address matches the address found online; in this research, 33 of the 178 survey
envelopes were returned by the post office labeled as “undeliverable” because many
churches use a post office box for their mail and don’t keep a mailbox at the physical
church address found on the internet.
The low response rate may also have had to do with the reception of respondents
to the survey instrument itself. During a few follow-up calls, two church members
expressed discontent about terminology of the survey. One individual who answered the
phone at the church continuously rejected the term “black” as the project was explained.
Although the AME official website uses “black” in their church history and both AME
and AMEZ denominations are considered to be “Historically Black Protestant”, limiting
the terminology to “African” may be a more desirable term to avoid tension.
Another individual claimed to have received the survey, but during a follow-up
call reported that they would not complete the survey instrument because they only
identified as “Christian” and not “Protestant”. As discussed in the definition of terms
section, Christian is technically Protestant. The language barriers between scientific,
technical terms and layman’s terms represent a potential for misunderstanding. Future
research may avoid the formal title of “Protestant” and use a more familiar term such as
“Christian”.
55
Lastly, the survey may have been perceived with skepticism when I conducted the
first round of follow-up calls, after it became evident by my dialect that I am a white
female. White researchers have not been initially well-received by African American
Protestants (Baugh, 2015; Finney, 2014), but trust can be established through closer
interaction and when the research is better understood. However, this study was designed
as a mail-survey and involved minimal contact with respondents, therefore it was limited
in its ability to connect with respondents. Future research should include engaging in
service to the churches or participation in community activities if possible. Observation
from within the community would be better received than observation from afar as an
outsider.
Aside from these barriers, the rest of respondents and individuals were
overwhelmingly friendly and receptive to the research. A blank space at the end of the
survey booklet asked for additional comments and the handwritten responses reflect
appreciation for the study and an acknowledgment that environmentalism needs to be
made a priority within the black church community. A few comments included:
“A wonderful study. Be blessed”
“I commend you for this study and I think it will greatly benefit the Black church
regarding the stewardship of our environment. Blessings”
“This survey and subsequent action is most needed. It reflects God’s admonition to tend
His creation”
56
Chapter 6: Conclusion & Recommendations
Mainstream environmentalism is a primarily white-cultured (Baugh, 2015;
Finney, 2014; Taylor, 2014), secular (Dunlap, 2006) institution whose agenda has been
historically rejected by minority and religious communities in the past (Gottlieb, 2005).
Although the environmental justice movement has raised awareness to the needs of
marginalized individuals and religious organizations have asserted their presence on
national and local environmental platforms, the movement still remains
disproportionately white and features an unwelcoming atmosphere to people of faith
whose religion is the foundation to their lives. Central to building a stronger, diverse, and
more collaborative movement is to understand the conflicts that exist between
environmentalism and individuals from these minority and religious communities, and
promptly taking action to remedy these conflicts. The black Protestant in the Deep South
region of the U.S. offers a unique perspective and worldview largely missing from
environmentalism.
As discussed in the previous chapter, the major findings of this study suggest that
black Protestants have a slightly pro-environmental orientation (as measured by the
NEP), exhibit a desire for individual and collective action, with environmental attitudes
and behaviors guided by their religious principles. Although they are divided by political
ideology, anthropocentric and apocalyptic beliefs, they remain overall consistent on
environmental issues. Based on the survey results and the literature review, this final
section offers suggestions to the mainstream environmental community that may more
effectively diversify the environmental movement and build partnerships between
organizations and religious and minority groups.
57
Recommendations
“I can’t talk about solar panels. I needed to talk about something more relevant, like
health and green jobs”
-Veronica Kyle, Outreach Director of Faith in Place, when discussing environmental
program recruitment for African Americans (Baugh, 2017)
“It’s about People, not Polar Bears”
-Faith in Place spokesperson (Baugh, 2017)
As previously discussed, a reoccurring conflict between African and Protestant
Americans and environmental groups is the lack of relevancy that the mainstream
environmental agenda has to humans, and has even been perceived as threatening to
minorities (Baugh, 2015) and the economy (Shellenberger & Nordhaus, 2005). Saving
the whales and preserving pristine wildland are important goals, but they may not be of
high importance to individuals with an anthropocentric, human dominant orientation. The
black Protestant pastors who completed the survey instrument had a very strong
anthropocentric worldview, repeatedly agreeing that humans have the right to rule over
and modify the earth to suit their needs. These beliefs are intrinsic to biblical teachings,
and don’t appear to directly conflict with holding a pro-environmental worldview.
However, in the way the NEP scale measures environmental attitudes, agreeance to these
principles decreases respondents pro-environmental orientation scores.
Conversely, this thesis proposes that the environmental agenda and the current
practices of measuring environmental attitudes emphasize the needs of plants, animals,
and habitats over the needs of the social and economic needs of humans, and this is
subsequently rejected by many black Protestants. The distance in values is conceptualized
below (see fig. 4).
58
Social
Environment
Economic
Social
Environment
Economic
Proposed Black Protestant Worldview
Proposed Environmental Agenda Worldview
Figure 4: Conceptual comparison of Social, Economic, and Environment models between black
Protestants and the environmental agenda (created by author using Microsoft Word). The danger
of generalizing black Protestants and environmental agendas into singular worldviews is
acknowledged and is used only for the purposes of synthesizing results of the study and
the literature review.
Social and economic salience is only one level away in difference between black
Protestants and the environmental agenda, and is represented by the yellow lines. The
environmental salience is two levels away in difference and is represented by the red line.
The biggest difference in values occurs in the environmental realms and is the source for
some of the disconnection between the two groups. However, some of the tension may be
a result of how individuals interpret the word “environment”.
The “environment” in this model represents the word as defined in chapter 1 as
the “natural surroundings of humankind, including air, water, land, wildlife, and the
systems existing between the natural environment and human society”. This thesis
suggests that the environmental community more assertively adopt a holistic definition of
the word consistent with how minority and religious individuals may better understand it
to be. Dana Alston, a key organizer of the first national People of Color Environmental
59
Leadership summit defined the “environment” as “where we live, where we work, and
where we play” (Gottlieb, 2005). By this definition, the social and economic realms are
included as part of the concept of “environment”. Where we live is the social component,
where we work is the economic component, and where we play is the environmental
component, and they all combine to envision a new understanding of the environment.
In addition to redefining the word “environment”, the movement could also do a
better job at emphasizing the interconnectedness of the social, economic, and
environmental realms. To individuals without a background in environmental sciences, it
may not be immediately apparent how reducing the amount of water you use per day
could affect a local fisherman’s paycheck. Or how choosing one brand over another can
affect air quality to a child overseas. The environment is about everything, everywhere,
all the time, and a movement that restricts its definition will also restrict its constituency.
It needs to be redefined and reframed as more relevant to people, and one religious
environmental organization has done just that.
Figure 5: Faith in Place logo (2018).
Faith in Place, an interfaith environmental organization based out of Chicago,
tackles racial and religious tension in a unique way. Their staff brings fried chicken and
homemade pie to environmental lobbying events at the state capital, as opposed to
gourmet food, vegan cuisine, and wine provided by other non-profit environmental
60
organizations as a way to break down cultural barriers. They proclaim a respect for
theological and social diversity and focus on “love, care, and faith”, as opposed to normal
mainstream environmental organizations whose mission centers on conservation of
pristine wilderness areas which many African American and low-income communities
don’t have equal access to (Baugh, 2017). They create a space that is comfortable for
theists, agnostics, and atheists to unite in a common goal of holistic earth care. And they
make it about people.
Faith in Place sponsors projects that are framed as a way to bridge the “ecodivide”, which is defined as the lost job opportunities in the African American
community resulting from a lack of knowledge about the environment (Baugh, 2017).
They carry out projects which would not be traditionally thought of as being an
environmental action to mainstream environmentalism, such as weatherizing windows
and doors in the elderly neighborhoods with a goal of improving energy efficiency. This
particular activity is framed as a way to give minority youth experience with green
practices and translate into opportunity in the green economy (Baugh, 2017). In addition
to weatherization projects, they also emphasize fair trade, planting community gardens,
and lobbying for environmental policies as ways to love your neighbor. This approach
can be particularly appealing to individuals led by their religious beliefs, and especially
members of the black Protestant community who hold a strong commitment to Christian
stewardship and eco-justice ethics (see table 1). Faith in Place encourages individual and
collective action, which is also preferred behavior by respondents. Faith in Place also
recruits youth minority by framing environmental participation as an opportunity to gain
“affluence, education, respectability, and positive civic identity” (Baugh, 2017, p. 4). To
61
the black Protestant in the Deep South who holds an anthropocentric orientation and
measures life in terms of value towards humans, this is an ideal strategy. Faith in Place
represents shared values between environmental, religious, and minority communities,
and in return receives overwhelming support.
In addition to making the environmental agenda relevant to religious and minority
communities by focusing more on people, the movement may also benefit by dampening
the limits to growth narrative. This study found the limits to growth narrative to be in
direct conflict with Protestant beliefs, as the proposal of limiting human and economic
growth represents an ideological barrier not easily reconciled with the black Protestant
respondents. Instead of framing growth as a matter concerning quantity of collective
action, environmental organizations could frame environmental concerns as a matter of
quality of individual action. For example, if the problem is concerning over-consumption
of material goods, then instead of promoting birth control to limit birth rates (less
humans=less consumed goods), encourage small, incremental individual behavior
changes that decrease materialism. A family of four who switches to multi-use packaging
and begins to buy clothes from a used goods store can possibly reduce their material
goods consumption by 25% each, resulting in a 100% (25%*4 people) net reduction, or
the same amount of consumption that having another child would introduce. In this
approach, the same goal can be reached using two different methods. A simple reframing
of environmental narratives could eliminate some of the tensions and ease collaborations
on hot topics associated with limits to growth, such as abortion and birth control.
62
Conclusion
Environmental organizations have expressed the desire for diversification and
have taken several steps to integrate people of color and although improvements have
been made, they still remain largely white. The desire for change doesn’t reflect a reality
of change (Gottlieb, 2005). Environmental organizations also create an atmosphere that
makes religious individuals uncomfortable and unwilling to participate, resulting in a
less-democratic and less-diverse movement. The black Protestant community in the Deep
South is part of a growing demographic in the U.S, comprises of almost a quarter of the
population in many states, and dependably votes. They are an important ally who can
contribute as powerful agents of change, but the mainstream movement must first address
the root causes of tension between mainstream environmentalism, people of faith, and
people of color. Diversification of the mainstream environmental community is not an
option; it is a moral obligation and is necessary for the longevity of the movement.
63
Bibliography
Adams, J. H. (1992). The mainstream environmental movement. EPA Journal, 18(1), 25.
Adelman, R. & Jaret, C. (1999). Poverty, Race and US Metropolitan Social and Economic
Structure. Journal of Urban Affairs, 21(1): 35-56.
Allenby, B. (2006). The real death of environmentalism. Environmental Quality
Management, 16(1), 1-9.
Amazing grace. (1995). Ebony, 50(6), 87.
Arcury, T. (1990). Environmental attitudes and environmental knowledge. Human
Organization, 49, 300–304.
Arcury, T., & Christianson, E. (1990). Environmental worldview in response to environmental
problems: Kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared. Environment & Behavior, 22387-407.
Arp III, W., & Boeckelman, K. (n.d). Religiosity. Sage Publications Inc.
Bang, M., Medin, D. L., & Atran, S. (2007). Cultural mosaics and mental models of
nature. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of
America, 104(35), 13868-13874.
Banks, A. (2012, May 7). Methodists Reach Across Historic Racial Boundaries With Communion
Pact. Christianity Today. Retrieved from:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120626094704/http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblo
g/archives/2012/05/methodists_reac.html
Baron, D. (1996). Evangelical Christians Defend Endangered Species Act: National Public
Radio. All Things Considered, segment #10, 30 January.
Bateman Driskell, R., & Embry, E. (2006). Rural Communities in the South: Persistent Black
Belt Poverty. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association, 1.
Baugh, J. (1991). African Americans and the environment: A review essay. Policy Studies
Journal, 19, 183-91.
Baugh, A. (2015). 'Green Is Where It's At': Cultivating Environmental Concern at an African
American Church. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature & Culture, 9(3), 335-363.
Baugh, A. (2017). God and the green divide: religious environmentalism in black and white.
University of California Press: Oakland, California.
Berry, W. (2010). God, Science, and Imagination. Sewanee Review, 118(1), 75.
Bonta, M. & Jordan, C. (2007). Diversifying the American Environmental Movement. Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Publication Series, 13-33.
Brulle, R., & Pellow, D. (2006). Environmental justice: Human Health and Environmental
Inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27(1), 103-124.
64
Bryner, G. (2008). Failure and opportunity: environmental groups in US climate change
policy. Environmental Politics, 17(2), 319-336.
Bullard, R. D., & Wright, B. H. (1990). The quest for environmental equity: mobilizing the
African-American community for social change. Society & Natural Resources, 3(4),
301.
Bullard, R. D., Mohai, P., Saha, R., & Wright, B. (2008). Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty:
Why Race Still Matters After All of These Years. Environmental Law (00462276), 38(2),
371-411.
Bullard, R. D., & Wright, B. (2009). The Color of Toxic Debris. American Prospect, 20(2), A9A11.
Bullard, R. D., & García, R. (2015). Diversifying Mainstream Environmental Groups Is Not
Enough. Parks & Recreation, 50(7), 42.
Burke, B. et al. (2016). Can Science Writing Collectives Overcome Barriers to More Democratic
Communication and Collaboration? Lessons from Environmental Communication
Praxis in Southern Appalachia. Environmental Communication, 10(2), 169-186.
Burns, K. (1992). Preacher power. Essence (Essence), 23(7), 56.
Caron, J. A. (1989). Environmental perspectives of Blacks: acceptance of the "new
environmental paradigm". Journal Of Environmental Education, 20(3), 21.
Census Bureau (2004). Ancestry: 2000. Retrieved from:
https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/ancestry.pdf
Census Bureau (2015). Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to
2060. Retrieved from:
https://census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p251143.pdf
Christie, I. (2011). A world of faith. Green Futures, 4-5.
Colwell, M. (2010). Religion can succeed where the environment movement has failed. Catholic
New Times, 12.
Curry, J. (2008). Christians and Climate Change: A Social Framework of
Analysis. Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith, 60(3), 156-164.
Dean, C. (2005). Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science. Retrieved from:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/us/scientists-speak-up-on-mix-of-god-andscience.html
65
Delach, A., Matson, N., Murray, H., & Colegrove, C. (2014). Environmental Reviews and
Case Studies: Reasonably Foreseeable Futures: Climate Change Adaptation and the
National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental Practice, 16(1), 52-76.
Dorsey, J. W. (2001). The Presence of African American Men in the Environmental Movement
(or Lack Thereof). Journal of African American Men, 6(3), 63.
Dowie, M. (1995). Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth
Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Driskell, R., & Embry, E. (2007). Poverty and Migration in the Black Belt: Means of
Escape? Michigan Sociological Review, 2179-108.
Du Bois, W. (1903). The Souls of Black Folk. Chicago, IL.: A.C. McClurg and Co.
Dunlap, T. R. (2006). Environmentalism, a Secular Faith. Environmental Values, 15(3), 321330.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring
Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of
Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.
Durlin, M. (2010). The Shot Heard Round the West. High Country News, 42(2), 18-21.
Easterlin, R. 1. (2000). The worldwide standard of living since 1800. Journal Of Economic
Perspectives, 14(1), 7-26.
Eiser, J. R., Reicher, S. D., & Podpadec, T. J. (1994). Awareness of Bad News, Environmental
Attitudes, and Subjective Estimates of Coastal Pollution. Risk Analysis: An International
Journal, 14(6), 945-948.
Emerson, M. & Smith, C. (2001). Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of
Race in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Feldman, D. L., & Moseley, L. (2003). Faith-Based Environmental Initiatives In Appalachia:
Connecting Faith, Environmental Concern And Reform. Worldviews: Global Religions,
Culture & Ecology, 7(3), 227-252.
Finney, C. (2014). Black Faces, Whites Spaces: Reimagining the relationship of African
Americans to the Great Outdoors. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North
Carolina Press.
Flatt, V. B., & Payne, H. (2014). Not One Without The Other: The Challenge Of Integrating
U.S. Environment, Energy, Climate, And Economic Policy. Environmental Law
(00462276), 44(4), 1079-1110.
Genovese, E. (1974). Roll, Jordan, Roll. New York:Vintage.
Giddens, A. (2015). The politics of climate change. Oxford: Polity.
66
Glave, D., & Stoll, M. (Eds.). (2014). To Love the Wind and the Rain: African Americans and
Environmental History. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.
Gottlieb, R. (2005). Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental
Movement. Washington: Island Press.
Greeley, A. (1993). Religion and Attitudes Toward the Environment. Journal For The Scientific
Study Of Religion, 32(1), 19.
Guth, J. L., Green, J. C., & Kellstedt, L. A. (1995). Faith and the environment: religious beliefs
and attitudes on environmental policy. American Journal of Political Science, 39364382.
Hand, C. M., & Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Religion, Mastery-Over-Nature, and Environmental
Concern. Social Forces, 63(2), 555-570.
Hooks, B (1992). Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston: Southend Press.
Hoggert, P. (2011). Climate change and the apocalyptic imagination. Psychoanalysis, Culture and
Society, 16 (3), 261-275.
James, W., Jia, C., & Kedia, S. (2012). Uneven magnitude of disparities in cancer risks from air
toxics. International Journal of Environmental Research And Public Health, 9(12),
4365-4385.
Johnson, C., & Bowker, J. (2004). African-American Wildland Memories. Environmental
Ethics, 26(1), 57-75.
Jones, R., & Dunlap, R. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: have they changed
over time? Rural Sociology 5(7) 28-47.
Jones, R., & Carter, L. (1994). Concern for the Environment among Black Americans: An
Assessment of Common Assumptions. Social Science Quarterly (University Of Texas
Press), 75(3), 560-579.
Kahn, P. (2001). The Human Relationship with Nature: Development and Culture. Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press.
Kanagy, C. & Nelson, H. (1995). Religion and Environmental Concern: Challenging the
Dominant Assumptions. Review of Religious Research, 7 (1), 33-45.
Kearns, L. (1996). Saving the Creation: Christian Environmentalism in the United
States. Sociology of Religion, 57(1), 55.
Kearns, L. (1997). Noah's Ark Goes to Washington: A Profile of Evangelical
Environmentalism. Social Compass, 44(3), 349-366.
Kende, A. (2016). Separating Social Science Research on Activism from Social Science as
Activism. Journal of Social Issues, 72(2), 399-412.
67
KoFan, L., Mowatt, R., Goff, K., Novotny, C., Rivin, A., & Walter, A. (2016). The Perceptions
And Reflections On Racial/Ethnicity Diversity In Outdoor Recreation. Journal of
Cultural Diversity, 23(4),158-164.
Konisky, D. M. (2016). Environmental Justice Delayed: Failed Promises, Hope for the
Future. Environment, 58(2), 4-15.
Konisky, D.M. (2017). The greening of Christianity? A study of environmental attitudes over
time. Environmental Politics,27 (2), 267-291.
Larson, K. L., & Santelmann, M. V. (2007). An Analysis of the Relationship between Residents'
Proximity to Water and Attitudes about Resource Protection. Professional
Geographer, 59(3), 316-333.
Leiserowitz, A. (2005). American risk perceptions; is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis,
25 (6), 1433-1442.
Lesen, A. E., Rogan, A., & Blum, M. J. (2016). Science Communication Through Art:
Objectives, Challenges, and Outcomes. Trends In Ecology & Evolution, 31(9), 657-660.
Lynes, K. R. (2015). 'A Responsibility to Something Besides People': African American
Reclamation Ecopoetics. African American Review, 48(1-2), 49-66.
Mapp, R. (2016). Our Outdoors Heritage. Earth Island Journal, 31(2), 34.
Martinez-Conde, S., & Macknik, S. L. (2017). Opinion: Finding the plot in science storytelling in
hopes of enhancing science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy Of
Sciences Of The United States Of America, 114(31), 8127-8129.
Martinson, O. B., & Wilkening, E. A. (1987). Religious Participation and Involvement in Local
Politics Throughout the Life Cycle. Sociological Focus, 20(4), 309-318.
Marx, G. (1967). Protest and Prejudice. New York: Harper & Row.
McCright, A., Chenyang, X., & Dunlap, R. (2014). Political polarization on support for
government spending on environmental protection in the USA, 1974-2012. Social
Science Research, 48251-260.
McDaniel, J. (2002). Spirituality and Sustainability. Conservation Biology, 16(6), 1461-1464.
Mertig, A. et al (2002). The Environmental Movement in the United States. Handbook of
Environmental Sociology. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing, 448-481.
Milton, M. (2014). Green and Evergreen: The Secular Environmental Movement and Biblical
Care for Creation. Retrieved from: http://michaelmilton.org/2014/01/10/green-andevergreen-the-secular-environmental-movement-and-biblical-care-for-creation-2/
Mohai, P. (1990). Black Environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly (University Of Texas
Press), 71(4), 744-765.
68
Mohai, P., & Bryant, B. (1998). Is there a "race" effect on concern for environmental
quality? Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(4), 475.
Morrison, M., Duncan, R., & Parton, K. (2015). Religion Does Matter for Climate Change
Attitudes and Behavior. Plos ONE, 10(8), 1-16.
Moyer, J. M. (2015). Faith-Based Sustainability in Practice: Case Studies from Kenya. Journal
For The Study Of Religion, Nature & Culture, 9(1), 42-67.
Moyer, J., Sinclair, A., & Diduck, A. (2014). Learning for Sustainability Among Faith-Based
Organizations in Kenya. Environmental Management, 54(2), 360-372.
Orr, D. W. (2005). Death and Resurrection: the Future of Environmentalism. Conservation
Biology, 19(4), 992-995.
Pandya, R. (2012). A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the U.S.
The Ecological Society of America 10(6), 314-317.
Parker, J. D., & McDonough, M. H. (1999). Environmentalism of African
Americans. Environment & Behavior, 31(2), 155.
Pbs.org. (2018) Africans in America: Richard Allen. Retrieved from:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3p97.html.
Pedersen, K. (2015). Religious Ethics and the Environment. Journal of Religious Ethics, 43(3),
558-585.
Pew Research Center (2004). Religion and the Environment. Retrieved from:
http://www.pewforum.org/2004/11/02/religion-and-the-environment-polls-show-strongbacking-for-environmental-protection-across-religious-groups/
Pew Research Center (2009). A Religious Portrait of African Americans. Retrieved from:
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/01/30/a-religious-portrait-of-african-americans/
Pew Research Center (2014). Religious Landscape Study. Retreived from:
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/historicallyblack-protestant/
Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home [Encyclical].
Rankin, B. & Falk, W. (1991). Race, Region, and Earnings: Blacks and Whites in the South.
Rural Sociology, 56 (2):224-237.
Rolston III, H. (2015). Placing, Displacing, Replacing the Sacred: Science, Religion, and
Spirituality. Journal For The Study Of Religion, Nature & Culture, 9(2), 199-205.
Saunders, P. J., & Turekian, V. (2011). A Climate Policy for the Real World. Policy Review,
(165), 15-28.
69
Shellenberger, M., & Nordhaus, T. (2005). The death of environmentalism. Social
Policy, 35(3), 19-30.
Sheppard, J. C. (1995). The Black-White environmental concern gap: An examination of
environmental paradigms. Journal of Environmental Education, 26(2), 24.
Sherkat, D., & Ellison, C. (2007). Structuring the Religion-Environment Connection:
Identifying Religious Influences on Environmental Concern and Activism. Journal For
The Scientific Study Of Religion, 46(1), 71-85.
Shibley, M. A., & Wiggins, J. L. (1997). The Greening of Mainline American Religion: A
Sociological Analysis of the Environmental Ethics of the National Religious Partnership
for the Environment. Social Compass, 44(3), 333-348.
Smith, A. M., & Pulver, S. (2009). Ethics-Based Environmentalism in Practice: ReligiousEnvironmental Organizations in the United States. Worldviews: Global
Religions, Culture & Ecology, 13(2), 145-179.
Smith-Cavros, E. M. (2011). Nature, Environment and Beauty: An Examination of the Beliefs of
Modern Black Churchgoers and John Muir. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture &
Ecology, 15(2), 203-216
Smith, M. (2006). Environmentalism: Spiritual, Ethical, Political. Environmental Values, 15(3),
355-363.
Speakes-Lewis, A., Gill, L., & Moses, C. (2011). The Move Toward American Modernity:
Empowerment and Individualism in the Black Mega Church. Journal Of African
American Studies, 15(2), 236-247.
Strate, J. M., Parrish, C. J., Elder, C. D., & Ford, I. C. (1989). Life Span Civic Development
And Voting Participation. American Political Science Review, 83(2), 443-464.
Suldovsky, B., McGreavy, B., & Lindenfeld, L. (2017). Science Communication and Stakeholder
Expertise: Insights from Sustainability Science. Environmental Communication, 11(5),
587-592.
Taylor, B. (1991). The religion and politics of earth first! The Ecologist, 21 (6), 258-266.
Taylor, D. (1989) Blacks and the Environment: Toward an Explanation of the Concern and
Action Gap Between Blacks and Whites. Environment and Behavior, 21(2), 175-205.
Taylor, D. (2014). The State of Diversity in Environmental Organizations: Mainstream NGOs,
Foundations, Government Agencies. University of Michigan.
Taylor, D. (1997). American environmentalism: the role of race, class and gender in shaping
activism, 1820-1995. Race, Gender & Class, 5(1), 16-62.
70
Taylor, R. J., & Chatters, L. M. (2010). Importance of Religion and Spirituality in the Lives of
African Americans, Caribbean Blacks and Non-Hispanic Whites. Journal Of Negro
Education, 79(3), 280-294.
Townsel, L. J. (1996). 200 years to freedom: The AME Zion Church celebrates its
bicentennial. Ebony, 51(12), 34B.
Veldman, R. (2012). Narrating the environmental apocalypse. Ethics and the Environment, 17
(1), 1-23.
Washington, B. (1901). Up From Slavery: An Autobiography. Garden City, New York:
Doubleday & Co.
Watson, J. (2014, February 9). The significance of the Black Church in American
history. Michigan Citizen. p. A11.
Weber, E. (1999). Apocalypses. London: Random House.
West, C. (1988). Prophetic Fragments. Grand Rapids, MI: African World Press.
White, L. (1967). The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis. Science. 155: 1203-07.
Williams, P. (2015, July 18). AME Church and AME Zion Church Are Not The Same. The
Gleaner. Retrieved from: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20150718/ame-churchand-ame-zion-church-are-not-same.
Wilkinson, K. (2010). Climate’s salvation. Environment, 52 (2), 47-57.
Wilmore, G. (1983). Black Religion and Black Radicalism. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.
Wimberley, R. (2010). It’s our most rural region; It’s the poorest; It’s the Black Belt South; And
it needs our attention Journal Of Rural Social Sciences, 25(2), 175-182.
Wood, R. L. (2009). Taming Prophetic Religion? Faith-Based Activism and Welfare
Provision. International Journal of Public Theology, 3(1), 78-95.
Wright, R. (1995) Tearing Down the Green: Environmental Backlash in the Evangelical SubCulture. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 47 (June) 80-91.
Wyels, J. G. (2013). Harriet Tubman. American Road, 11(3), 70.
71
Appendix A
New Ecological Paradigm
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Unsure
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
We are approaching the
limit of the number of
people the earth can
support.
□
□
□
□
□
Humans have the right to
modify the natural
environment to suit their
needs.
□
□
□
□
□
When humans interfere
with nature it often
produces disastrous
consequences.
□
□
□
□
□
Human ingenuity will
insure that we do NOT
make the earth unlivable.
□
□
□
□
□
The balance of nature is
strong enough to cope with
the impacts of modern
industrialization.
□
□
□
□
□
Humans are severely
abusing the environment.
□
□
□
□
□
The earth has plenty of
natural resources if we just
learn how to develop them.
□
□
□
□
□
Plants and animals have as
much right as humans to
exist.
□
□
□
□
□
The earth is like a
spaceship with very limited
room and resources.
□
□
□
□
□
Despite our special abilities
humans are still subject to
the laws of nature.
□
□
□
□
□
72
The so-called “ecological
crisis” facing humankind
has been greatly
exaggerated.
□
□
□
□
□
Humans were meant to rule
over the rest of nature.
□
□
□
□
□
The balance of nature is
very delicate and easily
upset.
□
□
□
□
□
Humans will eventually
learn enough about how
nature works to be able to
control it.
□
□
□
□
□
If things continue on their
present course, we will
soon experience a major
ecological catastrophe.
□
□
□
□
□
73
Appendix B
Support for government environmental regulations
Strongly
Support
Moderately
Support
Neutral
Moderately
Oppose
Strongly
Oppose
Setting higher emissions and
pollution standards for business
and industry
□
□
□
□
□
Spending more government money
on developing solar and wind
power
□
□
□
□
□
Spending government money to
develop alternate sources of fuel
for automobiles
□
□
□
□
□
Imposing mandatory controls on
carbon dioxide emissions and other
greenhouse gases
□
□
□
□
□
Opening up more land owned by
the federal government for oil and
gas exploration
□
□
□
□
□
More strongly enforcing existing
federal environmental regulations
□
□
□
□
□
Setting higher emissions standards
for automobiles
□
□
□
□
□
74
Appendix C
1. Please state your official church position/title.
_____________________________________________________________
2. In what year was your church established?
_____________________________________________________________
3. What is your church’s denomination?
□ African Methodist Episcopal
□ African Methodist Episcopal Zion
□ Other (please list) ________________________________________
4. Does your church include environmental issues or messages into its sermons? If
no, skip to question 6.
□ Yes
□ No
□ Unsure/Don’t know
5. About how often does your church include environmental issues or messages into
its sermons? (Check one)
□ Never
□ Once per year
□ A few times per year
□ Once per month
□ Every other week
□ Every week
6. If you answered no to question 4, please answer the following question: Are
environmental issues something you have considered implementing in the future?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Unsure/Don’t know
7. Are you aware of any organizations that assist churches with developing and
implementing environmental messaging into its sermons?
□ Yes
□ No
□ Unsure/Don’t know
75
8. Collectively, what general actions do you and members of your church take to
influence social, economic, or environmental change? (Please check all that apply)
□ Vote
□ Peaceful protest/march
□ Sign petition
□ Encourage to others personal transformation through relationship with Jesus
Christ
□ Telephone government representatives
□ Pray
□ Discuss at church
□ Help raise funds
□ Write letters to government officials
□ Attend public hearings
□ Use purchasing power at businesses who best reflect similar values (buy local or
from black-owned businesses)
□ Inform younger generations of current issues
Please list any activities not mentioned:
__________________________________________________________________
The following are questions about your general perspectives concerning
environmental laws and the role of our government. Please place an ‘x’ in the box
corresponding to your answer.
9. Many government policies are designed to protect the environment, but some of
these policies can be costly to corporations and other businesses. Which of the
following best represents your general opinion? “Environmental regulations in
the U.S...”
□
□
□
□
□
Are
Excessively
Strong
Are Too
Strong, but Not
Excessive
Are About
Right
Need to be
Somewhat Stronger
Need to be
a
Lot
Stronger
Item number 10: See appendix B.
Item number 11: See appendix A.
76
12. Which of the following statements best represent your general view about
climate change? (Please check one)
□ Climate change is a very serious problem and should be one of the highest
priorities for government action
□ Climate change is serious but does not need to be a high priority for action
right now
□ Climate change is not a serious problem and can be addressed years from now
if and when it becomes necessary
□ Climate change does not exist at all
If you responded to the previous question that you believe climate change does
exist at some level, what do you primarily believe is causing it? (Please check all
that apply)
□
□
End times as described in the Holy Bible
Normal patterns of extreme climate that follows the earth’s natural historical
cycles
□
Human greenhouse gas emissions
□
Unsure/Don’t know
□
Something else, please describe:
__________________________________________________________________
13. The following are questions about general participation preferences. To what
extent do you agree or disagree? Please place an ‘x’ in the box corresponding to
your answer.
Strongly Somewhat Unsure Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
The black church community
should engage in
environmental action on our
own terms and separate from
national mainstream
organizations.
I would engage in social,
economic or environmental
action alone if I felt the cause
was important enough.
Strongly
Agree
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
77
The black church community
should engage in
environmental action in
partnership and collaboration
with national mainstream
organizations.
I prefer to engage in social,
economic, or environmental
action while accompanied by
members of my community.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Items 14-16 omitted.
The following questions pertain to biblical interpretation. To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the statements? Please place an ‘x’ in the box corresponding to
your answer.
17. “Global climate change, including increasing drought, wildfire, and flooding, is
prophesized in the bible.”
Strongly Disagree
□
Somewhat
Disagree
□
Unsure
□
Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
□
□
18. “The Holy Bible says that God has given mankind dominion over the earth but
commands humans to be good stewards and take care of God’s creation, like a
gardener tending his garden.”
Strongly Disagree
□
Somewhat
Disagree
□
Unsure
□
Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
□
□
19. “If our fellow humans are being subjected to polluted air and water, we should
take action to remedy this problem because Jesus commands us to love our
neighbors as we love ourselves and therefore take care of each other”.
Strongly Disagree
□
Somewhat
Disagree
□
Unsure
□
Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
□
□
78
20. “The entire physical world is part of God’s creation and should all be
maintained in harmony and balance.”
Strongly Disagree
□
Somewhat
Disagree
□
Unsure
Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
□
□
□
In this final section, we ask you to provide some demographic information about
yourself. Your responses will enable us to compare similar or different statistical
characteristics with other preachers. As with all your answers, the information that
you provide will remain completely confidential.
21. What is your gender?
Male
Female
22. What year were you born? Please enter your 4 digit birth year. (e.g. 1970)
_________________________
23. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Some high school
College graduate (Bachelor’s degree)
High school graduate/GED
Post graduate degree (Master’s/PhD)
Some college or associate’s degree
24. How would you best describe your political views?
□ Very Conservative
□ Somewhat Conservative
□ Moderate
□ Somewhat Liberal
□ Very Liberal
25. What political party do you most closely identify with?
□ Democratic
□ Republican
□ Libertarian
□ Independent
□ Other: _____________________________________
79