its non-Christian provenance. The issue, which is one among many on a list of difficult problems confronting the culture as a whole, is treated with much seriousness by evangelical Christians as they wrestle with the question of whether environmental policy and the environmental movement has a religious aspect to it, or ought to be condemned for the reason that its nonreligious aspect is the equivalent of irreligiosity.
One view of environmentalism in the conservative Christian community is that it is irreligious because it allows human beings to arrogate to themselves a mastery over their fates and the universe that properly belongs only to God. On this view, it is essentially sinful to embrace the beliefs and tenets of environmentalism, just as it is sinful for man to attempt to take God's place as Creator. It follows that the depletion of natural resources, the decline in environmental quality are God's judgment on man, and man has no business trying to fight the inevitability of divine wrath. The view appears to be most strongly associated with highly conservative Christian sects on one hand, while on the other even certain more conservative sectarian assessments of environmentalism have departed from what might be called a do-nothing attitude about environmental degradation. Further, as will be seen hereafter, this view is strongly disputed by various commentators across a spectrum of Christian sects. Nevertheless, there persists a strand of Christian thought that holds environmentalism is treading on divine territory. In this regard, Yancey declares that salvation is impossible without pain and suffering, and that unless man suffers God cannot save him from sin. He cites environmentalism as one among several "easy man-made schemes" of perfection, such as Marxism, which seeks to avoid pain. But that is also avoiding redemption, according to Yancey, who asserts that pain, presumably including the pain from environmental devasta...